I understand the need for regulations, especially in food and drugs, but when it comes to things like regulating the amount of fat/sugar/fiber I can't think of any reason other than an attitude of 'mommy knows best'.

Thank you for taking the time to reply.

I'm usually the first to blast excess regulation, but note that this is only a labeling issue — the CFIA is not telling you what you cannot eat, but what a product can be described as. I can understand the appeal of a government mandating that a product for sale in that country, that is labeled as a 'meal replacement', have some reasonable distribution of macronutrients. The goal is to reasonably ensure that someone would not consume meal replacements that grossly lack nutrition a person actually needs to live.

The issue as I see it is that the definition of what would be considered reasonable today is not in line with the CFIA's. I don't see the intent of the regulations as unsound.

This is specific regulation related to food/meal replacements which are historically closer to medicine than food. I am not saying they are great, but all Solent needs to do is change their marketing not their product.

Also, I suspect these regulations have more backing than what you are assuming. They may not be correct, but they are good enough for people survive indefinitely on which is a solid track record.

PS: Used soylent for months 1.x and 2.0, swapped to Meal squares.

> like regulating the amount of fat/sugar/fiber

But only for products marketed as meal replacements. Soylent is not only advertised as a meal replacement, but as a sole source of nutrition.

These are moving towards products with medical use, so obviously there's going to be some regulation.

Canada's regulations are based on old understandings, from 1980.

But it's not just Canada... Canada is in-line with WHO reccomendations