Huel v3.1 for those who eat it 100%

1

This is a post summarizing the differences between Huel v3.0 and Huel v3.1, for those of us who eat it for 100% of our calories. Very different concerns exist for us compared to those who have Huel only for breakfast or a few times a week.

I’ll be using the Unflavoured & Unsweetened version for reference whenever it is not mentioned otherwise.

I wish Huel had written this themselves…

Removal of lycopene
Lycopene is not an essential nutrient, it is an antioxidant, There is still a lack of conclusive evidence that lycopene supplementation is beneficial in an already healthful diet. Most of the research is centered around its effect on cholesterol and cancer, specifically prostate cancer. A diet of 100% Huel (even without lycopene) is already beneficial regarding cholesterol and doesn’t contain ingredients frequently associated with causing prostate cancer or some other diet-related cancers.

Additionally, the importance of non-nutrient dietary antioxidants has also not been conclusively established yet, because the human body produces huge amounts of antioxidants itself (uric acid being the most potent one).

If you’re still concerned about lacking antioxidants despite what I wrote, Huel already contains lots of them from the primary ingredients. For any (questionable) additional benefits, only adding lycopene should not be enough to ease your concerns and many other different antioxidants would need to be supplemented.

However, lycopene is not harmful, and its removal from Huel can legitimately be seen as a downgrade. Huel team also did a very poor job where it looked like they were trying to hide its removal because it wasn’t disclosed at first in the changes.

(Some people also have bad reactions to consuming lycopene, so this makes Huel suitable for a larger number of people which is a benefit to the company. It also removes the sometimes seen complains and support burden about there being “streaks of blood” in Huel, which can be offputting to some)

Conclusion: If you eat 100% Huel v3.1, there’s no need to supplement lycopene.

Removal of Bacillus Coagulans
Bacillus Coagulans is not an essential nutrient, it is a probiotic bacteria. There is still a lack of conclusive evidence that probiotic supplementation is beneficial in an already healthful diet. Huel provides lots of fiber and other substances (together known as prebiotics) that promote the growth of beneficial bacteria that already exist in the gut.

Huel has never disclosed how much of this particular strain of bacteria CFUs are present in 2000kcal, however it is very likely below the amount in medical-grade products like VSL#3 (hundreds of billions to trillions per day). There is a lack of evidence that the tiny amount of bacteria in consumer-grade probiotics can have a lasting effect on the massive amount of bacteria already existing in the gut.

Additionally, there are many questions regarding whether the bacteria can survive all the way to the customer for the entire duration until the best before date. On paper, this particular strain is supposed to survive, but Huel has not presented any test results that it was the case in the Huel powder. Good probiotics companies go through great lengths to present test results and try to give guarantees that their products indeed contain the stated amounts of bacteria, the correct strains, and that they survive at that potency for the whole time.

If you’re still concerned about lacking probiotics despite what I wrote, adding only this single strain at undeclared potency should not be sufficient to ease your concerns and many other bacterial strains, in much greater numbers would need to be supplemented.

However, Bacillus Coagulans is not considered harmful for most people, and its removal from Huel can legitimately be seen as a downgrade. Huel team also did a very poor job where they were mixing up terminology about probiotics/prebiotics.

(Some people also have bad reactions to consuming probiotics, so this makes Huel suitable for a larger number of people which is a benefit to the company)

Conclusion: If you eat 100% Huel v3.1, there’s no need to supplement probiotics.

Replacement of acerola cherry with isolated vitamin C
The use of acerola cherry instead of isolated vitamin C was seen by many as an appeal to nature, and wasn’t received well because nothing about consuming Huel can be considered natural anyway.

Acerola cherry is more expensive than isolated vitamin C, and doesn’t provide any additional benefits, it was purely marketing. The vitamin C in the form of L-Ascorbic Acid as present in Huel v3.1, in the stated amounts, is sufficient to stay healthy.

The removal of acerola cherries cannot be legitimately seen as a downgrade.

(An argument could be made for increasing the amount of vitamin C in Huel in general, but that’s not the point of this topic. If you want to increase it yourself, vitamin C powder is very cheap to purchase online and you can add more of it to Huel yourself, with no realistic danger due to its well-known safety profile.)

Conclusion: If you eat 100% Huel v3.1, there’s no need to supplement additional “natural” sources of vitamin C.

