9 ms·

Lead and cadmium found in muscle-building protein powders, report says

89 points by mikhael 2y ago

bryant 2y ago
Original source: https://cleanlabelproject.org/wp-content/uploads/CleanLabelProject_ProteinStudyWhitepaper_010625.pdf https://cleanlabelproject.org/wp-content/uploads/CleanLabelP...
buu700 2y ago
I use PlantFusion in my pre/post-workout protein shakes (in combination with Transparent Labs whey protein isolate and a couple different types of collagen powder), and this was one of the reasons I liked it: https://plantfusion.com/pages/faq https://plantfusion.com/pages/faq IS PLANTFUSION TESTED FOR HEAVY METALS? Yes, we do indeed do third party testing on all our PlantFusion products. There’s been a whole lot of attention lately on heavy metals in nutritional supplements. Particularly those products on the market containing brown rice and/or brown rice syrup. In the early development of PlantFusion, we found through our own research and testing that brown rice protein typically had levels of certain heavy metals (namely lead, arsenic and cadmium) that were many times higher than our other plant protein sources. Because of this, and a few other factors, we opted to take brown rice out of all of our formulas and continue to test for heavy metals within our products to ensure safety and efficacy.
- swatcoder 2y ago
  While that's more reassuring than no statement at all, I'd suggest keeping in mind that claims and actions don't always align and that leadership changes -- as when a startup folds in new investors or gets sold whiledale -- can and do exploit exactly the kind of trust you're investing here. What you like about a small brand like this today could change tomorrow, or could have already changed in way that someone conveniently "forgot" to reflect on the website. Everybody's got their own standards for risk tolerance and due diligence, but in historically shady markets like nutritional supplements and growth-chasing startups, soft skepticism and ongoing vigilance have some place.
  - buu700 2y ago
    Yeah, it's not definitive, but was nice to see it addressed at all. GPT mostly corroborates their basic claim at least, with the caveat that one of the five protein sources in use (algae) can be high-risk depending on where it was sourced from. I would of course much prefer if they published a certificate of analysis for each batch.
    - teaearlgraycold 2y ago
      > GPT mostly corroborates their basic claim at least What exactly did you ask it?
      - buu700 2y ago
        Q: Is it true that rice protein is more likely to be contaminated with heavy metals than other plant proteins? What about pea, artichoke, sprouted amaranth, quinoa, and algae? A: Yes, *rice protein* is more likely to be contaminated with heavy metals compared to some other plant proteins. This is due to *rice’s natural tendency to absorb heavy metals, particularly arsenic, cadmium, and lead, from soil and water*. Here’s a breakdown of why this occurs and how it compares to other plant proteins: ... ### Conclusion - *Rice protein* has a higher likelihood of heavy metal contamination, particularly arsenic, compared to other plant proteins like pea, artichoke, and quinoa. - *Algae proteins* can also be at higher risk but are safer if sourced from controlled environments. - Pea, artichoke, and sprouted grains (amaranth and quinoa) generally have lower contamination risks but depend on growing conditions. If heavy metal contamination is a concern, choose products from manufacturers that perform third-party testing and provide transparency about their heavy metal levels. Diversifying protein sources is also a practical way to reduce risk.
        teaearlgraycold 2y ago
        I have also heard of rice being a risk for heavy metal consumption (especially brown rice). But I don’t trust GPT too much for anything I’m not an expert on. I’ve seen it be wrong often enough for things I know a lot about. Even things I would have expected to appear frequently in the training data.
- cgh 2y ago
  You were right to be concerned. From the article: "Plant-based protein powders were the most contaminated, containing five times more cadmium than their whey-based counterparts."
- jpmattia 2y ago
  It raises the question: Where are things like arsenic and cadmium coming from? Is it in the brown rice to begin with? If so, why?
  - SoftTalker 2y ago
    Pollution, and depending on location it could be from naturally occurring deposits.
    - jpmattia 2y ago
      Same question as in the other comment: Are warnings issued about the protein powders but not the original rice the powder is made from?
  - hollerith 2y ago
    Plants must extract nutrients from the soil. An important such nutrient is phosphorus. Because arsenic is chemically similar to phosphorus, any arsenic in the soil will get extracted also, ending up in the plant. The soil in Louisiana and Arkansas, which is good for growing rice, happens to be high in (naturally-occurring) arsenic.
    - andhuman 2y ago
      Important to note is that when arsenic is in rice, a lot of it is organic arsenic and therefore not easily picked up by the body like inorganic arsenic.
    - jpmattia 2y ago
      So is the rice itself also high in arsenic/cadmium? ie, are people issuing warnings about the protein powders but not the original material the powder is made from?
      - hollerith 2y ago
        Rice grown in Louisiana and Arkansas (i.e., most rice grown in the US) is indeed high in arsenic. My guess is that the protein powders are made from brown rice or even rice bran and rice germ whereas most rice in the US is eaten as white rice (i.e., rice without bran or germ). I'm guessing that makes a difference. Also, if you cook rice as if it were pasta (i.e., in much more water than needed, which is then discarded at the end of cooking) as recommended by the USDA, the amount of arsenic is cut in half. The manufacturers of protein powders probably don't bother to process the rice this way (whereas I do when I cook rice).
- dehrmann 2y ago
  $38 per pound for protein powder?
