WingNews logo WingNews GitHub [2]
top | item 42698092

47% of 160 Top Selling Protein Powders Tested Exceed P65 Limit for Toxic Metals [pdf]

74 points| clumsysmurf | 1 year ago |cleanlabelproject.org | reply

58 comments

order
[+] nimbius|1 year ago|reply
This isnt a scientific report, its an advertisement for "clean label evaluated" products. ostensibly those brands that are most engaged with the clean label organization are featured with their logo at the end of the PDF.

you arent supposed to glean enough independent information from this PDF to make an informed decision about anything except the clean label group (that they are good.)

[+] 2099miles|1 year ago|reply
I hate this and came to same conclusion. Here I thought I was going to get some third party tested results of popular brands as a public service. Smh
[+] ericpauley|1 year ago|reply
Very strange that, throughout the report, it is noted that there are "no comprehensive federal regulations specifically targeting dietary exposure to heavy metals" and yet in all their results they present violations as exceeding "federal or state" regulations. What federal regulations are they evaluating if there are none?

Looks like Prop65 lead limits are 20x lower than conventional USP limits, so even exceeding 2x Prop65 puts you 10x below USP limits [1] for daily exposure. A serving of protein powder is ~10% or more of daily caloric needs so this seems perfectly reasonable.

[1] https://goop.com/what-is-prop-65/

[+] abeppu|1 year ago|reply
I'm also confused that it seems that CA OEHHA which sets these limits has separate "No Significant Risk Level" and "Maximum Allowable Dose Level" values for lead, and the NSRLs are 15-58 micrograms/day depending on compound, and the MADL is 0.5 micrograms/day.

Why for lead is the maximum allowable dose much smaller than the no significant risk level? For other cases (e.g. benzene) where there are values for both levels, the MADL is higher than the NSRL.

https://oehha.ca.gov/proposition-65/general-info/proposition...

[+] monitron|1 year ago|reply
Please reconsider citing Gwyneth Paltrow's scammy goop.com.
[+] ziddoap|1 year ago|reply
>What federal regulations are they evaluating if there are none?

"Federal _or state_". They are evaluating against state regulations.

[+] giarc|1 year ago|reply
>This site has been reported as unsafe

>Hosted by cleanlabelproject.org >Microsoft recommends you don't continue to this site. It has been reported to >Microsoft for containing phishing threats which may try to steal personal or >financial information.

[+] aantix|1 year ago|reply
You might as well not even publish the report if you're not listing the offending protein powders.
[+] MattGaiser|1 year ago|reply
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.

[+] felixarba|1 year ago|reply
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?

[+] a12k|1 year ago|reply
Just list them. Why won’t they list them??!?

Reeks of “this one surprising common household object will cause instant death, watch at 10 to find out which.”

[+] peppers-ghost|1 year ago|reply
Fear of retaliation is why they're not naming and shaming. I use labdoor.com for any supplements because they show their work.
[+] kingofheroes|1 year ago|reply
They'll very likely get sued if they do.
[+] bilekas|1 year ago|reply
It would be nice if they actually listed the companies and products that were toxic. That would be useful.
[+] hombre_fatal|1 year ago|reply
The project annoys me every time it pops up.

All that work and no simple table of results?

Here's what the "Best protein powders" button hidden on their site links to: https://cleanlabelproject.org/product-categories/?refinement...

WTF is that UI? And where's the data? What are the measurements? And why isn't it a list of protein powders?

[+] tlackemann|1 year ago|reply
This is my biggest gripe at the moment. I can't find any information on which brands contained which amount of containments.
[+] MattGaiser|1 year ago|reply
Given the margins on supplements, I assume it is to avoid a battalion of lawyers suing them into the ground.
[+] stronglikedan|1 year ago|reply
Well, of course - it's P65 after all. 99% of the products on Earth exceed many of its nonsensical limits.
[+] kreutz|1 year ago|reply
It's criminal that they did not include a list
[+] Melomomololo|1 year ago|reply
We apparently get enough protein due daily consumption and the avg sporty person doesn't need protein powder.

The only significant and obvious thing to take is creatin.

Lots of esoteric believe in the strength/ gym sport.

No you do not need to eat rice and chicken and broccoli every single day for gains just because a steroids taking gym bro does it.

Go to the gym 2-3 times a week, do enough weight that you can't repeat the exercise after 5-15 reps and do 3 sets min.

Magic

[+] tomlue|1 year ago|reply
> We apparently get enough protein due daily consumption and the avg sporty person doesn't need protein powder.

I don't know what that means. The amount of protein people get varies dramatically. Chicken is a remarkably efficient way to get protein. Greek yogurt is also pretty good.

If you haven't measured your protein intake (with an app like myfitnesspal) you should try it.

I always thought I was a pretty knowledgable person when it came to nutrition and my eating habits competely changed when I bothered to look up the calorie and macro count of everything I ate. I also dropped 40 pounds and put on a lot of muscle.

[+] sumtechguy|1 year ago|reply
Someone I know uses them for weight control. Their nutritionist recommended one small glass per day to help control hunger.

But geeze these protein shake/dietary websites are the most dark pattern sites. countdown clocks, hurry only 3 items left and one disappears while you are looking at it, sneaky monthly addons, extra fee at the end. Look I just want to buy a bucket of whatever protein garbage you are selling that will last 2 months. That they have extra junk in them that should not be there, is unsurprising.

[+] javcasas|1 year ago|reply
That's what I thought too. But after 5 years of gym, I wasn't neither bigger nor leaner.

The diet at home was "good enough" - because every unchecked diet is "good enough", regardless of composition. That's what everyone says about their diet.

Turns out diet is 60% of gym gains. I'm saying this with no steroids at all.

[+] compass_copium|1 year ago|reply
Twice the P65 level is 1 ppm lead. That translates to 35 micrograms per serving.

Lead is a naturally occuring element. Clean dirt contains 15 to 40 ppm lead.

You grow plants in dirt. Guess what happens? They take up a little bit of lead. Ideally I would like to eat 0 micrograms of lead, sure, but I'm not worried about tiny unavoidable amounts of lead from my food.

[+] Etheryte|1 year ago|reply
There is no amount of lead that's considered safe for consumption. Anything that's not zero is bad for you, doesn't matter what dirt or whatever has in it.
[+] riiii|1 year ago|reply
The PR guys have arrived.