26 ms·

You might as well not even publish the report if you're not listing the offending protein powders.

by aantix 2y ago

MattGaiser 2y ago
I am not sure anyone outside of an enormous media giant or a government could publish such a report. You would need millions for legal fees in reserve. Little food fraud research ever publishes the offenders unless they are small restaurants and I suspect it is for that reason.
- hombre_fatal 2y ago
  I don't buy it. Posting data measurements would be even more objective than reviewing products yet scathing product reviews aren't litigated, so where is this hunch coming from? Can you post examples of litigation from revealing measurements of branded food products? It doesn't seem to stop anyone from posting heavy metal content in chocolate bar brands.
  - MattGaiser 2y ago
    Most notable case was in Canada. https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/subway-defamation-lawsuit-cbc-chicken-1.5879467 https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/subway-defamation-lawsuit-c... CBC was sued by Subway for figuring out that their chicken was less chicken than one might think.
hombre_fatal 2y ago
Pfft, didn't you check their website? https://cleanlabelproject.org/the-best-worst-protein-powder-products/ https://cleanlabelproject.org/the-best-worst-protein-powder-... Oh... the "worst protein powders" section is just a link to: https://www.consumerreports.org/health/nutrition-healthy-eating/the-truth-about-protein-drinks-a4199144682/ https://www.consumerreports.org/health/nutrition-healthy-eat... I wouldn't be surprised if they have zero data and it's just a money grab for their "certification badge".
- hprotagonist 2y ago
  > Oh... the "worst protein powders" section is just a link to: > https://www.consumerreports.org/health/nutrition-healthy-eat https://www.consumerreports.org/health/nutrition-healthy-eat... paywalled.
- kmoser 2y ago
  I wonder how they determined which ones to test? I thought Orgain was a huge brand of protein powder but I couldn't find it listed.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
felixarba 2y ago
Honestly, like they published every single statistic, except the actual offenders. If it’s such an important mission for them, then why not publish the offenders?
- lazide 2y ago
  Gotta pay the bills somehow, apparently.
- hombre_fatal 2y ago
  I looked into similar projects and the business model seems to be that you pay for certification, they do the test, and they certify your product if it passes. So if they publish poor performers, then it kills their business model because nobody would want to pay for certification if they risk getting revealed as a poor performer. BTW ICP-MS lab tests are like $100/pop which is probably why nobody has a table of real data.

You might as well not even publish the report if you're not listing the offending protein powders.

by aantix 2y ago

You might as well not even publish the report if you're not listing the offending protein powders.

I am not sure anyone outside of an enormous media giant or a government could publish such a report. You would need millions for legal fees in reserve. Little food fraud research ever publishes the offenders unless they are small restaurants and I suspect it is for that reason.

hombre_fatal 2y ago
I don't buy it. Posting data measurements would be even more objective than reviewing products yet scathing product reviews aren't litigated, so where is this hunch coming from? Can you post examples of litigation from revealing measurements of branded food products? It doesn't seem to stop anyone from posting heavy metal content in chocolate bar brands.
- MattGaiser 2y ago
  Most notable case was in Canada. https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/subway-defamation-lawsuit-cbc-chicken-1.5879467 https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/subway-defamation-lawsuit-c... CBC was sued by Subway for figuring out that their chicken was less chicken than one might think.

hombre_fatal 2y ago

Pfft, didn't you check their website? https://cleanlabelproject.org/the-best-worst-protein-powder-products/ https://cleanlabelproject.org/the-best-worst-protein-powder-... Oh... the "worst protein powders" section is just a link to: https://www.consumerreports.org/health/nutrition-healthy-eating/the-truth-about-protein-drinks-a4199144682/ https://www.consumerreports.org/health/nutrition-healthy-eat... I wouldn't be surprised if they have zero data and it's just a money grab for their "certification badge".

hprotagonist 2y ago
> Oh... the "worst protein powders" section is just a link to: > https://www.consumerreports.org/health/nutrition-healthy-eat https://www.consumerreports.org/health/nutrition-healthy-eat... paywalled.
kmoser 2y ago
I wonder how they determined which ones to test? I thought Orgain was a huge brand of protein powder but I couldn't find it listed.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]

felixarba 2y ago

Honestly, like they published every single statistic, except the actual offenders. If it’s such an important mission for them, then why not publish the offenders?

lazide 2y ago
Gotta pay the bills somehow, apparently.
hombre_fatal 2y ago
I looked into similar projects and the business model seems to be that you pay for certification, they do the test, and they certify your product if it passes. So if they publish poor performers, then it kills their business model because nobody would want to pay for certification if they risk getting revealed as a poor performer. BTW ICP-MS lab tests are like $100/pop which is probably why nobody has a table of real data.