  - buu700 2y ago
    Looks like I'm paying $16.57/lb for PlantFusion on Amazon and $27.27/lb for Transparent Labs on their website. I didn't find any better keto-friendly options without artificial sweeteners, but it's not a massive expense all things considered. Edit: Ah, yeah, I see that the PlantFusion website charges $38/lb. (Less than that if you buy bigger packages and subscribe, but still more than Amazon.) Not sure what the deal with that is.
    - dublinben 2y ago
      TrueNutrition has unflavored protein powders (pea, whey, etc.) starting at only $15/lb. You can even make your own custom blends. No affiliation, just a satisfied customer.
      - buu700 2y ago
        Nice, thanks for the recommendation! That looks like an awesome product, definitely something I'd consider experimenting with in the future. I was able to put together a blend that's pretty close to my current mix: https://truenutrition.com/products/protein-customizer?grass-fed-whey-protein-concentrate=40&grass-fed-hydrolyzed-beef-collagen=10&multi-collagen=15&marine-collagen=5&hemp-protein-powder=5&alfalfa-greens-protein-powder=5&cranplus-protein=15&pumpkinplus-protein=5&branched-chain-aminos-boost=true&trueflavor-horchata=regular&protein-enzyme-boost=true&package=jug https://truenutrition.com/products/protein-customizer?grass-... A few areas I'd like to see improved: * The variety of plant proteins could be wider. Or even better, they could add a pre-configured plant protein blend that they vouch for in terms of taste/texture/mixability. As-is, it seems like I'd be taking a shot in the dark to approximate something similar to PlantFusion, and I'd be concerned about that requiring a lot of trial and error to get a palatable end result. (On the other hand, maybe sticking to just the pea/cranberry protein would be good enough, and for extra diversity I could use a little bit less plant protein and throw in some egg protein.) * I don't love that most of the flavors contain guar gum. Not that it's particularly harmful as far as I know, just seems unnecessary. It looks like horchata, orange cream, and chai latte may be the only stevia flavors without guar gum, which would be pretty limiting if I were to restrict myself to those flavors. More generally, it would be nice if you could just pick whatever flavor you wanted independently of the sweetener, and maybe have guar gum as an additional option if you really wanted it. * More variety in the "boost" ingredients would be nice. For example, my current collagen powders (Nature Target marine collagen and multi-collagen) include hyaluronic acid, elastin, and a few other minor ingredients that I'd consider adding given the option. * A grass-fed whey protein isolate option would be nice, since that's what I currently use, but concentrate is close enough to isolate that this is basically nitpicking. * And of course some assurance of heavy metal testing would be great, if they don't have this already (I didn't see it anywhere). It would save a bit of time and space to be able to switch to that, though, so I'll pass along my feedback to the company and keep an eye on it for the future.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
Lucasoato 2y ago
> 451: Unavailable due to legal reasons. We recognize you are attempting to access this website from a country belonging to the European Economic Area (EEA) including the EU which enforces the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and therefore access cannot be granted at this time. https://archive.is/ZkH7e https://archive.is/ZkH7e
- baxtr 2y ago
  Thanks EU for 100s of hours wasted clicking stupid meaningless banners and additionally this now.
  - stavros 2y ago
    Yeah if there's a law against corporations selling my phone number to spammers, and the corporations don't want to bother showing me anything if they can't sell my phone number to spammers, that's not the law's fault.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
  - tsimionescu 2y ago
    This, but actually true. I'm always grateful when a site announces upfront they can't be bothered to respect my privacy, so I don't accidentally browse their content.
    - wjholden 2y ago
      Not saying you're wrong, but there is another possible reason. I often see this kind of thing on very local news websites in the USA. I think it's possible that small-town newspapers simply doesn't believe their local news has any readership in the EU/EEA, but that there is some small chance they could be maliciously targeted for non-compliance with a faraway law.
      - 2y ago
baxtr 2y ago
Is there anything similar for Europe available?
- badgersnake 2y ago
  Lead is available in the water supply thanks to old pipework in Europe. You have to find the right building though. Cadmium, I’m not sure. Maybe suck an old rechargeable battery?
  - baxtr 2y ago
    :))) Not helpful, but funny I have to admit!
  - pkaye 2y ago
    Just suck on dark chocolate as it contains both.
- manmal 2y ago
  5 years old, but here goes: https://www.test.de/Eiweisspulver-im-Test-1617462-1618800/ https://www.test.de/Eiweisspulver-im-Test-1617462-1618800/
cjoelrun 2y ago
Some resources I've used: https://www.consumerlab.com/ https://www.consumerlab.com/ https://blueprint.bryanjohnson.com/pages/coas#certs https://blueprint.bryanjohnson.com/pages/coas#certs
- lr4444lr 2y ago
  +1 for ConsumerLab. It's almost embarrassing how many products they test and how lucid their write-ups as compared with the FDA given their respective budgets.
- airstrike 2y ago
  I love how blueprint's olive oil is actually called "snake oil" https://blueprint.bryanjohnson.com/cdn/shop/files/EVOOfront.png?v=1731719329&width=1296 https://blueprint.bryanjohnson.com/cdn/shop/files/EVOOfront....
kurthr 2y ago
