Lead and cadmium found in muscle-building protein powders, report says | Hacker News Reader

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

wqow.com

89 pointsmikhael92 comments

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/CleanLabelP...

One cynical take I read on this is that this is a way to get more companies to sign up for their certification.

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.

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.

I agree, as someone who literally just drank a chocolate flavored whey protein shake 10 minutes before reading this.

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.

> 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.

The only real defense for Clean Label's behavior here is that the lead levels found are too low to be harmful, so it's not like people are being harmed by their lack of disclosure. (Still a bad actor, but because they're trying to shake down brands, not because they're abetting poisoning consumers.)

Any amount of lead is harmful. There is no such thing as too low.

That's not really how anything works. The dose makes the poison.

This paper claims that the arsenic and cadmium levels are a bigger concern, but still not meaningful: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7509468/

> The EPA adult lead model (ALM) was selected to estimate adult BLLs, as the EPA recommended this model for assessments of non-residential Pb exposures that result in BLLs <25 μg/L [43]. A baseline adult BLL of 1.27 μg/dL was used, which was the calculated weighted geometric mean of BLLs in adults aged 20 years or older during the 2005–2012 NHANES survey years [40].

> Gastrointestinal absorption of Pb was conservatively assumed to be 20%.

> The calculated CDI range for heavy metals in 1–3 servings of protein powder supplements identified by Consumer Reports were: 0.2–16.9 μg/day for As, 0–5.6 μg/day for Cd, 0–1.1 μg/day for Hg, and 0–13.5 μg/day for Pb.

> The calculated CDI range for heavy metals in 1–3 servings of protein powder supplements identified by the Clean Label Project were: 0.09–10.3 μg/day for As, 0.03–39.5 μg/day for Cd, 0.04–2.92 μg/day for Hg, and 0.09–15.9 μg/day for Pb.

> None of the estimated BLLs exceeded the CDC guidance value of 5 μg/dL, for all examined exposure scenarios. The highest estimated BLLs were 2.24 (+0.97 from baseline) μg/dL and 1.50 (+0.23 from baseline) μg/dL, using data from the US Consumer Reports and Clean Label Project, respectively.

> Overall, findings from this analysis suggest that consumption of protein powder supplements containing As, Cd, Pb, and Hg is not associated with an increased risk of non-carcinogenic health effects due to heavy metal exposure.

> The amount of Pb an individual ingests via food is largely dependent on the Pb concentrations found in the soil, air, and water that the food was grown in Bolger et al. [24], Khandekar et al. [25] and Marin et al. [26]. Anthropogenic sources of Pb, such as the proximity to industries producing Pb emissions impact the levels of Pb in food. According to IARC [27], in the United States, the estimated daily dietary intake of Pb is ∼83 μg/day (based on a market basket survey) [27]. However, dietary intake of Pb can vary depending on geological location, for example, the daily dietary intake may range from 7 μg/day (in Malaysia) to 230 μg/day (in Belgium) [27]. For comparison, the mean Pb exposure from ingestion of three servings of protein powder supplements was 3.52 μg/day; the highest daily exposure potential was 13.5 μg/day (calculated based on Consumer Reports data).

> Together, this analysis indicates that relative to the average daily human exposure potential reported for As, Cd, Pb, and Hg from food and drink, ingestion of protein powder supplements contributes to only a fraction of the heavy metal body burdens for each heavy metal. Further, even in individuals that ingest three servings of protein powder supplements per day (potentially in individuals ingesting protein powder supplements as meal replacements), daily heavy metal (As, Cd, Pb, and Hg) concentrations ingested are well below the reported average daily heavy metal concentrations ingested by the general population.

Any amount of Lead is poisonous.

For chronic exposure, yes. You don't want it to be in your food all the time. But accidentally eating a tiny bit once would be safe.

That’s the whole point of this article. Many people will consume multiple servings of protein shake per day for most of their life, and they’re contaminated.

They're contaminated at levels comparable to other foods people eat (baseline).

A tiny amount of lead is a tiny bit poisonous. Magnitude matters.

And time. People with a bll level 76% above baseline will wonder in ten years why they have coordination problems and trouble thinking.

That's the point -- the worst of these products don't have levels above baseline!

