The Clean Label Project recently published a report detailing some results of its testing of 160 products from 70 protein brands for heavy metals and bisphenols, finding that 47% of all products tested were above the California Proposition 65 (Prop 65) threshold for heavy metals. In total, the Clean Label Project conducted 35,862 individual tests on contaminants on the products, for lead, cadmium, arsenic, mercury, BPA, and BPS.

Products with heavy metal concentrations which exceed this threshold are required by the state of California to warn consumers via the product label about exposure to chemicals known to cause cancer, birth defects, or other reproductive harm.

According to the Clean Label Project, the testing panel comprised about 83% of the market share. 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 – this was attributed to the fact that most organic protein products were plant-based.

Plant-based protein powders, on average, contained three times more lead than whey-based protein powders, and chocolate also appeared to be a high-risk ingredient, with chocolate protein powders containing four-times more lead on average than vanilla.

Here are some figures shared by the Clean Label Project:

• 47% of products exceeded a federal or state regulatory set including Prop 65 for safety for lead, cadmium, arsenic, or mercury.
• 77% of plant-based protein powers tested over Prop 65 for lead
• 79% of organic protein powders tested over Prop 65 for lead
• 41% of organic protein powders contained two-times as much lead as the Prop 65 threshold
• 21% of all products contained two-times as much lead as the Prop 65 threshold
• 28% of whey protein powders tested over Prop 65 for lead
• 26% of collagen protein powders tested over Prop 65 for lead
• 65% of chocolate protein powders tested over Prop 65 for lead
• 29% of chocolate protein powders contained two-times as much lead as the Prop 65 threshold

On the positive side, the Clean Label Project found substantial improvements in BPA and BPS content in protein powders. BPA and BPS, both bisphenols, are endocrine disruptors that interfere with insulin tolerance and cause metabolic issues. The present study only found BPA or BPS in three of 160 products tested. Previous tests detected bisphenols in 55% of products.

When it came to cadmium, plant-based and chocolate-flavored protein powders had the strongest concentrations. Plant-based powders contained five times as much cadmium as whey on average, and chocolate protein powders had 110-times more cadmium than vanilla-flavored varieties, the organization reported.

Clean Label Project contracted Ellipse Analytics, an independent analytical chemistry laboratory for the tests in the present study. The heavy metals were tested using Couple Plasma – Mass Spectrometry, and the Bisphenols and pesticides were tested via Liquid Chromatography – Tandem Mass Spectrometry.

“This study serves as a wake-up call for consumers, manufacturers, retailers, and regulators alike. With the lack of comprehensive federal regulations specifically addressing heavy metals in dietary supplements, it is critical that the industry independently takes proactive measures. The Clean Label Project’s findings call for a new level of transparency and stricter safety standards to protect consumers from long-term exposure to these contaminants,” the organization stated. They utilized reference standards in Prop 65 because “there are no comprehensive federal regulations specifically targeting dietary exposure to heavy metals in food …”

Presently, FDA offers guidance on heavy metal levels in some food products but hasn’t established regulatory limits for most foods, aside from specific types like bottled water and baby foods. EPA primarily regulates heavy metal contamination via the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), which regulates the control of hazardous waste.

“The food industry owes their customers an open, honest, and transparent view of how clean their ingredients are,” said Jaclyn Bowen, executive director of the Clean Label Project. “Consumers are purchasing supplement and protein products for health and performance – they expect these products to be clean.”

CRN: Prop 65 Threshold Doesn’t Equate to a Health Hazard

Andrea Wong, senior vice president of scientific and regulatory affairs at the Council for Responsible Nutrition (CRN), said that CRN supports efforts to ensure dietary supplement quality and safety, but it’s important for consumers to understand Prop 65 in its broader context.

“As we have noted in the past, reports like those issued by the Clean Label Project often lack critical context and risk misleading consumers rather than empowering them,” Wong said. “First, it is important to emphasize that the detection of contaminants, as highlighted in this report, does not inherently equate to a health risk. 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 and Environmental Protection Agency.”

Prop 65 is “uniquely stringent,” and imposes a 1,000-fold safety factor below the level at which no harmful effects have been observed, and requires that products are labeled if over the amount, but doesn’t place a ban on them.

“The lack of harmonization with FDA or EPA standards can result in unnecessary consumer alarm,” Wong said. “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.”

Additionally, the Clean Label Project didn’t share “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 their claims. CRN urges CLP to publish its findings in peer-reviewed journals and provide recommendations grounded in scientific evidence.”

CRN will continue to advocate for a unified, evidence-based regulatory approach to heavy metal and bisphenol contamination in food products, Wong said, to ensure safety and transparency and avoid consumer confusion.

NPA: Report is a “Sham” Without Full Disclosure of Testing Data

The Natural Products Association (NPA) dismissed the Clean Label Project’s reporting as “junk science,” after the organization denied NPA’s request to disclose its methodology and the full scope of its testing data. Allegations that protein products tested in the study contain significant contaminants, or pose a serious threat to consumers, are false, NPA said.

“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 contacting the NPA for analysis and comment. Instead, CNN blindly reported what the Clean Label Project told them without verifying,” said Daniel Fabricant, PhD, president and CEO of NPA.

Fabricant also denounced the Clean Label Project for failing to disclose the source of its funding, and for promoting several protein powders that are Clean Label Project Certified within its report.

“In 2020, they pulled the exact same stunt attacking collagen supplements, but this so-callled 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.”