It's interesting that in the main study this is based on (for metals rather than BPA etc) they state both that the average results are dominated by outliers and that, "As a whole, products in later cohorts (2016, 2019, 2022) demonstrated lower concentrations of all heavy metals tested as compared with those in 2014, with significantly lower concentrations of lead documented between the years 2022 vs. 2014 and the years 2019 vs. 2014." https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/nutrition/articles/10.3389/fnut.2024.1366231/abstract https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/nutrition/articles/10.3... It's not that surprising that the lowest cost "flavoring" cocoa would be contaminated, but for high priced chocolates not to know their suppliers would be more surprising.
- dTal 2y ago
  The issue is that the cocoa plant itself absorbs heavy metals from the ground like nobody's business. It's hard to get lead-free chocolate, full stop - no irresponsible supplier required.
  - kurthr 2y ago
    Yes, but unless it’s incredibly boutique, the buyer would both be tasting the beans and running tests on the product. It’s not that hard/expensive. The large low margin chocolate manufacturers (Mars, Mendelez) definitely already test, and they already know which of their suppliers have Cd problems in their soil. It isn’t something that changes year to year (although processing/fermentation effects on Pb can) especially if it’s monitored. The smaller suppliers only buy from a few bean producers and rarely switch because they’re looking for a particular flavor/quality. They would really notice if there was change in bean process, just like with coffee. Even they test and have higher incentives, because their customers have choices. https://spinnakerchocolate.com/blogs/blog/from-farm-to-factory-where-does-chocolate-come-from https://spinnakerchocolate.com/blogs/blog/from-farm-to-facto... So if you’re looking for zero eat something else, but modern sourcing can reliably be below CA standards (as shown by the very study cited in the OP).
martinpw 2y ago
Strange that they do not actually disclose which brands have the high levels, and not sure I understand the logic in this statement: “We do not disclose the names of companies we test in order to maintain fairness and consistency and to avoid potential conflicts of interest,” Bowen said. Also note that later in their document (page 8) they do list brands that they certify as clean: https://cleanlabelproject.org/wp-content/uploads/CleanLabelProject_ProteinStudyWhitepaper_010625.pdf https://cleanlabelproject.org/wp-content/uploads/CleanLabelP... One cynical take I read on this is that this is a way to get more companies to sign up for their certification.
- nine_k 2y ago
  If it were a report of a dangerous software bug, the discovering team would first contact the affected vendor, have it patched, and then report the details. I could imagine this being done to the powder producers, so they could pull the affected products before a huge PR backlash. Were it the case though, they likely would mention that.
  - jchw 2y ago
    For a software exploit the reason why "responsible disclosure" exists is that once the exploit is known, it can be used against innocent parties running unpatched software. No obvious such impetus exists for faulty or dangerous supplements, and in fact I'd argue it's absolutely the opposite, it would be much more likely to reach the people who are currently being hurt by this if the product SKUs impacted were known.
    - hunter-gatherer 2y ago
      I agree, as someone who literally just drank a chocolate flavored whey protein shake 10 minutes before reading this.
  - Taek 2y ago
    Responsible disclosure is about harm minimization. If you tell the world about an exploit, now there are thousands of hackers who have been informed about ways they can harm innocent people. You should only openly disclose a found vulnerability if there's a good chance its already being widely used. But, lead in a food product? You aren't protecting innocent people by hiding the culprit. You don't have thousands of hackers who are going to run around spiking peoples drinks with lead contaminated protein powder. No excuses for this behavior. If you find lead in a product people are ingesting, you need to tell the world all of the details. Otherwise you are a bad actor.
AlexErrant 2y ago
The Clean Label Project did an AMA on Reddit, and people raised issues regarding their reporting, methodology, and data. I see they haven't learned anything in the intervening 7 years. https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/64mpty/we_are_the_clean_label_project_a_nonprofit_that/?share_id=sSQly9rPFtevLwErnCJcw https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/64mpty/we_are_the_cle...
- likeabatterycar 2y ago
  They did an exposé on solvent use in decaf coffee and listed Peet's Coffee (a local SF brand) as having traces of methylene chloride. Yet Peet's claims to only use the Swiss Water (or similar) process to produce their decaf, possibly as of a few years ago. It's possible they changed the process after the tests were done. The study looked dated but wasn't presented as such, and didn't caveat it with any updates. It's hard to know if Peet's changed their ways in response to the report, and if that was the case I think a disclosure is warranted. In the end I was presented with conflicting information and didn't know who to believe. Was the data old? Was it a false positive? Did Peet's decaffeination supplier pull a fast one and was secretly using a cheaper method? (Nearly all decaffeination is outsourced.) More info here: https://www.usatoday.com/story/life/health-wellness/2024/05/09/is-decaf-coffee-bad-for-you/73359547007/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/life/health-wellness/2024/05/... The Clean Label Project, a nonprofit that fights for food labeling transparency, found that several popular coffee brands including Kirkland Signature, Kroger, Maxwell House and Peet's Coffee included traces of methylene chloride, a liquid sometimes used for paint stripping that in large doses can cause a slew of health issues. (A representative for Peet's told USA TODAY the brand switched to a different means of decaffeination more than two years ago.)
- chefandy 2y ago