Replacement of kombucha with isolated B vitamins
The addition of kombucha was seen by many as an appeal to nature, and wasn’t received well because nothing about consuming Huel can be considered natural anyway.

There is little evidence that kombucha provides any benefits in an already healthful diet. Some of the B vitamins in Huel already come from the primary ingredients like oats, and the additional isolated B vitamins are sufficient to stay healthy.

(Some people also have bad reactions to consuming kombucha, so this makes Huel suitable for a larger number of people which is a benefit to the company. Additionally, it removes concerns and support burden about the presence of alcohol in Huel, likely making it easier to pass the Halal certification)

Conclusion: If you eat 100% Huel v3.1, there’s no need to supplement additional “natural” sources of the B vitamins or consume kombucha.

Increase in sugar
Huel almost doubled the amount of sugar between v3.0 and v3.1. At 2000kcal/day of the U/U powder, it’s an increase from 2.9g to 5.5g, and this change has not been mentioned in the first reveal of v3.1.

This likely comes from the increase in the amount of tapioca in Huel (and the change from Tapioca Flour to Tapioca Starch). Tapioca contains no important nutrients, it simply makes Huel smoother if you want to shake it and not blend it. This goes a little against Huel mission statement “Nutrition first, taste a close second”.

However, sugar is not harmful per se, the biggest issue is its overconsumption, which doesn’t happen when eating Huel for 100% of daily calories. The other ingredients in Huel noticeably slow down any blood sugar spikes too, and the glycemic index should still be favorable.

(An argument can be made that even this increase in sugar content can have negative effects on teeth health, and that lower sugar is always better for overall health too)

Conclusion: If you eat 100% Huel v3.1, the increase in the amount of sugar is not something to worry about yet, but this trend needs to be carefully watched.

Decrease in salt
Using U/U powder for reference, at 2000kcal/day the amount of salt has decreased from 3.6g to 2.5g. This corresponds to a decrease in sodium from 1440mg to 1000mg.

Salt (sodium) is an essential nutrient, and the amounts present in Huel v3.1 are already in the range where negative health effects can be observed in some people.

Fortunately, salt is very cheap and trivial to purchase, and you can add it to Huel yourself. However, you need to be careful with measuring it so that you don’t add too much.

(An argument could be made that this makes Huel no longer complete nutrition)

Conclusion: If you eat 100% Huel v3.1, you must consider supplementing salt because Huel may no longer contain sufficient amounts for you depending on your lifestyle and genetics.

Increase in protein
Huel stated an increase in protein in v3.1, however using U/U as reference, it is just an increase from 146g to 150g at 2000kcal/day. An increase of 4g/day is hardly noticeable and is clearly just a marketing attempt to make v3.1 look better.

Huel already contains enough protein to enable maximum muscle synthesis if muscle building is your goal.

Any possible concerns about large protein consumption do not change between 146g to 150g of protein per day.

Conclusion: If you eat 100% Huel v3.1, an increase of 4g of protein per day is negligible.

The decrease in caffeine in the coffee-flavored Huel
The amount of caffeine has decreased from 88mg per 100g to 34mg per 100g of Huel. This is a significant decrease.

I don’t personally consume this flavor of Huel. If you want more caffeine, then caffeine pills are a very cheap option to increase caffeine consumption without having to spend time preparing coffee yourself or increasing coffee intake (and likely additional sugar/milk if that’s how you’d consume it).

Replacement of oats with oat flour
It hasn’t been mentioned by Huel what this change means, if anything. It may simply be a change in how they describe the ingredients, or they may have found a cheaper supplier of oat flour instead of having to grind the whole oats themselves. Clarification from Huel team would be appreciated.

Addition of guar gum
This hasn’t been mentioned by Huel yet, however it is a very typical stabilizer/thickener with no negative health effects as long as you drink Huel with sufficient water.

This is also probably the explanation for the increase in fiber from 36g to 39g at 2000kcal/day. More soluble fiber is generally a good thing, unless it reaches very high amounts, and this isn’t a very high amount.

Conclusion: If you eat 100% Huel v3.1, the addition of guar gum is of no concern, and this slight increase in fiber can be beneficial.

Removal of zeaxanthin
It hasn’t actually been removed, it’s likely omitted from the ingredients list at The Huel Powder Formula Explained as a mistake. You can’t see it listed in the ingredients like in v3.0, but it is still listed in the Additional Information section for every v3.1 flavor.

