Kelp removal in v3.0 Powder and changes to pouch size - information on a steady roll out

[Julian]

Hi Hueligans,

Before Christmas we were super excited to release v3.0, where one of the changes was an inclusion of a natural source of the essential mineral iodine from kelp. However amongst you guys, our most passionate and long-term Hueligans, there was a lot of discussion on the merits of this. As a result of this feedback we thought long and hard and are now removing kelp from all versions of v3.0

Here is all the information about the removal of kelp from v3.0:

• We are steadily starting to roll out with kelp-free v3.0 from now - see information on when below
• Kelp was added in v3.0 Powder primarily as a source of natural iodine. We also needed a source of natural iodine in Japan. Kelp is a great solution for this
• After your feedback we are reverting back to potassium iodide, the version used in previous versions of Huel
• Black Edition, RTD, Bars and Granola all do not contain kelp

The reason for this change is the feedback we have received from our community here on the forum. There has been concern around the addition of kelp adding an allergen risk to Huel, and although we have tested our kelp and each test has come back so small that the testing equipment can’t measure it, we added a “may contain” message to be extra safe. Going forward, we have decided to remove kelp from the ingredients altogether and v3.0 will move from:

May contain: Crustaceans, Fish, Molluscs (from Kelp) and Mustard.

to

May contain: Mustard.

When you will receive kelp-free Huel v3.0

This will be a steady roll out, we won’t know the exact date when we are going to switch to kelp-free Huel. The reason for this is to prevent wastage of Huel, so once we run down stock of one Huel version/flavour with kelp in, we will then switch to the corresponding kelp-free version. So the roll out will be gradual.

Important note: the website won’t be updated until later, because we cannot risk sending a product with allergen risk to someone that wasn’t made aware before they bought the product. The pouches you receive are the source of truth, if it says it contains kelp it contains kelp. It could be around 1-2 months until all varieties and flavours of Huel v3.0 are kelp-free.

Changes to pouch size
Included in the change away from kelp is that the pouches will contain 17 x 400kcal servings (6800kcal total). Until this point, v3.0 pouches were labelled as containing 17 x 400kcal servings but were actually being overfilled to 7000kcal. That powder was actually addition so we are now filling to 6800kcal. @JamesCollier has posted more about this topic here:

Black Edition, New scoop size, Reduction in amount of powder per bag?

Hi @geak and all I have read a number of posts in this thread, but not all, and I feel I should to a couple of points: Folks, please debate politely and respectfully; if another member has a different perspective than you, please respect that and don’t berate them. We’re all cool Hueligans here! In response to: v2.3 Vanilla - 1.75kg per bag - 2 bags = £45 v3.0 Vanilla - 1.71kg per bag - 2 bags = £50 Please explain how that is not a reduction in powder and increase in pri…

and why we have 17 servings per pouch here:

Black Edition, New scoop size, Reduction in amount of powder per bag?

It’s really an ‘evolved’ thing. When Huel was launched we sold it as a ‘week’s supply’ (or '‘two week’s supply’, ‘four week’s supply’, etc). Two pouches on 2,000kcal per day = 14,000kcal = 2 bags. We changed this as, of course, most people didn’t have 2,000kcal-worth of Huel per day and instead sold it by the ‘meals’, with the same pouch size. We’ve had this standard pouch from day one and, sure, there’s a bit of room to fill a bit more, but, due to the force when the machine puts Huel into th…

I hope this is all clear, thank you as ever for being such a valuable and impactful community. You feedback was critical to this change to removing kelp from v3.0.

[allthecolours]

May I be the first one to say I’m devestated that you have decided to remove kelp.

Just joking. I had no issue with it but it’s nice to see you taking the feedback from customers into account.

[airiartev]

Is there any plan to develop a bigger bag for those who eat Huel daily? Its a waste to throw a non reciclable bag every week

[bruce]

Very awesome communication!

[Peas]

@Julian and team, you have made my day

Thank you - Christian

[David]

I am a kelp farmer, as was my father and his father before him. Our farm has has struggled these past decades, as kelp has fallen in popularity compared to new “superfoods” like sausages and gin. But when Huel started using kelp, we felt hope. We bought a new horse to plow the kelp fields. My little children have shoes for the first time since 1975. You saved us, Huel, and now you do this?

I will have to shoot the horse. Its blood is on your hands.

[JewyB]

David, i’m gonna have to stop you there, this seems like a con. As a leading horse scientist i can confirm that horses don’t actually have blood and are powered by tiny trojans. Please stop using jokes to spread misinformation!

[David]

How is it a con? How do I personally profit from the death of my fictional horse? Also have you noticed that there are plenty of leading horse scientists but no drinking horse scientists?

[JewyB]

You absolutely KNOW that you run a blood removal service and can charge by the hour to clean up blood that, quite frankly, doesnt even exist!

And we have addressed the imbalance in the leading/drinking horse scientist representation in our field, just yesterday we hired a prominent young drinking horse scientist and aim to have a ratio of 87:13 by 2056!

[David]

That is libel, sir! All I gain from these posts is the mild pleasure of shitting up an important Huel communiqué with childish garbage.

[Phil_C]

@airiartev

Its a waste to throw a non reciclable bag every week

yes - it cant be mechanically recycled but technically could be chemically recycled if and when the industry ever gets into gear with rolling out more chemcycling plants.

[Tristan]

@Julian

The reason for this change is the feedback we have received from our community here on the forum

This right here is why I find it so easy to recommend Huel to people. I know that you all felt that kelp was a positive addition and it would have been very easy for you to dig in on it, but I applaud you for listening.

A suggestion for the future perhaps… When a new recipe is coming out it might be worth picking a few longer standing forum users to do a beta test or just get a sneak preview of changes and provide feedback perhaps that might help pre-empt less obvious issues.

[David]

@Tristan

A suggestion for the future perhaps… When a new recipe is coming out it might be worth picking a few longer standing forum users to do a beta test or just get a sneak preview of changes and provide feedback as that might help you pre-empt potential issues.

I think the main problem was that allergy warning they had to use. If they’d just posted to say they were adding kelp, I doubt many people would have cared one way or the other. And you can’t detect the kelp in the product, so taste tests wouldn’t identify it as a problem.

I wonder if they knew the allergy warning would be necessary when they first decided to add kelp. To me it seems obvious that “WARNING: MAYBE HALF AN OCTOPUS IS IN HERE. NOBODY KNOWS FOR SURE” was a bad thing to print on the labels.

[Tristan]

@David

taste tests wouldn’t identify it as a problem.

Aye, but by sneak preview I meant more of just an email out with “hey we’re thinking of changing ingredients, here’s the new nutrition label, what do you think?”

To me it seems obvious that “WARNING: MAYBE HALF AN OCTOPUS IS IN HERE. NOBODY KNOWS FOR SURE” was a bad thing to print on the labels.

For sure. Schrodinger’s Crustaceans just have no place on the label of a vegan product but when you’re super close to something it’s hard to step back and see it from another point of view.

[David]

@Tristan

Aye, but by sneak preview I meant more of just an email out with “ hey we’re thinking of changing ingredients, here’s the new nutrition label, what do you think? ”

I do agree with you, but I think the nutrition label only existed long after the product was finalised. Otherwise they’d have realised the problem themselves. No doubt they’ll check for stuff like well that in advance from now on.

[Tristan]

@David

I think the nutrition label only existed long after the product was finalised. Otherwise they’d have realised the problem themselves.

Possibly, but there was obviously at least one meeting where more than one person discussed the warning text and must have thought little of it because they knew fish etc weren’t there in even remotely detectable levels.

But then customers read it and like you said, even though fish and crustaceans weren’t in Huel the label said they might be, even though they almost certainly weren’t.

(I’ve edited my prior comment to Schrodinger’s Crustaceans, since the presence of kelp was definite, whilst crustaceans both were and weren’t there at the same time).

Anyway, it’s being changed now so happy days

[David]

@Tristan

Possibly, but there were obviously at least one meeting where more than one person discussed the warning text and must have thought little of it because they knew fish etc weren’t there in even remotely detectable levels.

Possibly they decided it was worth losing the custom of people with a fish allergy, since that’s a small number of people. But they didn’t account for the filthy tree-huggers.

[Tim_Huel]

Thanks for the comments guys. When we first wanted to put kelp in the plan was to always source an allergen-free version, but this became more difficult the further down the line we went.

[Tristan]

On topic question… some discussion in the office (we’re techies). Will this new receipt be 3.1 or 3.0.1?

[David]

It can’t be 3.1 when the only thing in the change notes is a reversion.