  Based on that and this article, it looks like they learned that people writing news stories on them either don't read or don't care about Reddit AMAs.
mirekrusin 2y ago
They should trace/test suppliers. Testing should be continous, required by law.
jger15 2y ago
interesting note regarding chocolate versus vanilla flavoring ala the dark chocolate lead/cadmium report from a few years ago: https://www.consumerreports.org/health/food-safety/lead-and-cadmium-in-dark-chocolate-a8480295550/ https://www.consumerreports.org/health/food-safety/lead-and-...
loeg 2y ago
Not the first time this kind of reporting has surfaced; not the first time from this same organization, either. Same org, 2018: https://cleanlabelproject.org/protein-powder-infographic/ https://cleanlabelproject.org/protein-powder-infographic/ Consumer Reports, 2010: https://www.consumerreports.org/media-room/press-releases/2010/06/investigation-tests-reveal-contaminants-in-many-protein-drinks/ https://www.consumerreports.org/media-room/press-releases/20... Toxicology reports, 2020: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7509468/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7509468/ > The data in the current study suggest that heavy metal exposure via protein powder supplement ingestion does not pose an increased non-carcinogenic risk to human health. Further, no carcinogenic risk was expected from As via ingestion of protein powder supplements. This study demonstrates that health risks of heavy metals in protein powder supplements should be conducted within the context of relevant background exposures and established health based standards instead of the presence of hazardous substances alone. Something similar in India, 2024: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10994440/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10994440/
wumeow 2y ago
The only way to be sure you’re not being poisoned is to get your blood tested. “Safe” brands are considered safe if they test below a certain amount of heavy metals per serving, but any amount of heavy metals is toxic, you probably consume multiple servings per day, and other foods/supplements you consume may also be contaminated. I wish we had functional food safety in this country, but until we do, we’re all on our own.
- malfist 2y ago
  > any amount of heavy metals is toxic That is not the case. Dose makes the poison. Many of the metals we actually need in trace amount to function. Even the ones we don't need, has to reach a certain concentration before they pose any risk to us. And this reporting is pure FUD. Even the "high concentration" items were below the risk threshold
dehrmann 2y ago
Unlike in paint, there isn't an obvious reason for lead to show up in protein powders, so it must be something like bioaccumulation exacerbated by processing. How can we grow plans with less lead?
- marcosdumay 2y ago
  It could also be dust accumulating in ingredients exposed to the air.
- loeg 2y ago
  It’s in the milk because it’s in the cows because it’s in the cows’ food because it’s in the soil.
wileydragonfly 2y ago
Spend some time talking to a trainer to professional sports. Regarding supplements, a lot of them have meth in them and the pro athletes don’t know but they start telling their friends “hey, this one gets results!” And then the entire team tests positive.
- loeg 2y ago
  No major brand is putting meth in their protein powder. They would destroy their reputation and go to jail.
- OutOfHere 2y ago
  I wouldn't use random blends of workout supplements. I would stick to individual substances. It's easy to find lots of things that legitimately get results by just looking at the WADA ban list.
sva_ 2y ago
> Of the products tested, a staggering 47% exceeded California Proposition 65 safety thresholds for toxic metals. Organic products, on average, showed higher levels of heavy metal contamination, with three times more lead and twice the amount of cadmium compared to non-organic products. Plant-based protein powders were particularly concerning, showing three times more lead than whey-based alternatives, and chocolate-flavored powders contained four times more lead than vanilla. Meager report. Are they saying organic whey is more likely to have lead than non-organic whey, or is it just that organic products are more likely to be plant-based? Chocolate... just the usual suspect I guess[0]. I'm taking away from this that non-flavored whey is probably fine. 0. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38038465 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38038465
RobotToaster 2y ago
It should be noted that the report says they sourced many of them from amazon, who are notorious for having sellers who sell counterfeit supplements and cosmetics. They also co-mingle inventory, putting all units of a product from multiple sellers into one "bucket", so even if you buy a product from an official store on there it can be fake.
ggm 2y ago
Novak Djokovic accused Australian covid hotels of poisoning him with heavy metals in 2022. I'm wondering if he uses supplement powders or has a thing for protein boosted chocolate milkshakes.
d_burfoot 2y ago
I think to be complete this report needs to compare the levels of heavy metals found in the protein powders to levels found in regular foods like peas or brown rice, since that's where the metals are coming from. Is there some reason to believe that the protein isolation process would tend to concentrate heavy metals to a higher degree than is found in the source foods?
- loeg 2y ago
  It’s just coming from the source foods, yes, and Americans already eat these minute quantities of heavy metals on a regular basis from other sources. This paper makes some attempt to put the numbers in context: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7509468/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7509468/
brador 2y ago
Lead and cadmium WITH NAMES in dark chocolate: https://www.consumerreports.org/health/food-safety/lead-and-cadmium-in-dark-chocolate-a8480295550/ https://www.consumerreports.org/health/food-safety/lead-and-...