It’s unlikely that zeaxanthin comes from the primary ingredients in Huel, so it should be listed in the ingredients if it is specifically added to Huel.

Can the Huel team please fix this?

Conclusion: Huel needs to have someone proof-read everything.

Decreases in the amounts of micronutrients
The decreases in Vitamin K, Phosphorus, Magnesium, Molybdenum, Choline are negligible, all are still contained in sufficient amounts at 2000kcal/day to maintain health.

Conclusion: If you were not concerned about the amounts of micronutrients before, you shouldn’t be concerned with the amounts now.

Decrease in omega-3, increase in omega-6
The decrease in omega-3 from 19g to 15g at 2000kcal/day can be a source of worry, because Huel contains no EPA/DHA and so they can only be converted (inefficiently) from ALA.

Omega-6 decreases the conversion rate too (because both omega-3 and omega-6 compete for the same pathway), and in Huel v3.1 the amount of omega-6 has increased from 17g to 18g at 2000kcal/day.

However, some believe that in the absence of dietary consumption of EPA/DHA, while eating a diet containing ALA, the conversion is upregulated to maintain an adequate EPA/DHA status. The research is however inconclusive.

The research about the ideal omega-3:omega-6 ratio is also inconclusive, though generally tending to somewhere in the region of 1:1

The decrease in omega-3 can legitimately be seen as a downgrade however.

Conclusion: You might want to look into EPA/DHA supplementation, there are some algae based ones, however many people report being unable to handle the taste.

Addition of faba bean protein
I don’t know what effect this will have, we’ll only know in a few months at best.

There are some concerns about Glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase deficiency (G6PDD), but I don’t know if it is a concern for isolated faba bean protein. Some people might discover that they have this genetic mutation thanks to Huel.

Overall conclusion
Huel v3.1 is still suitable for a 100% diet if you’re careful about it.

Huel team did a poor job with many mistakes (such as claiming removal of calcium methylfolate, not mentioning some changes, pre/probiotic confusion) during initial reveal of v3.1, which is not something I’d expect from a professional company that has been on the market for many years. We need to watch them in the future to make sure this doesn’t indicate lack of care about what they present and produce.

15 Likes
2

I think it’s important to temper that narrative with the fact that the team acknowledged they had dropped the ball on communicating changes for 3.1 on several occasions - and would work to correct those mistakes wherever they appeared. Many brands would be far less transparent or communicative in this respect.

In reality – it actually works in the opposite direction. When brands get bigger both in team size and product portfolio – things become far more complicated. Eventually (and I seem to recall Huel getting to this point) they have to appoint legal counsel, who will often have final say on content that goes out.

I’ve worked at several MNC brands onsite in the past and can assure you, it’s an absolute minefield and mistakes happen often.

The difference with Huel is that they have a very attentive user base who will pull them up on this – which is a good thing – but it doesn’t mean to say they make any more mistakes than the ones that go unnoticed on other major brands by consumers.

You have basically gone into a scenario where you moved from a tight, efficient team to a sprawling range of people - who all have inputs on the wording and labelling – brand managers, marketers, legal, product development etc.

I think that absolutely isn’t the case – it is just one of those things that happens. As I mentioned, it does happen everywhere, all the time. It’s a slightly accusatory tone which I think is unwarranted in this case, given the responses of the team on the various issues.

1 Like
3

You mention aspects that you claim can ‘legitimately be seen as a downgrade’. What you don’t mention anywhere at all is that IT’S THE SAME PRICE.
In the current economic climate I call that an effective upgrade, continuing month by month, which far outweighs any minor alterations in the formulation.
Credit where credit’s due.

2 Likes
4

Conclusion: If you eat 100% Huel v3.1, there’s no need to supplement additional “natural” sources of vitamin C.

Yes and no. I have already written about this elsewhere. There is probably no difference that synthetic vitamin C (ascorbic acid) is better absorbed than natural vitamin C.
But if you look at Pureway-C, which is made from citrus fruits and corn, it has a much higher absorption rate, tolerance and antioxidant effect than other forms of vitamin C.
In addition, it is more expensive than ascorbic acid but much cheaper than normal natural vitamin C from acerola.

