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.)
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.
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.
Well, the galactic regulations have been publicly available for some time now. We can't help that you didn't find them in the cellar in a cabinet drawer found in the lavatory behind the sign that reads "beware of the leopard"
>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.
I looked into similar projects and the business model seems to be that you pay for certification, they do the test, and they certify your product if it passes.
So if they publish poor performers, then it kills their business model because nobody would want to pay for certification if they risk getting revealed as a poor performer.
BTW ICP-MS lab tests are like $100/pop which is probably why nobody has a table of real data.
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.
I don't buy it. Posting data measurements would be even more objective than reviewing products yet scathing product reviews aren't litigated, so where is this hunch coming from?
Can you post examples of litigation from revealing measurements of branded food products? It doesn't seem to stop anyone from posting heavy metal content in chocolate bar brands.
> 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.
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.
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.
Story is longer than that. Got married. Did't go to the gym for 9 years. Moved countries. Re-taked gym, along with better diet, started on protein powder + creatine. 1.5 years in and I'm already over what I couldn't accomplish in 5 years. And I'm not even taking the diet too seriously.
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.
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.
Still I would rather consume less than more. If half the protein powders manage to not contain alarming levels of toxins I would much rather have those than the ones that do contain toxins. Not really a difficult concept.
It's only "alarming" because it's presented in an alarmimg way. If the headline had said "Protein powders found to contain 2.5% as much lead as undisturbed dirt" you would not have found it alarming.
This whole argument is silly. People generally don't go around eating dirt off the ground so how much lead is in dirt doesn't matter. It's alarming because lead is incredibly unhealthy for you.
The point is not that you are eating dirt. The point is that you are constantly surrounded by small amounts of things that are not good for you. Take a plane? Eat a banana? You are exposed to radiation. Drink water in certain parts of the country? You are exposed to small amounts of uranium. Is any of that good? No, but it's unavoidable to be exposed to small amounts of naturally occuring toxins and it's not worth worrying about.
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.)
reply