89 points by mikhael 2y ago

Original source: https://cleanlabelproject.org/wp-content/uploads/CleanLabelProject_ProteinStudyWhitepaper_010625.pdf https://cleanlabelproject.org/wp-content/uploads/CleanLabelP...

buu700 2y ago

I use PlantFusion in my pre/post-workout protein shakes (in combination with Transparent Labs whey protein isolate and a couple different types of collagen powder), and this was one of the reasons I liked it: https://plantfusion.com/pages/faq https://plantfusion.com/pages/faq IS PLANTFUSION TESTED FOR HEAVY METALS? Yes, we do indeed do third party testing on all our PlantFusion products. There’s been a whole lot of attention lately on heavy metals in nutritional supplements. Particularly those products on the market containing brown rice and/or brown rice syrup. In the early development of PlantFusion, we found through our own research and testing that brown rice protein typically had levels of certain heavy metals (namely lead, arsenic and cadmium) that were many times higher than our other plant protein sources. Because of this, and a few other factors, we opted to take brown rice out of all of our formulas and continue to test for heavy metals within our products to ensure safety and efficacy.

swatcoder 2y ago
While that's more reassuring than no statement at all, I'd suggest keeping in mind that claims and actions don't always align and that leadership changes -- as when a startup folds in new investors or gets sold whiledale -- can and do exploit exactly the kind of trust you're investing here. What you like about a small brand like this today could change tomorrow, or could have already changed in way that someone conveniently "forgot" to reflect on the website. Everybody's got their own standards for risk tolerance and due diligence, but in historically shady markets like nutritional supplements and growth-chasing startups, soft skepticism and ongoing vigilance have some place.
- buu700 2y ago
  Yeah, it's not definitive, but was nice to see it addressed at all. GPT mostly corroborates their basic claim at least, with the caveat that one of the five protein sources in use (algae) can be high-risk depending on where it was sourced from. I would of course much prefer if they published a certificate of analysis for each batch.
  - teaearlgraycold 2y ago
    > GPT mostly corroborates their basic claim at least What exactly did you ask it?
    - buu700 2y ago
      Q: Is it true that rice protein is more likely to be contaminated with heavy metals than other plant proteins? What about pea, artichoke, sprouted amaranth, quinoa, and algae? A: Yes, *rice protein* is more likely to be contaminated with heavy metals compared to some other plant proteins. This is due to *rice’s natural tendency to absorb heavy metals, particularly arsenic, cadmium, and lead, from soil and water*. Here’s a breakdown of why this occurs and how it compares to other plant proteins: ... ### Conclusion - *Rice protein* has a higher likelihood of heavy metal contamination, particularly arsenic, compared to other plant proteins like pea, artichoke, and quinoa. - *Algae proteins* can also be at higher risk but are safer if sourced from controlled environments. - Pea, artichoke, and sprouted grains (amaranth and quinoa) generally have lower contamination risks but depend on growing conditions. If heavy metal contamination is a concern, choose products from manufacturers that perform third-party testing and provide transparency about their heavy metal levels. Diversifying protein sources is also a practical way to reduce risk.
      - teaearlgraycold 2y ago
        I have also heard of rice being a risk for heavy metal consumption (especially brown rice). But I don’t trust GPT too much for anything I’m not an expert on. I’ve seen it be wrong often enough for things I know a lot about. Even things I would have expected to appear frequently in the training data.
cgh 2y ago
You were right to be concerned. From the article: "Plant-based protein powders were the most contaminated, containing five times more cadmium than their whey-based counterparts."
jpmattia 2y ago
It raises the question: Where are things like arsenic and cadmium coming from? Is it in the brown rice to begin with? If so, why?
- SoftTalker 2y ago
  Pollution, and depending on location it could be from naturally occurring deposits.
  - jpmattia 2y ago
    Same question as in the other comment: Are warnings issued about the protein powders but not the original rice the powder is made from?
- hollerith 2y ago
  Plants must extract nutrients from the soil. An important such nutrient is phosphorus. Because arsenic is chemically similar to phosphorus, any arsenic in the soil will get extracted also, ending up in the plant. The soil in Louisiana and Arkansas, which is good for growing rice, happens to be high in (naturally-occurring) arsenic.
  - andhuman 2y ago
    Important to note is that when arsenic is in rice, a lot of it is organic arsenic and therefore not easily picked up by the body like inorganic arsenic.
  - jpmattia 2y ago
    So is the rice itself also high in arsenic/cadmium? ie, are people issuing warnings about the protein powders but not the original material the powder is made from?
    - hollerith 2y ago
      Rice grown in Louisiana and Arkansas (i.e., most rice grown in the US) is indeed high in arsenic. My guess is that the protein powders are made from brown rice or even rice bran and rice germ whereas most rice in the US is eaten as white rice (i.e., rice without bran or germ). I'm guessing that makes a difference. Also, if you cook rice as if it were pasta (i.e., in much more water than needed, which is then discarded at the end of cooking) as recommended by the USDA, the amount of arsenic is cut in half. The manufacturers of protein powders probably don't bother to process the rice this way (whereas I do when I cook rice).
dehrmann 2y ago
$38 per pound for protein powder?
- buu700 2y ago
  Looks like I'm paying $16.57/lb for PlantFusion on Amazon and $27.27/lb for Transparent Labs on their website. I didn't find any better keto-friendly options without artificial sweeteners, but it's not a massive expense all things considered. Edit: Ah, yeah, I see that the PlantFusion website charges $38/lb. (Less than that if you buy bigger packages and subscribe, but still more than Amazon.) Not sure what the deal with that is.
  - dublinben 2y ago
    TrueNutrition has unflavored protein powders (pea, whey, etc.) starting at only $15/lb. You can even make your own custom blends. No affiliation, just a satisfied customer.
    - buu700 2y ago
      Nice, thanks for the recommendation! That looks like an awesome product, definitely something I'd consider experimenting with in the future. I was able to put together a blend that's pretty close to my current mix: https://truenutrition.com/products/protein-customizer?grass-fed-whey-protein-concentrate=40&grass-fed-hydrolyzed-beef-collagen=10&multi-collagen=15&marine-collagen=5&hemp-protein-powder=5&alfalfa-greens-protein-powder=5&cranplus-protein=15&pumpkinplus-protein=5&branched-chain-aminos-boost=true&trueflavor-horchata=regular&protein-enzyme-boost=true&package=jug https://truenutrition.com/products/protein-customizer?grass-... A few areas I'd like to see improved: * The variety of plant proteins could be wider. Or even better, they could add a pre-configured plant protein blend that they vouch for in terms of taste/texture/mixability. As-is, it seems like I'd be taking a shot in the dark to approximate something similar to PlantFusion, and I'd be concerned about that requiring a lot of trial and error to get a palatable end result. (On the other hand, maybe sticking to just the pea/cranberry protein would be good enough, and for extra diversity I could use a little bit less plant protein and throw in some egg protein.) * I don't love that most of the flavors contain guar gum. Not that it's particularly harmful as far as I know, just seems unnecessary. It looks like horchata, orange cream, and chai latte may be the only stevia flavors without guar gum, which would be pretty limiting if I were to restrict myself to those flavors. More generally, it would be nice if you could just pick whatever flavor you wanted independently of the sweetener, and maybe have guar gum as an additional option if you really wanted it. * More variety in the "boost" ingredients would be nice. For example, my current collagen powders (Nature Target marine collagen and multi-collagen) include hyaluronic acid, elastin, and a few other minor ingredients that I'd consider adding given the option. * A grass-fed whey protein isolate option would be nice, since that's what I currently use, but concentrate is close enough to isolate that this is basically nitpicking. * And of course some assurance of heavy metal testing would be great, if they don't have this already (I didn't see it anywhere). It would save a bit of time and space to be able to switch to that, though, so I'll pass along my feedback to the company and keep an eye on it for the future.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

