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:
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).
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
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.
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.
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.
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.)
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.)
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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
Readit News
“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.
https://retractionwatch.com/2024/07/18/supplement-maker-sues...
There should be a way to unblind in most experiment designs though
This would be cool as a crowd funded thing with publicly shared results of various products.
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.
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.
Dead Comment
I see they haven't learned anything in the intervening 7 years.
https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/64mpty/we_are_the_cle...
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.)
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 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).
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.
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.
"Plant-based protein powders were the most contaminated, containing five times more cadmium than their whey-based counterparts."
Deleted Comment
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.
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/
It's almost embarrassing how many products they test and how lucid their write-ups as compared with the FDA given their respective budgets.