5

Hey @rikefrejut thanks for your detailed review of the v3.1 Powder changes. I’m just going to pick up on a few areas for clarity.

We have written this in several places (for example) but most people don’t require the level of detail you’ve gone into. One of the reasons we have the forum is so you can ask these questions!

Bacillus coagulans MTCC 5856 is a spore former which enables it to have a long shelf-life matching Huel products. Spores don’t form colonies because they’re dormant which is why that unit is used over CFU.

I don’t think this argument can be made. Huel is nutritionally complete based on the needs of the average person, which the sodium intake is still above. Studies looking at negative health effects at low sodium intakes are mainly due to study artefacts as we know sodium levels need to be taken several times over the day rather than just once to provide reliable data.

As you’ve said, if someone was exercising they may need to increase their salt intake, but Huel is not optimised for athletes.

Oat flour is the same ingredient but with different wording (confusing I know). Guar gum is a key addition that has led to the texture improvements that have been spoken about.

I agree with you here, so algae supplementation is something to consider if you follow a plant-based diet with a lack of oily fish, regardless of the rest of your diet.

Faba bean protein has already been used in complete protein for some time. From a nutritional point of view its a simple mixing around of the sources of protein to ensure a complete protein source while significantly lowering the carbon footprint of v3.1.

We don’t actively recommend a 100% diet because a varied and balanced diet is best and Huel can form a part of such a diet. Huel is still nutritionally complete and always will be.

I think this is harsh. As above, we made a mistake, held our hands up and corrected it. I’m here now doing the same thing.

@JamesCollier will also be responding to a few other points in the coming days.

Yeap I agree @Thenameless and thanks for previously sharing the studies regarding this.

7 Likes
6

No mention either of the significant improvements in environmental impact & sustainability. 16% reduction in carbon is a big upgrade over v3.0 and something we can all be glad of, but for those who eat it 100% it’s an especially big improvement.

But I’m stating the obvious. :smiling_face:

5 Likes
7

@rikefrejut Thanks for the input, all at once in the same place. As you, I expected Huel laid out things differently.
I also think that to not increase prices some nutritional shortcuts were taken and, what in the past were marketed as benefits are now gone, to minimize global costs increase.
So, in same way now, we wave a downgraded Huel White, and also a new Huel Essential. Seems one justifies the other and vice-versa. For you living exclusively on UU and doing OMAD for years I understand the importance of the small changes.
And also see why you made that recent pool, when some people think that a reduction in carbon output is an upgrade, at a nutrition cost.
Forgetting that people will try to compensate missing nutrients with others products, who have a carbon output on their own ( buying extra omegas, extra salt, better Vit C, etc.).
For me Huel v3.0 could be the called “The Complete”, in opposition to the recent “Essential”. v3.1 stands in the middle. YMMV.

1 Like
8

I don’t want Huel to become like every other company ever (especially with the recent push on natural ingredients and focus on the environment, lots of us are sick of that marketing already because it’s simply everywhere all the time).

I want Huel to be better than them. Huel created a product that has a potential to revolutionize how humans eat, so by default that is a disruptive force in the food business, and Huel shouldn’t be like other companies.

We can’t change the price of v3.1, we can only choose to consume or not consume v3.1 for 100% of our calories, and for that the nutrition aspect is more important in this thread.

In theory, if someone who was consuming v3.0 for 100% calories, and wanted to make v3.1 the same by adding what has been removed, they’d effectively be paying more now. So a diet of Huel would no longer be the same price for them - and I made this thread to illustrate that for the most part it isn’t necessary to pay for the extra stuff that was removed.

For those of us on 100% Huel for long enough, we haven’t had any tolerance or absorbance issues with any of the vitamin C forms across the years. Nobody developed scurvy, nobody became anemic (I even donate blood regularly), or got any other symptoms associated with poor vitamin C status.

Having looked at Pureway-C (and the four studies they mention, PureWay-C - Search Results - PubMed ), it’s aimed at people who prefer to megadose vitamin C, which is something that can cause digestive issues often. Adding 2g of vitamin C powder to Huel works just fine, the other ingredients in Huel prevent the digestive distress you might experience if you took those 2g on empty stomach. I haven’t personally tested more than that (and I don’t do megadoses of vitamin C anyway, it was just an experiment years ago), but I know some people take 10g of vitamin C or more.