Lucasoato 2y ago

> 451: Unavailable due to legal reasons. We recognize you are attempting to access this website from a country belonging to the European Economic Area (EEA) including the EU which enforces the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and therefore access cannot be granted at this time. https://archive.is/ZkH7e https://archive.is/ZkH7e

baxtr 2y ago
Thanks EU for 100s of hours wasted clicking stupid meaningless banners and additionally this now.
- stavros 2y ago
  Yeah if there's a law against corporations selling my phone number to spammers, and the corporations don't want to bother showing me anything if they can't sell my phone number to spammers, that's not the law's fault.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
- tsimionescu 2y ago
  This, but actually true. I'm always grateful when a site announces upfront they can't be bothered to respect my privacy, so I don't accidentally browse their content.
  - wjholden 2y ago
    Not saying you're wrong, but there is another possible reason. I often see this kind of thing on very local news websites in the USA. I think it's possible that small-town newspapers simply doesn't believe their local news has any readership in the EU/EEA, but that there is some small chance they could be maliciously targeted for non-compliance with a faraway law.
    - 2y ago

baxtr 2y ago

Is there anything similar for Europe available?

badgersnake 2y ago
Lead is available in the water supply thanks to old pipework in Europe. You have to find the right building though. Cadmium, I’m not sure. Maybe suck an old rechargeable battery?
- baxtr 2y ago
  :))) Not helpful, but funny I have to admit!
- pkaye 2y ago
  Just suck on dark chocolate as it contains both.
manmal 2y ago
5 years old, but here goes: https://www.test.de/Eiweisspulver-im-Test-1617462-1618800/ https://www.test.de/Eiweisspulver-im-Test-1617462-1618800/

cjoelrun 2y ago

Some resources I've used: https://www.consumerlab.com/ https://www.consumerlab.com/ https://blueprint.bryanjohnson.com/pages/coas#certs https://blueprint.bryanjohnson.com/pages/coas#certs

lr4444lr 2y ago
+1 for ConsumerLab. It's almost embarrassing how many products they test and how lucid their write-ups as compared with the FDA given their respective budgets.
airstrike 2y ago
I love how blueprint's olive oil is actually called "snake oil" https://blueprint.bryanjohnson.com/cdn/shop/files/EVOOfront.png?v=1731719329&width=1296 https://blueprint.bryanjohnson.com/cdn/shop/files/EVOOfront....

