They have probably made loads of the new batch and need to sell it. Once it is all sold I would expect and revision.
Did they just manage to source some real cheap ingredients which were salty and fluoridated, or what?
You’re 0.7mg value for Fluoride difference between v1.2 and v2.0 assumes that there was 0 Fluoride in v1.2. This is unknown - they may just not have listed it. In that case potentially even more Sodium is coming from the Sea Salt than the Sodium Fluoride.
On that train of thought - maybe they did just go with cheaper/saltier ingredients and maybe there was already Fluoride in some of the ingredients so they just listed it on the Nutritional Information and added a token amount of Sodium Flouride and then Sea Salt to cover their tracks.
Turned the Salt and Fluoride levels from a bug into a feature!
I’ve no particular reason to suspect they’re doing anything underhand if that’s what you mean. All I’m trying to accomplish here is cutting out the guesswork and speculation, and getting some sort of official response if its feasible to lower the sodium content to something falling below health organisations’ safe upper limits without radically changing the new mix. If omitting specifically added salt from the mix would do it there’s obviously potential there, but until there’s some more concrete info its a bit futile conjuring scenarios and solutions.
I don’t mean underhand as such, just that perhaps commercial interests are weighing in more heavily than health ones?
Huel already adjusted the salt content upwards, and afterwards were satisfied with that change. It seems weird that they’d purposefully increase it once again to unsafe levels for no clear reason. The weak responses they’ve given have been a real eye-opener for me.
I am disgusted to think huel would ever include substances in their food which are beyond safe upper limits, and further disgusted by the fact that this had to be detected by the huel community after the fact. What’s even worse is huels dismissive blow-off when the community point this out. Ymmv, but I’ve no further trust in them.
In fairness they are a business so I would imagine commercial concerns are always going to be top of their list of priorities
Still, virtually doubling the equivalent salt levels of a foodstuff is a baffling move, and exceeding what many health organisations advise as the safe level is just downright bizarre - I could be wrong, but if you’re going to sell a product like Huel and shove the tag line “Everything your body needs, nothing more” on it, I’d expect the kind of potential customers you attract to scrutinize the nutritional content very carefully
We want people to scrutinise our label. That’s how we make Huel better.
We certainly haven’t blown off the communities complaints. Indeed, many of the changes to Huel that we’ve made come from us listening to the community. James is continuing to work and review 2.0, it’s certainly not something we’ve just ignored.
I really appreciate the way you guys listen to feedback, but from what I’ve seen there’s been no explanation for the high salt levels? So it certainly seems that concern has been blown off, for now at least.
The response that “only a little has been added” doesn’t really hold when the numbers disagree.
OK, maybe if I rephrase this all as a few direct questions?
V1.2 had a footnote on the nutritional info label saying that all salt was due exclusively to the presence naturally occurring sodium. V2 no longer says that, the implication being that the extra 3 grams per day it contains do not occur naturally in the ingredients and are being added. You’ve explained some of this is a tiny amount of sea salt, but as sea salt is listed last on the ingredients it is, by weight, the least of everything making up Huel. So I’m assuming sea salt doesn’t make up very much of the extra content.
All I’d really like to know as a customer is
1- which ingredients does the extra salt come from?
2 - is the extra salt something that could be omitted from the blend ?
3 - Are we likely to see the salt level drop to a safer level of, say, 4-5 grams per day in the foreseeable future?
If you could provide answers to any or all of those questions that would be great, as I need to figure out if I’m going to have to start looking for an alternative to Huel (which honestly I don’t want to do)
It’s certainly something you’re feeding to people. It may be a better idea to work and review it BEFORE you put it in the bags and sell it, not afterwards once they’ve noticed.
“The fluoride is of no health concern and there is simply no need to worry.”
This absolutely is blowing off community complaints.
With all due respect, its only a couple of months since you were saying Huel needed more salt in it, isn’t it?
It’s arguably a little disingenuous to then complain about it when they do go ahead and produce a mix with more of what you wanted shortly after.
Seriously though, I’m just after a little nutritional info from the Huel team that effects a preexisting health problem I have, and I kind of feel this thread keeps veering of from what I need to find out.
Please remember that precise dosage is vital to any argument here. It’s not so wrong to want “more salt” and then be appalled when someone goes crazy adding piles of salt to your meal.
You are dead right to want a more detailed breakdown of the sources of Sodium in Huel.
I’m more interested in whether the sodium levels are likely to be lowered to be honest - if not I’ll move on, no fuss, no drama.
Look, the way I see it Huel produced a new version of their product, announced it, and put the new nutritional labels online in plain sight for everyone to read and make an informed consumer decision from. From my point if view they haven’t done anything wrong and I struggle to understand the viewpoint that they have that seems to be being voiced by some. Nobody is “going crazy and adding piles of salt” to anyone’s meal - and I don’t think that kind of hyperbole really helps anyone in the long run - is it really too much to expect people to read about what they’re buying before purchasing it?
Some of us had subscriptions for one product (v1.2) and had another product (v2.0) replace it with no notification.
Oh. I assumed everyone with a subscription receives an email 3 days before shipment, the same as I do with my subscription. The most recent one explained there had been a change in the formula, provided links, and even refered to Huel V2 in the email title. There’s a screenshot of the email I received here (click the preview image for the full thing obviously…)
That said, if people with subscriptions genuinely didn’t receive notification of a change before shipment, it should be a very simple matter to return it for full refund with the manufacturer paying return fees, having sent a substantially different product according to Consumer Contract Regulations.
We did change the emails and that notification goes out to everyone. I changed it on the Friday once we started shipping 2.0, so everyone who was going to receive 2.0 received that email.
@sanovine, if I said there was no conspiracy going on here, would you take my word for it?
Adding sea salt and fluoride to Huel costs us money.
I’m sorry you feel this way; I was merely trying to reassure consumers not ‘blow them off’