New study shows that most protein supplements contain "concerning" levels of heavy metals/toxins
MistressPi
Posts: 514 Member
If you use protein powders or ready-to-drink meal replacements, this article might be of interest to you:
https://www.consumerreports.org/dietary-supplements/heavy-metals-in-protein-supplements
"Whether for weight loss, muscle building, or simply as a convenient quick meal on the go, many Americans turn to protein powders and drinks.
"But a new study shows that many of the top-selling powders and drinks may contain concerning levels of heavy metals such as arsenic, cadmium, mercury, and lead, and toxins like bisphenol A (BPA), a chemical found in some plastic containers and food can liners."
The article goes on to note that,
"Overall, the products made from sources of plant protein such as soy or hemp fared worse than those made from whey (milk) or egg, containing on average twice as much lead and measurably higher amounts of other contaminants."
https://www.consumerreports.org/dietary-supplements/heavy-metals-in-protein-supplements
"Whether for weight loss, muscle building, or simply as a convenient quick meal on the go, many Americans turn to protein powders and drinks.
"But a new study shows that many of the top-selling powders and drinks may contain concerning levels of heavy metals such as arsenic, cadmium, mercury, and lead, and toxins like bisphenol A (BPA), a chemical found in some plastic containers and food can liners."
The article goes on to note that,
"Overall, the products made from sources of plant protein such as soy or hemp fared worse than those made from whey (milk) or egg, containing on average twice as much lead and measurably higher amounts of other contaminants."
2
Replies
-
Oooh, interesting!
Link to the study:
http://staging-cleanlabelproject.kinsta.com/protein-powder/
LOL @ organic protein powders having double the heavy metals than non-organic... LOL toxinzzs for real!
(I know, I shouldn't laugh.)4 -
This has been floating around for a few weeks, and what has been pointed out by many is that the "clean label project" is not releasing its methods for evaluating products for "contaminants" or any actual data at all. So while it is interesting, it may be complete BS.9
-
This has been floating around for a few weeks, and what has been pointed out by many is that the "clean label project" is not releasing its methods for evaluating products for "contaminants" or any actual data at all. So while it is interesting, it may be complete BS.
The FAQs say:
"Our third-party laboratory partner blind tests products for a list of 130 toxins and contaminants, including heavy metals, antibiotics, BPA/BPS (plasticizers) and pesticide-residues that are not identified on labels but are prevalent in food and consumer products. We also factor in the good stuff- like ingredient quality. The products are then published on the Product Ratings using a five-star rating system based on how they perform across in comparison to the rest of the industry category. All of this information is wrapped up to represent the overall product score."
Not sure if this is evasive or just dumbed down for general consumption.
0 -
This has been floating around for a few weeks, and what has been pointed out by many is that the "clean label project" is not releasing its methods for evaluating products for "contaminants" or any actual data at all. So while it is interesting, it may be complete BS.
The FAQs say:
"Our third-party laboratory partner blind tests products for a list of 130 toxins and contaminants, including heavy metals, antibiotics, BPA/BPS (plasticizers) and pesticide-residues that are not identified on labels but are prevalent in food and consumer products. We also factor in the good stuff- like ingredient quality. The products are then published on the Product Ratings using a five-star rating system based on how they perform across in comparison to the rest of the industry category. All of this information is wrapped up to represent the overall product score."
Not sure if this is evasive or just dumbed down for general consumption.
My vote is evasive. They've tried this schtick before with baby food and pet food, and both studies were considered bunk. Clean Label Project is pretty much considered unreliable, I wouldn't take anything from them as gospel.5 -
"Concerning" is the key word. A U.S. or E.U. regulatory standard can be set at 1 part per million of some foul chemical, while modern detection methods can find 1 part per billion. Anyone wanting to improve their class of clickbait can trumpet their "Concerning" finds of 10 parts per billion when the manufacturer is successfully meeting the most stringent regulatory standards in the world.
I do intend to read the article, but the URL indicates that I should expect little other than high class clickbait.
Never mind. I've read the entire discussion and now understand that whomever is behind it all has a commercial agenda.7 -
JeromeBarry1 wrote: »"Concerning" is the key word.
Things you learn on MFP. And there I was having a fairly high opinion of consumer reports.
A quick eyeball of the data shows Arsenic ('cause first on the list) as having the single HIGHEST value in one sample at 80 μg As kg-1 (I followed the link Orphia provided)
Then I look up what the 'acceptable' Arsenic values for food items would be!