kurthr 2y ago

It's interesting that in the main study this is based on (for metals rather than BPA etc) they state both that the average results are dominated by outliers and that, "As a whole, products in later cohorts (2016, 2019, 2022) demonstrated lower concentrations of all heavy metals tested as compared with those in 2014, with significantly lower concentrations of lead documented between the years 2022 vs. 2014 and the years 2019 vs. 2014." https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/nutrition/articles/10.3389/fnut.2024.1366231/abstract https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/nutrition/articles/10.3... It's not that surprising that the lowest cost "flavoring" cocoa would be contaminated, but for high priced chocolates not to know their suppliers would be more surprising.

dTal 2y ago
The issue is that the cocoa plant itself absorbs heavy metals from the ground like nobody's business. It's hard to get lead-free chocolate, full stop - no irresponsible supplier required.
- kurthr 2y ago
  Yes, but unless it’s incredibly boutique, the buyer would both be tasting the beans and running tests on the product. It’s not that hard/expensive. The large low margin chocolate manufacturers (Mars, Mendelez) definitely already test, and they already know which of their suppliers have Cd problems in their soil. It isn’t something that changes year to year (although processing/fermentation effects on Pb can) especially if it’s monitored. The smaller suppliers only buy from a few bean producers and rarely switch because they’re looking for a particular flavor/quality. They would really notice if there was change in bean process, just like with coffee. Even they test and have higher incentives, because their customers have choices. https://spinnakerchocolate.com/blogs/blog/from-farm-to-factory-where-does-chocolate-come-from https://spinnakerchocolate.com/blogs/blog/from-farm-to-facto... So if you’re looking for zero eat something else, but modern sourcing can reliably be below CA standards (as shown by the very study cited in the OP).

martinpw 2y ago

Strange that they do not actually disclose which brands have the high levels, and not sure I understand the logic in this statement: “We do not disclose the names of companies we test in order to maintain fairness and consistency and to avoid potential conflicts of interest,” Bowen said. Also note that later in their document (page 8) they do list brands that they certify as clean: https://cleanlabelproject.org/wp-content/uploads/CleanLabelProject_ProteinStudyWhitepaper_010625.pdf https://cleanlabelproject.org/wp-content/uploads/CleanLabelP... One cynical take I read on this is that this is a way to get more companies to sign up for their certification.

nine_k 2y ago
If it were a report of a dangerous software bug, the discovering team would first contact the affected vendor, have it patched, and then report the details. I could imagine this being done to the powder producers, so they could pull the affected products before a huge PR backlash. Were it the case though, they likely would mention that.
- jchw 2y ago
  For a software exploit the reason why "responsible disclosure" exists is that once the exploit is known, it can be used against innocent parties running unpatched software. No obvious such impetus exists for faulty or dangerous supplements, and in fact I'd argue it's absolutely the opposite, it would be much more likely to reach the people who are currently being hurt by this if the product SKUs impacted were known.
  - hunter-gatherer 2y ago
    I agree, as someone who literally just drank a chocolate flavored whey protein shake 10 minutes before reading this.
- Taek 2y ago
  Responsible disclosure is about harm minimization. If you tell the world about an exploit, now there are thousands of hackers who have been informed about ways they can harm innocent people. You should only openly disclose a found vulnerability if there's a good chance its already being widely used. But, lead in a food product? You aren't protecting innocent people by hiding the culprit. You don't have thousands of hackers who are going to run around spiking peoples drinks with lead contaminated protein powder. No excuses for this behavior. If you find lead in a product people are ingesting, you need to tell the world all of the details. Otherwise you are a bad actor.

AlexErrant 2y ago

The Clean Label Project did an AMA on Reddit, and people raised issues regarding their reporting, methodology, and data. I see they haven't learned anything in the intervening 7 years. https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/64mpty/we_are_the_clean_label_project_a_nonprofit_that/?share_id=sSQly9rPFtevLwErnCJcw https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/64mpty/we_are_the_cle...

likeabatterycar 2y ago
They did an exposé on solvent use in decaf coffee and listed Peet's Coffee (a local SF brand) as having traces of methylene chloride. Yet Peet's claims to only use the Swiss Water (or similar) process to produce their decaf, possibly as of a few years ago. It's possible they changed the process after the tests were done. The study looked dated but wasn't presented as such, and didn't caveat it with any updates. It's hard to know if Peet's changed their ways in response to the report, and if that was the case I think a disclosure is warranted. In the end I was presented with conflicting information and didn't know who to believe. Was the data old? Was it a false positive? Did Peet's decaffeination supplier pull a fast one and was secretly using a cheaper method? (Nearly all decaffeination is outsourced.) More info here: https://www.usatoday.com/story/life/health-wellness/2024/05/09/is-decaf-coffee-bad-for-you/73359547007/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/life/health-wellness/2024/05/... The Clean Label Project, a nonprofit that fights for food labeling transparency, found that several popular coffee brands including Kirkland Signature, Kroger, Maxwell House and Peet's Coffee included traces of methylene chloride, a liquid sometimes used for paint stripping that in large doses can cause a slew of health issues. (A representative for Peet's told USA TODAY the brand switched to a different means of decaffeination more than two years ago.)
chefandy 2y ago
Based on that and this article, it looks like they learned that people writing news stories on them either don't read or don't care about Reddit AMAs.