Additionally, Huel already contains fatty acids that will help the absorption of vitamin C, just like in Pureway-C. Huel also has ingredients shown to lower oxidative stress, can lead to a lower cholesterol level, and improve other markers - it is doubtful that using Pureway-C on a 100% Huel diet would lead to a statistically significant difference in those.

I was going from other sources such as studies like:

and commercial probiotics products like:

where they indeed use CFU unit to indicate dose, and hence was expecting Huel to present the same information at 2000kcal.

At 1000mg/day of sodium, as contained in Huel v3.1, it is significantly below the intake that is classified as low salt intake, “populations exposed to dietary intakes of low sodium (<115 mmol)” according to:

where <115mmol corresponds to a daily dose of <2645mg of sodium, Huel has less than half of that. Quoting their conclusion: Both low sodium intakes and high sodium intakes are associated with increased mortality, consistent with a U-shaped association between sodium intake and health outcomes.

The science is still not conclusive on such a low salt intake, however it would be preferable to not experiment in Huel with having such a low sodium content. Ideally, Huel would present their reasoning for why they think 1000mg/day of sodium is ok, when research seems to (not conclusively) show that it isn’t ok for the average person.

So yes, I still stand by the argument that Huel is potentially no longer complete nutrition at this level of sodium, for a person eating Huel for 100% of their calories. However, it is trivial to add salt yourself, which is what I’m doing.

I agree that it may be harsh, but I don’t want the company to fall into the way of thinking that they don’t need to pay close attention to stuff because if something is wrong they can just say sorry and everyone would shrug it off. I praise Huel by continuing to purchase it, even the v3.1 version, and I’d argue that’s the only praise that truly matters because it’s quantifiable.

I don’t care about the environment at all, I care about my health and my time.

How Huel captured my attention over 7 years ago was that it looked like a product that makes the life of a busy professional easier. Plain white and black color scheme, no unnecessary words, no unnecessary ingredients (like sweeteners and food colorings), focus on nutrition first.

There was another product at the time, called Joylent, that had all sorts of colorful marketing that looked like it was drawn by someone on illegal drugs and the words on their website sounded like written by a nature-loving tree-hugging hippie. I simply wouldn’t take myself seriously if I consumed something that looked suitable for someone driving a VW hippie van, instead of someone driving a professional status car.

5 Likes
9

Still around, Jimmy Joy as it’s now called. Maaan!

10

Made me laugh, thanks.

They’ve also made the product design and marketing slightly less offensive than it was, but the new name and looks are still weird enough to not appeal to me.

The reactions I’d get from being seen with https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0004/9630/4187/files/jj-home-2021-01_992x_59eb0a7e-8f32-47c6-b252-d144c054da34_992x.webp at a company-wide anti-harassment meeting would raise some eyebrows.

Whereas nobody can take offense to Huel’s plain look.

11

Haha, that’s pretty absurd packaging. Looks like the drugs haven’t worn off. But they are Dutch!

12

While colour plays a big part in purchasing decisions – I’m pretty sure that’s the least of their problems. Looking at their results, they seem to yo-yo in growth and contraction. Company revenue is still very low - so you could only surmise they are deep in the red still and although the team size increased a lot this year – it’s still a company of less than 50 people all in. Rebranding doesn’t help either as it erodes confidence – probably shouldn’t have been so cheeky mirroring Soylent in the beginning :rofl:

13

Thanks for sharing. This is the information we got from our suppliers, we’ll look into whether labelling with CFU is a possibility. The supplement you linked to also doesn’t give a hard CFU figure, but a minimum CFU statement.

This is an arbitrary classification used by the authors of this study.

Other studies and the American Heart Association do not see this as an issue.

As I said above you need to look at the methods for these studies too. Many of the studies included in the meta-analysis you linked used either single 24 h urinary sodium collections or single “spot” urinary samples which does not provide accurate data.

A more recent meta-analysis which included studies that took a minimum of 2 sodium measurements in 24 hours found a linear increase in CVD risk and sodium intake and that the U-association described in the study you linked is simply an artefact of trial methods used.

Yes that’s totally fair, I hope that you agree that we haven’t just shrugged this off now.

If you care about your health, then you need to care about the environment, that’s the world that we live in.

Thanks for pushing us to do better @rikefrejut.