With an average US blood lead level of about 1 microgram per deciliter, an increase of 76% is still less than 2 micrograms per deciliter which would have an imperceptible impact on any neurological function for an individual. People with even a tenfold (1000%) increase above baseline don't show perceptible coordination problems. Not writing to have an argument. Just see a lot of people who suffer from misperception of the impacts of tiny levels of contaminants, people lose sleep non-stop worry, sometimes even lose the equity in their "contaminated" house by walking away from their loan due to misinformation about risk.

They could just report their findings to the FDA if above allowable limits.

Wtf? Responsible disclosure is definitely NOT about avoiding PR backlash.

It's definitely in promotion of their certification, yeah.

Promoting the certification would explain concealing the offending products. If CleanLabel reveals, it will discourage other companies from getting the certification. A lead test should be required by law i.m.o.

How much does testing cost? Curious about my protein powder.

This would be cool as a crowd funded thing with publicly shared results of various products.

The charitable reading is that this was done as a blinded study, so the testers/researchers would not know and would prevent bias in the testing and data analysis.

There should be a way to unblind in most experiment designs though

More along the lines of avoiding lawsuits. Supplement companies sue the fuck out of everyone, since the competition is so steep for essentially selling nothing/waste products/similar (penny production to dollar margins).

https://retractionwatch.com/2024/07/18/supplement-maker-sues...

The lawsuits angle is nonsense since there are other sites that list various tested levels.

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_cle...

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/...

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.)

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.

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/10.3...

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.

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.

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-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).

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

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.

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.

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.

> GPT mostly corroborates their basic claim at least

What exactly did you ask it?

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.

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.

Yeah, I pretty much see it like something in between Wikipedia and reddit. It's great as a first pass for really specific questions that Google wouldn't help much with, especially when they require follow-up, but I wouldn't treat any of the output as more reliable than random hearsay until verifying it against an authoritative source.

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."

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?

Pollution, and depending on location it could be from naturally occurring deposits.

Same question as in the other comment: Are warnings issued about the protein powders but not the original rice the powder is made from?

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.

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.

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?

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).

It sounds like there should be warnings on the raw elements of protein powders, not just the powders, which makes me think (adjusts tinfoil hat to filter proper wavelengths) that the issue raised by the original article is more about FUD and selling their version of protein powder.

Maybe, maybe not: there is not a lot of protein in rice, and it might be that whatever process is used to extract the protein from the rice also extracts most of the arsenic and that the process of making white rice (again, the kind most Americans eat) gets rid of most of the arsenic, making rice-protein powder much higher in arsenic than the same amount of calories of white rice.

$38 per pound for protein powder?

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.

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.

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-...

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.

(Although PlantFusion includes guar gum too, so maybe that point was overly nitpicky. It just seemed odd to make that variable dependent on your choice of flavor.)

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/

Consumer Reports, 2010: https://www.consumerreports.org/media-room/press-releases/20...

Toxicology reports, 2020: 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/

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

+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.

I love how blueprint's olive oil is actually called "snake oil" https://blueprint.bryanjohnson.com/cdn/shop/files/EVOOfront....

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.

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

> 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

> 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

Thanks EU for 100s of hours wasted clicking stupid meaningless banners and additionally this now.

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.

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.

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.

Not even small chance. Any mention of a person's name where that name might be the same as that of a European person and suddenly they're getting nonsense GPDR requests. It totally makes sense to wall off Europe.

Any proof of this being a problem for small American news sites?

If it wasn't a problem, they wouldn't be doing this.

They would, if they know they're breaking GDPR rules about selling the personal data of visitors.

Sounds like a GDPR problem yes.

Many perfectly respect your privacy but don't want to be bothered reading 100 pages vague legal document from the EU.

I think it’s more likely that they don’t care what happens with your data. They simply install that JS payload and check the revenue at the end of the month.

AKA we won’t run a website without selling your data.

Just flag it (probably spyware site) and move on.

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.

> 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

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?

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/

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-...

Lead and cadmium WITH NAMES in dark chocolate:

https://www.consumerreports.org/health/food-safety/lead-and-...

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.

No major brand is putting meth in their protein powder. They would destroy their reputation and go to jail.

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.

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?

It could also be dust accumulating in ingredients exposed to the air.

It’s in the milk because it’s in the cows because it’s in the cows’ food because it’s in the soil.

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.

They should trace/test suppliers.

Testing should be continous, required by law.

Is there anything similar for Europe available?

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?

:))) Not helpful, but funny I have to admit!

Just suck on dark chocolate as it contains both.

5 years old, but here goes: https://www.test.de/Eiweisspulver-im-Test-1617462-1618800/

Reply on news.ycombinator.com