mirekrusin 2y ago

They should trace/test suppliers. Testing should be continous, required by law.

jger15 2y ago

interesting note regarding chocolate versus vanilla flavoring ala the dark chocolate lead/cadmium report from a few years ago: https://www.consumerreports.org/health/food-safety/lead-and-cadmium-in-dark-chocolate-a8480295550/ https://www.consumerreports.org/health/food-safety/lead-and-...

loeg 2y ago

Not the first time this kind of reporting has surfaced; not the first time from this same organization, either. Same org, 2018: https://cleanlabelproject.org/protein-powder-infographic/ https://cleanlabelproject.org/protein-powder-infographic/ Consumer Reports, 2010: https://www.consumerreports.org/media-room/press-releases/2010/06/investigation-tests-reveal-contaminants-in-many-protein-drinks/ https://www.consumerreports.org/media-room/press-releases/20... Toxicology reports, 2020: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7509468/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7509468/ > The data in the current study suggest that heavy metal exposure via protein powder supplement ingestion does not pose an increased non-carcinogenic risk to human health. Further, no carcinogenic risk was expected from As via ingestion of protein powder supplements. This study demonstrates that health risks of heavy metals in protein powder supplements should be conducted within the context of relevant background exposures and established health based standards instead of the presence of hazardous substances alone. Something similar in India, 2024: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10994440/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10994440/

wumeow 2y ago

The only way to be sure you’re not being poisoned is to get your blood tested. “Safe” brands are considered safe if they test below a certain amount of heavy metals per serving, but any amount of heavy metals is toxic, you probably consume multiple servings per day, and other foods/supplements you consume may also be contaminated. I wish we had functional food safety in this country, but until we do, we’re all on our own.

malfist 2y ago
> any amount of heavy metals is toxic That is not the case. Dose makes the poison. Many of the metals we actually need in trace amount to function. Even the ones we don't need, has to reach a certain concentration before they pose any risk to us. And this reporting is pure FUD. Even the "high concentration" items were below the risk threshold

dehrmann 2y ago

Unlike in paint, there isn't an obvious reason for lead to show up in protein powders, so it must be something like bioaccumulation exacerbated by processing. How can we grow plans with less lead?

marcosdumay 2y ago
It could also be dust accumulating in ingredients exposed to the air.
loeg 2y ago
It’s in the milk because it’s in the cows because it’s in the cows’ food because it’s in the soil.

wileydragonfly 2y ago

Spend some time talking to a trainer to professional sports. Regarding supplements, a lot of them have meth in them and the pro athletes don’t know but they start telling their friends “hey, this one gets results!” And then the entire team tests positive.

loeg 2y ago
No major brand is putting meth in their protein powder. They would destroy their reputation and go to jail.
OutOfHere 2y ago
I wouldn't use random blends of workout supplements. I would stick to individual substances. It's easy to find lots of things that legitimately get results by just looking at the WADA ban list.

sva_ 2y ago

> Of the products tested, a staggering 47% exceeded California Proposition 65 safety thresholds for toxic metals. Organic products, on average, showed higher levels of heavy metal contamination, with three times more lead and twice the amount of cadmium compared to non-organic products. Plant-based protein powders were particularly concerning, showing three times more lead than whey-based alternatives, and chocolate-flavored powders contained four times more lead than vanilla. Meager report. Are they saying organic whey is more likely to have lead than non-organic whey, or is it just that organic products are more likely to be plant-based? Chocolate... just the usual suspect I guess[0]. I'm taking away from this that non-flavored whey is probably fine. 0. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38038465 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38038465

RobotToaster 2y ago

It should be noted that the report says they sourced many of them from amazon, who are notorious for having sellers who sell counterfeit supplements and cosmetics. They also co-mingle inventory, putting all units of a product from multiple sellers into one "bucket", so even if you buy a product from an official store on there it can be fake.

ggm 2y ago

Novak Djokovic accused Australian covid hotels of poisoning him with heavy metals in 2022. I'm wondering if he uses supplement powders or has a thing for protein boosted chocolate milkshakes.

d_burfoot 2y ago

I think to be complete this report needs to compare the levels of heavy metals found in the protein powders to levels found in regular foods like peas or brown rice, since that's where the metals are coming from. Is there some reason to believe that the protein isolation process would tend to concentrate heavy metals to a higher degree than is found in the source foods?

loeg 2y ago
It’s just coming from the source foods, yes, and Americans already eat these minute quantities of heavy metals on a regular basis from other sources. This paper makes some attempt to put the numbers in context: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7509468/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7509468/

brador 2y ago

Lead and cadmium WITH NAMES in dark chocolate: https://www.consumerreports.org/health/food-safety/lead-and-cadmium-in-dark-chocolate-a8480295550/ https://www.consumerreports.org/health/food-safety/lead-and-...