From a randomly googled peer reviewed published study comparing arsenic in rice and water:
"The concentration of arsenic in rice is subject to a standard threshold regulation of 1 mg As kg-1 (1000 μg As kg-1 if we use the same units). This level is inherited from previous risk assessments across a wide range of food products. However, several recent studies on the levels of arsenic in rice and rice-based products have provided sufficient evidence and data to question this overly generous threshold, specifically with regards to rice. Currently, there are no effective regulations for arsenic concentrations in rice set by the WHO, EU or US agencies [6]. **China has the strictest regulations for arsenic in rice at 150 μg As in organic kg-1**, but, since rice is such a staple food in Asia, rice consumption remains a higher source of exposure than drinking water."
So... strictest regulation for Arsenic in rice 150, check.
Acceptable values considered to be as high as 1000-ish, check.
Most protein powders testing at under 30 with one as high as just under 80 (based on my eye ball of the test sample results), check
And I should be panicked about Arsenic in protein powder?...
Thank you consumer reports.23 -
So now I need to tuck away into my long term memory that China has the world's strictest regulation for As in rice at 150 ug As kg-1. I wonder what Japan's number is, as the Japanese have the world's most famous palates for rice.2
-
Not sure if this is evasive or just dumbed down for general consumption.
Evasive. The same issues occurred with their baby food 'study'.
https://www.snopes.com/news/2017/10/26/baby-food-arsenic/2 -
Perhaps Consumer Reports was willing to accept these test results from Clean Label Project because CR did its own independent testing of protein supplements:
https://www.consumerreports.org/cro/2012/04/protein-drinks/index.htm
As noted in this article, recommended daily limits of cadmium and lead may be approached or exceeded when consuming 3 servings of these products per day. This can become problematic because these heavy metals are stored in the body and accumulate: cadmium in the kidneys; lead mainly in bones and teeth. Lead stored in bones and teeth can be released back into the bloodstream long after its ingestion. Mobilization increases during such events as advanced age, pregnancy, lactation, menopause, broken bones…
https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/csem/csem.asp?csem=34&po=9
Three servings per day is not uncommon; according to the CR article, teens trying to bulk up tend to rely heavily on protein supplements. Eating five to six meals per day is common advice for nutrition in conjunction with resistance training, and protein drinks are commonly recommended as an easy way to meet that requirement.
Author Lou Scholar, in his book, “The New Rules of Lifting for Women” includes in his “ironclad rules”:
“You must eat a total of five meals and snacks a day.
“You must have a post-workout recovery shake on the days you lift.”
I know for a fact that EAS aggressively promotes its protein supplements in conjunction with the Body For Life program, to the point that they offer to reimburse its challengers for all monies spent on EAS supplements if they win the title of Champion for their particular challenge. The challenge rules and regulations state, in part,
“Participants are required to use at least one EAS® or other Abbott Nutrition product (including Myoplex®, AdvantEDGE®, ZonePerfect®‚ Ensure®‚ and Glucerna®* product lines) during their 12-week Program to be eligible.”
My (ancient) Body For Life book even gives sample menus with three EAS protein-based shakes per day.
EAS and Muscle Milk products (two product lines which tested as having higher levels of these heavy metals) are the brands most commonly found in the convenience stores I’ve been in (7-11, Plaid Pantry), sometimes the ONLY ready-to-drink brands offered.
Outside of the lifting community, other diets recommend replacing meals with shakes. For example, the Drs. Eades (opinion leaders in the low carb community) recommended in their book, “The 6-Week Cure for the Middle-Aged Middle”, a regimen of three protein shakes and one low carb meal per day for the first two weeks of the diet.
Because of the widespread use of meal replacement drinks and bars that contain protein powders among those who lift or diet, I feel it is worth considering the potential long term health risks - especially if one consumes multiple servings per day.
I agree that Clean Label Project should have its studies independently verified. I can’t conclude that they are lying because of a lack of such verification, nor can I presume their motivation to be venal.
I still trust Consumer Reports, which has done excellent investigation and consumer advocacy work over decades. Not everyone has the time to deep dive into the scientific literature to determine whether a particular study is well-engineered, or if its conclusions are borne out by the data; not everyone has the educational background to understand or translate the details of such studies. This is true for me: I have to trust someone. I trust CR. We will have to wait to see if CLP has this new study peer-reviewed.
5 -
I am highly skeptical of any article that misuses the word toxin. BPA is not a toxin, it isn't produced by living organisms.5
-
Aaron_K123 wrote: »I am highly skeptical of any article that misuses the word toxin. BPA is not a toxin, it isn't produced by living organisms.
