Clean Label Project, a Colorado-based non-profit, tested 160 products from 70 leading brands and reported that 47% of these protein powders exceeded California Proposition 65 safety thresholds for toxic metals, with organic products showing even higher contamination levels.
“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,” the report noted. “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.”
Methodology
Clean Label Project pulled from Nielsen’s and Amazon’s best-seller lists to purchase and test 160 of the top-selling protein powders.
From there, Clean Label Project contracted an independent analytical chemistry laboratory, Ellipse Analytics, to test six industrial chemical panels, including heavy metals and BPA. The heavy metals—arsenic, cadmium, lead, and mercury—were tested by Inductively Couple Plasma – Mass Spectroscopy (ICP-MS). Bisphenols and pesticides are tested by Liquid Chromatography – Tandem Mass Spectroscopy (LC-MS/MS).
CRN: Report ‘lacks critical context’
The Council for Responsible Nutrition (CRN) said that while it supports efforts to ensure the safety and quality of dietary supplements, including protein powders, the Clean Label Project lacks critical context and risks misleading consumers rather than empowering them.
“First, it is important to emphasize that the detection of contaminants, as highlighted in this report, does not inherently equate to a health risk,” explained Andrea Wong, senior vice president of scientific & regulatory affairs at CRN. “Modern analytical techniques can detect even trace levels of naturally occurring elements, such as heavy metals, which are present in soil, air and water. These trace levels are often well below established safety thresholds set by federal agencies like the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).”
Science called into question
Wong said that the report’s methodology also warrants scrutiny: “CLP has not provided sufficient transparency regarding how products were selected, the criteria for contamination thresholds or the interpretive framework for their findings. Without such clarity, consumers and industry stakeholders cannot fully evaluate the validity of the claims. CRN urges CLP to publish its findings in peer-reviewed journals and provide recommendations grounded in scientific evidence.”
The Consumer Healthcare Products Association also took issue with the methodologies and lack of peer review:
“This report has not been peer-reviewed nor published in a scientific journal, and the full testing methods have not been provided, so the validity of any conclusions should be considered accordingly,” said Duffy MacKay, senior vice president of dietary supplements at CHPA. “Additional concerns of bias and objectivity arise given the organizations’ dual role in evaluating products as well as offering certifications and only promoting those products they certify.”
While the report does not name brands tested, it does recommend protein powder companies that are Clean Label Project Certified.
How does Prop 65 compare to federal limits?
The report noted that 47% of the protein powders tested exceeded California Proposition 65 safety thresholds for toxic metals.
Prop 65 standards are considered more stringent than federal and international standards. There are various substances that require a Prop 65 warning at levels that are far lower than federal action limits. For example, the Prop 65 standard for warnings for lead is 0.5 micrograms (mcg) per day, while the FDA’s interim reference level for adults is 12.5 mcg/day.
“This report uses the Prop 65 level of 0.5 mcg to call out products as having ’disturbing levels’ of contaminants, but fails to provide context about what Prop 65 levels mean,” Dr. MacKay said. “Prop 65 levels are not meant to represent a safety threshold or a cut-off for unsafe levels, but rather, a standard that triggers a label notification only in the state of California to inform consumers which products contain metals—which are naturally present in most natural sources of food and water."
“However, there are other reference points used for evaluating intake limits including FDA’s current interim reference level for lead as 12.5 mcg/day for adults and USP’s permitted exposure to lead in dietary supplements, which is 10 mcg/day. These are more appropriate to use when evaluating potential contaminants. To put this into context, a 1/2 cup of cooked spinach has 0.9 mcg of lead and would require a Prop 65 warning label, if they were required for whole foods, which they are not,” he added.
CRN’s Dr. Wong noted, “California Proposition 65, frequently referenced in CLP’s findings, imposes limits that are uniquely stringent and not aligned with federal guidelines. For example, it imposes a 1,000-fold safety factor below the level at which no harmful effects have been observed, and it requires labeling of products over that amount, not a ban on them.
“While CLP’s intentions to protect consumers are commendable, the lack of harmonization with FDA or EPA standards can result in unnecessary consumer alarm. CRN has consistently advocated for science-based federal standards that balance consumer safety with practicality and consistency across all states. Federal agencies regulate the manufacturing of food and dietary supplements, including testing and monitoring protocols for heavy metals.”
Background
This is not the first time the Clean Label Project has tested protein powders. In 2018, the non-profit conducted a similar study that received big pushback, including threatened legal action.
Just like five years ago, the Natural Products Association is again accusing the Clean Label Project of being a ‘shadow group that uses junk science to scare consumers.’
“The group denied a request by the Natural Products Association (NPA) to disclose the methodology and the data behind the allegations,” said Daniel Fabricant, PhD, president and CEO of NPA. “CNN, which did not contact the NPA for comment, reported on the so-called study Wednesday.
“The Clean Label Project is full of it, and it’s a shame that no one at CNN did basic reporting by neither asking for the methodology for this sham of a study nor contacted the NPA for analysis and comment. Instead, CNN blindly reported what the Clean Label Project told them without verifying.
“In 2020, they pulled the exact same stunt attacking collagen supplements, but this so-called study is nothing but hot air. When we asked them to disclose its funders and the full methodology of the collagen study, they did not respond and instead hid from the truth. Again, we are demanding that they disclose this so-called study’s methodology instead of peddling misinformation and profiting from referred products to online retailers listed on its website,” said Dr. Fabricant.
Clean Label Project responds
Jaclyn Bowen, executive director of Clean Label Project, told NutraIngredients-USA that its primary mission is to inform and protect consumers by bringing greater transparency to the products they use every day.
“Our recent protein powder report is part of that effort, aiming to highlight the presence of heavy metals and other contaminants so consumers can make informed choices about their health and wellness.
“We’d like to address some of the concerns raised:
- Context and standards: The levels we highlight are rooted in stringent thresholds, including Prop 65, to underscore areas where product safety can be improved. While Prop 65 limits may differ from federal guidelines, they represent some of the strictest consumer protection standards, which we believe are worth considering in discussions about consumer safety.
- Methodology and transparency: Our methodology follows standardized testing protocols, and the selection of products is based on market data to ensure we include widely consumed brands. We make every effort to ensure the criteria we use are clear and science-based.
- Profit allegations: The Clean Label Project (CLP) is a nonprofit organization with a mission to bring truth and transparency to food and consumer product labeling. Our reports are designed to raise awareness about important public health issues and drive meaningful change in the industry. Participation in CLP’s certification program is entirely voluntary. Companies that choose to pursue certification do so because they are committed to meeting higher standards of product safety and transparency, which ultimately benefits consumers. Any revenue generated through the certification program supports CLP’s continued research, advocacy, and public education efforts.
“We recognize the importance of fostering constructive dialogue with both industry and consumer advocates,” said Bowen. “Ultimately, we believe transparency and shared accountability will lead to a safer, healthier marketplace for everyone.”