4 Likes
14

It’s actually a very competitive market now, and I guess Huel is one of the big players in that its advertising budget is huge (even if the products are still quite niche). That’s where a lot of smaller companies fail, they just don’t have capital to invest in strategic advertising so they don’t get their products seen.

1 Like
15

Hi @rikefrejut

Thanks for your feedback. There’s a lot I could come back on here, and Dan has already responded adequately. But there are a couple of points.

Removal of zeaxanthin
It hasn’t actually been removed, it’s likely omitted from the ingredients list at The Huel Powder Formula Explained as a mistake. You can’t see it listed in the ingredients like in v3.0, but it is still listed in the Additional Information section for every v3.1 flavor.
It’s unlikely that zeaxanthin comes from the primary ingredients in Huel, so it should be listed in the ingredients if it is specifically added to Huel.

Zeaxthanin is actually supplied by lutein. Previously we topped this up with additional zeaxthanin. This wasn’t necessary anymore to achieve the same amount because we used a different lutein material that supplies adequate for us to keep the same amount in Huel.

There are no concerns here.

Huel team did a poor job with many mistakes (such as claiming removal of calcium methylfolate, not mentioning some changes, pre/probiotic confusion) during initial reveal of v3.1, which is not something I’d expect from a professional company that has been on the market for many years. We need to watch them in the future to make sure this doesn’t indicate lack of care about what they present and produce.

Fair comment. Trust me, no one was more frustrated about this than me. As well as annoying customers, it put extra pressure on numerous people working at Huel. However, I was hoping that I’ve already addressed this issue. Since last week we have put measures into place to ensure these issues shouldn’t happen again. @Phil_C adds a valid perspective here, too. As we grow, different issues are identified and we address them.

I don’t care about the environment at all, I care about my health and my time.

What would it take for you to change you opinion on this?

1 Like
16

Thanks for the detailed analysis, rikefrejut. And thank you to the excellent Huel team for the detailed responses. This is an interesting discussion.

Although to some it can sound callous, I would echo rikefrejut’s general point that to some consumers of Huel, the most important things are nutritional content (and speed of preparation). I also fall into that category and I’d be happy to pay higher prices to achieve the best nutritional value. If there are not many of this type of consumer, then I quite understand it would be inefficient for Huel to overly cater for us. However, if there are a good number of us out there, then I’d advocate a product line with this focus. I get the impression there may be a market out there based on the results of rikefrejut’s poll elsewhere on the forum.

Apologies because I think this topic may have been raised elsewhere on the forum, but this may have been pre-v3.1 so I wanted to bring it up again.

2 Likes
17

that discussion thread is here

1 Like
18

There is no complete evidence on whether the diet a person has does “cover” everything or provide every nutrient that is really “necessary”.
Plus: You have to define “necessary” or “essential” - somethimes it means developing a disease if you don’t get it.
But: There are lots of diseases and symtoms where we still don’t know the reason or trigger(s).

And do we really know all micronutrients that are “essential”? How can we know that?
Maybe there are substances in “normal” foods that we need, but that we still haven’t identified.

Is it evidence enough, that you are getting everything you need, that you have lived on 100% Huel for some years and that you still live, that you have survived?
People survive even under obviosly very poor diets, so is this really a good criterion for your judgement?
Maybe you had some symptoms that might have been due to your diet, maybe you could feel better, perform better if you had “normal” foods sometimes.

Don’t get me wrong, due to an atypical eating disorder (associated with an autism spectrum disorder) I have also been living on shakes and drinks for years now, maybe some dental-care chewing gum occasionally. So I can’t really be an “advocate” for “normal” food.

I just wanted to point out that no matter how many trials you are starting, how much evidence you’re trying to generate, and no matter how confident you are in “your” way: There is no way of knowing whether it is wise to live on hundert percent complete food shakes.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
And you don’t know how whether you’ll get a disease in the future that you would not have developed if your lifestyle would have been different.

By the way:
What is often to be found in this context is the term “nutritionally complete” - so my question to the Huel team now is: How exactly do you determine or define it? Are you changing or updating this definition depending on current “evidence”? If yes how often? If no why not?

19

James has written a full article on how we define Nutritionally Complete here @mbs.

2 Likes
20

It’s amazing that there’s no legal definition of ‘nutritionally complete’, but I suppose that’s because the word ‘complete’ is impossible to pin down. It makes sense, everyone’s needs are different.