Articles like that get lots of clicks and drive advertising revenue for websites, though. Which I often think is the ulterior motive behind many of them.0 -
Within this link is a rebuttal Alan Aragon wrote to the prior CR "report" on protein powders (I can't find it on its own anymore):
http://nicktumminello.com/2010/07/poison-protein-and-consumer-reports-nutrition-expert-alan-aragon-speaks-out/
Optimum Nutrition (who granted has a bias, but I've not seen any response to this that seems more credible, or really any at all -- it's missing information that's quite crucial) provided the following comparisons with other foods:
https://www.netrition.com/Consumer_Reports_OptimumNutrition_response.pdf1 -
I'd be interested to see the qualifications of the third party lab, which doesn't appear to be identified on their website...0
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »Within this link is a rebuttal Alan Aragon wrote to the prior CR "report" on protein powders (I can't find it on its own anymore):
http://nicktumminello.com/2010/07/poison-protein-and-consumer-reports-nutrition-expert-alan-aragon-speaks-out/
Optimum Nutrition (who granted has a bias, but I've not seen any response to this that seems more credible, or really any at all -- it's missing information that's quite crucial) provided the following comparisons with other foods:
https://www.netrition.com/Consumer_Reports_OptimumNutrition_response.pdf
Thank you for taking the time to find these links. I read both the article and the critique. (The reference links provided when the article was published are now inoperable.)
I do not find Mr. Aragon’s argument to be compelling. He points out that Consumer Reports (CR) is not infallible; CR made a mistake in measuring certain nutrient levels in Iams dog food. He also points out that CR published a correction when presented with the discrepancy. If anything, this makes me trust CR MORE, because it is willing to acknowledge and correct an error. No one is infallible; certainly it’s possible that CR made an error in its protein powder survey. Has anyone found one?
Mr. Aragon goes on to point out the obvious - that many foods that are not protein powder contain these heavy metals. We know this. It’s the amounts contained in multiple daily servings which concern me.
Mr. Aragon’s reliance on the response from Optimum Nutrition (ON) to CR’s findings was a mistake. I read the company’s response. Aside from its self-congratulatory tone for not being singled out by CR for excessive levels of heavy metals in the two products of theirs which CR tested, the chart portraying the lead levels of 14 commonly eaten foods purportedly taken from the FDA is widely at variance with the FDA’s Total Diet Study Statistics on Elements Results — the exact source reference ON is using. I found it here:
https://www.fda.gov/downloads/Food/FoodSafety/FoodContaminantsAdulteration/TotalDietStudy/UCM243059.pdf
I am uncertain where the company found the quantities it quotes; the methodology used by the FDA to obtain these results is taken from individuals self-reporting what they ate — an average of these quantities, if I correctly interpreted the FDA’s description of how they do it. The report lists the food, not a specific weight of the food.
For example, ON stated that a serving of boiled shrimp contained 3.2 µg of lead; FDA says 19 µg. ON reports that cottage cheese, 4% milk fat, contained 0.5 µg of lead; FDA says 2 µg. By the way, the the smallest unit of measurement provided in the FDA source document is 0.001 mg/kg; no fractions of a microgram are listed anywhere in this chart.
So some (maybe all) of the data presented by ON is incorrect. Don’t these errors further strengthen ON’s position? To my mind, no, because unlike those who regularly consume 3 protein drinks per day, who supplements his diet with three servings of shrimp per day, in addition to three regular meals? My only take from ON’s statement is its claim that its products are high quality and have lower levels of heavy metals than some of the others tested by CR. And that I wouldn’t trust whoever produced those charts.
BTW, I haven’t checked their facts on arsenic; I was interested in lead, but a quick scan of the arsenic discovered in the various foods showed that certain types of seafood contain very high levels indeed. I’m looking at YOU, haddock.
As to the question of how much protein a person should consume, I have no comment. This seems to be widely disputed.
The FDA provided no data with respect to protein supplements. Presumably, the FDA does not test these products, and this is one of the reasons why both CR and Clean Label Project conducted their studies.
4 -
The FDA regulates a lot of things (which I presume would include testing?); however supplements are generally not regulated due to I believe a legal loophole. Hence why a lot of supplement makers get away with making sugar pills for example. That being said, without CR and Clean Label Project disclosing just who conducted their studies, their claim of independent testing is meaningless.3
-
CLP uses Ellipse Analytics. They also state that the baby food study is being peer reviewed. See the blog post, here:
http://www.cleanlabelproject.org/debunking-clean-label-project-myths/
0 -
From the site:"
Did Clean Label Project’s Executive Director, Jackie Bowen, previously work at Ellipse Analytics, the analytical chemistry testing laboratory?
