Consumer Reports, a nonprofit organization that provides product ratings, recently issued a report detailing the results of its testing 23 popular protein powders. The company’s results were a composite of multiple samples of each product taken from different lots over a three-month period, all of which were purchased anonymously.

The company found that more than two-thirds of the products tested contained levels of lead that were above what the organization reports is safe to consume in a day, with the threshold being 0.5 micrograms.

The organization noted that lead levels were higher than in the first round of testing it conducted 15 years ago, and outliers were significantly more concentrated. “We advise against daily use for most protein powders, since many have high levels of heavy metals and none are necessary to hit your protein goals,” Tunde Akinleye, chemist and food safety researcher at Consumer Reports, told Paris Martineau, reporter at the organization. “For many people, there’s more to lose than you’re gaining.”

Consumer Reports noted that plant-based products, on average, contained nine times the amount of lead found in protein products made with dairy proteins like whey, and twice as much as beef-based proteins. Half of the dairy-based protein products tested exceeded Consumer Reports’ 0.5-microgram threshold, at which experts advise against daily use. Some outliers include Naked Nutrition’s Vegan Mass Gainer, which contained 7.7 micrograms of lead per serving; Huel’s Black Edition powder, which contained 6.3 micrograms; Garden of Life’s Sport Organic Plant-based Protein (2.76 micrograms); and Momentous’ 100% Plant Protein (2.33 micrograms). The only non-plant-based protein powder with lead detected at more than two times CR’s level of concern was Carnivor Mass Powder. Notably, all plant-based proteins tested were sourced from peas.

Based on its findings, Consumer Reports also issued an advised number of times per week each product should be taken.

Protein Companies’ Responses

Martineau noted that, after reaching out to the manufacturers of products tested, most of them noted that lead is a naturally occurring element that is difficult to avoid, particularly in plant-based products.

Many manufacturers noted that their products are tested to ensure levels of heavy metals are within safety thresholds set by regulatory organizations and testing companies such as NSF.  

Missing Context

Trade associations were quick to point out that the lead thresholds Consumer Reports used in determining whether a product was acceptable aren’t in line with those used by various regulatory agencies. They also noted that the levels of lead were relatively comparable to certain conventional foods.

Consumer Reports’ levels of concern are based on California’s Prop 65 maximum allowable dose for lead, chosen because it is the most protective lead standard available, the organization noted.

For context, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is updating its reference levels (IRLs) for lead from food and has established interim reference levels to 2.2 micrograms per day for children and 8.8 micrograms per day for women of childbearing age. These levels are part of its Closer to Zero action plan for the food industry to reduce levels of lead in foods, especially those intended for children and women of reproductive age. While the agency notes that no level of lead is safe, these levels set a benchmark for determining whether dietary lead intake is a potential health risk.

FDA estimated in 2019 that the average American adult is exposed to up to 5.3 micrograms of lead each day, mostly from food but also from contaminated air, soil, dust, and, potentially, paint chips.

The Natural Products Association (NPA) denounced Consumer Reports’ claims as “alarmist, misleading, and unscientific,” noting that levels were “far below amounts present in many foods, including some fruits and vegetables.”

“FDA’s position [on interim reference levels] is clear: there’s a difference between detection and danger. Consumer Reports knows that, but it doesn’t fit its narrative,” said Daniel Fabricant, PhD, president and CEO of NPA.  

NPA pointed to a 2020 analysis published in response to prior testing conducted by Consumer Reports, which broke down the hazard indices of protein supplements tested at the time and found that the levels of arsenic, cadmium, mercury, and lead did “not pose an increased non-carcinogenic risk to human health,” authors reported.

NPA also noted that its members conduct ingredient testing under federally mandated current Good Manufacturing Practices (cGMPs) applicable to dietary supplement products, and voluntarily screen for heavy metals using advanced analytical methods to ensure safety and compliance.

“Responsible supplement makers, including those who belong to NPA, are already going above and beyond what the law requires,” said Fabicant. “Meanwhile, Consumer Reports is using scare headlines to undermine the credibility of a $70 billion-plus industry built on transparency, safety, and science. Every time this issue comes up, NPA’s position has been the same: base public health decisions on data, not drama. If any product exceeds safe limits, fix it. But let’s stop pretending that detecting parts per billion of naturally occurring elements reveals a public health emergency.”

The Council for Responsible Nutrition (CRN) also urged caution in interpreting Consumer Reports’ results, noting that the organization wasn’t fully transparent about its methods. While it published details on its testing methodology, its reporting didn’t provide details on how or why products were selected, or whether testing reflected typical consumer use.

“Without harmonization with established federal benchmarks, or even actual safety risk, such proprietary thresholds can overstate risk and cause unnecessary alarm,” said CRN in a statement. The “extraordinarily sensitive” modern testing methods utilized can identify trace amounts of naturally occurring elements found broadly in soil, water, and plants.

Consumer Reports’ level of concern benchmarks “create a misleading impression of risk,” the association stated. “A finding that a product exceeds Consumer Reports’ self-imposed threshold is not the same as exceeding a government safety limit, nor is it evidence of any safety risk to consumers. When products are manufactured and tested in accordance with FDA requirements, levels of naturally occurring elements are expected to remain well within safe ranges. CRN and its members remain committed to transparency, continuous safety monitoring, and to supporting federal science-based standards that provide consumers with confidence without distorting risk.