Yes, in fact, I did. I spent the first 15 years of my career working at the non-profit World Health Organization (WHO) Collaborating Centre, NSF International, a non-profit public health and safety company working on important & progressive food safety and quality standards and movements including USDA Certified Organic, Non-GMO Project, Certified Gluten-free, and the good work associated with the Global Food Safety Initiative. A few years ago, I was given an opportunity to head up Ellipse Analytics – the analytical chemistry testing and data analytics company – which was amazing. When I saw the wealth of capabilities and the type of information that was being generated out of the laboratory, I felt that I could contribute so much more by focusing my efforts on the consumer advocacy side – which is my passion. While Clean Label Project had been in existence, it was essentially rudderless without an Executive Director at the helm. With the encouragement of Ellipse Analytics, I, yet again, made the career jump over to the Clean Label Project earlier this year and set the lofty goal of changing the definition of food and consumer product safety in America. Ellipse Analytics remains an important partner of our small, but mighty, disruptive non-profit, Clean Label Project."
That kind of rubs me as conflict of interest, to be honest. And we all know Non-GMO Project is an interest group that's as far from unbiased as one can get, I think Global Food Safety is another not-so-great group. IDK, this doesn't inspire confidence in me at all. I still have to look into Ellipse Analytics though.
ETA: found this about Ellipse https://www.reddit.com/r/Pets/comments/6l25zk/looking_deeper_in_recent_claims_by_clean_label/3 -
MistressPi wrote: »For example, ON stated that a serving of boiled shrimp contained 3.2 µg of lead; FDA says 19 µg. ON reports that cottage cheese, 4% milk fat, contained 0.5 µg of lead; FDA says 2 µg. By the way, the the smallest unit of measurement provided in the FDA source document is 0.001 mg/kg; no fractions of a microgram are listed anywhere in this chart.
So some (maybe all) of the data presented by ON is incorrect. Don’t these errors further strengthen ON’s position? To my mind, no, because unlike those who regularly consume 3 protein drinks per day, who supplements his diet with three servings of shrimp per day, in addition to three regular meals?
I question this alarmist idea that people who consume protein powder are generally all consuming crazy amounts (and re the very specific bodybuilder population, they also are likely to repetitively eat specific foods, for similar reasons). So much of the commentary on things like protein powder seem to assume that people are not using them like I think most on MFP do -- and remember that's your audience. IME, many simply consume it occasionally (or a serving most days, perhaps) because they enjoy it as part of a meal or snack.
Thus, to give the information about heavy metals in an alarmist way without comparative information about other food items strikes me as misleading and irresponsible, even apart from the concerns raised about testing.
The claim that you can't use it because you can only use a bit of protein at a time or it's wasted also seems wrong, but is of course just indicative that there seems to be a bias against protein powder involved, and is not the topic of the current discussion, but part of the prior CR piece.
0 -
MichelleSilverleaf wrote: »From the site:"
Did Clean Label Project’s Executive Director, Jackie Bowen, previously work at Ellipse Analytics, the analytical chemistry testing laboratory?
Yes, in fact, I did. I spent the first 15 years of my career working at the non-profit World Health Organization (WHO) Collaborating Centre, NSF International, a non-profit public health and safety company working on important & progressive food safety and quality standards and movements including USDA Certified Organic, Non-GMO Project, Certified Gluten-free, and the good work associated with the Global Food Safety Initiative. A few years ago, I was given an opportunity to head up Ellipse Analytics – the analytical chemistry testing and data analytics company – which was amazing. When I saw the wealth of capabilities and the type of information that was being generated out of the laboratory, I felt that I could contribute so much more by focusing my efforts on the consumer advocacy side – which is my passion. While Clean Label Project had been in existence, it was essentially rudderless without an Executive Director at the helm. With the encouragement of Ellipse Analytics, I, yet again, made the career jump over to the Clean Label Project earlier this year and set the lofty goal of changing the definition of food and consumer product safety in America. Ellipse Analytics remains an important partner of our small, but mighty, disruptive non-profit, Clean Label Project."
That kind of rubs me as conflict of interest, to be honest. And we all know Non-GMO Project is an interest group that's as far from unbiased as one can get, I think Global Food Safety is another not-so-great group. IDK, this doesn't inspire confidence in me at all. I still have to look into Ellipse Analytics though.
ETA: found this about Ellipse https://www.reddit.com/r/Pets/comments/6l25zk/looking_deeper_in_recent_claims_by_clean_label/
This is a meaty read, and I thank you for the link. I'm really enjoying it. I like this "fozzikuma" - who posts working links in his references.
From what I've read so far, the head guy at Ellipse Analytics looks pretty shady.
As to Exec Dir Jackie Bowen - seems to me this type of incest occurs in many industries. People make lateral and upward moves in their specialty industries, in their quests for better salaries, a change in geography, boredom, etc. This is a PR response - but she gets major credibility points for expertise from me for her 15 years of work at the WHO. Unless her work at the WHO was as an administration wonk or receptionist or something.
I know nothing about Non-GMO Project, so I can't comment on them, nor Global Food Safety.
Will continue to read the materials linked. Thanks.
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 901 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.2K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions