Heavy metals are in protein powder, but it's not THAT bad
video description
Date: 2025-11-01
Related videos
Comments and reviews: 20
wolpumba4099
AI Summary
Abstract:
This video critically analyzes a recent, viral Consumer Reports article about the presence of lead and other heavy metals in protein powders, arguing that while the findings are factually based, their presentation is overly alarmist and lacks essential context. The narrator deconstructs the magazine's methodology, highlighting its reliance on California's Proposition 65 standard (0. 5 micrograms/day, which is described as an extremely conservative right-to-know threshold rather than a practical safety limit. He contrasts this with the U. S. FDA's reference levels (8. 8 micrograms/day for at-risk adults) and scholarly toxicological research, which concluded that the levels of heavy metals found in protein supplements do not pose a significant non-carcinogenic risk to adult consumers. The video explains that plant-based proteins tend to have higher concentrations of heavy metals due to bioaccumulation. Ultimately, the video concludes that consumers should be informed of these minimal risks but are capable of making their own informed decisions by balancing competing interests like health, ethics, and sustainability, rather than adhering to what is framed as a sensationalized warning.
Deconstructing the Alarm: A Contextual Look at Heavy Metals in Protein Powder
0: 00: 03 The Central Claim: Protein powders, especially plant-based ones, contain measurable amounts of lead and other heavy metals due to bioaccumulation from the soil, water, and air. However, the narrator argues a recent Consumer Reports article on the topic is overly alarming.
0: 03: 32 Disclosures & Personal Stance: The narrator discloses that he is an enthusiastic user of protein supplements, viewing them as a more sustainable alternative to meat for building muscle. He also reveals a past sponsorship from a supplement brand.
0: 09: 11 Journalism vs. Scholarship: He frames the Consumer Reports investigation as journalism (a quick first draft) and contrasts it with a 2020 peer-reviewed toxicology study (scholarship) that found the heavy metal levels in protein powders did not increase non-carcinogenic risk for adults.
0: 16: 06 The Problematic Standard: The video's main criticism is that Consumer Reports bases its alarming conclusions on California's extremely conservative Proposition 65 right-to-know law, which sets a threshold of just 0. 5 micrograms of lead per day.
0: 19: 24 Decoding the Numbers: He provides a formula to convert the magazine's dramatic percentages into actual micrograms (divide percentage by 2, then by 100. The worst offending product, a vegan mass gainer, contains about 7. 86 micrograms of lead per serving.
0: 23: 17 Putting Lead Levels in Context: The FDA's reference level for at-risk adults (e. g, those who may become pregnant) is 8. 8 micrograms/day. The actual lowest level associated with harm is 88 micrograms/day, meaning the worst powder has less than one-tenth of the FDA's minimum known harmful dose per serving.
0: 25: 35 Important Caveats: He acknowledges that risks can accumulate for those consuming multiple daily servings or for individuals with high background exposure to lead from their environment (e. g, from old pipes or pollution.
0: 27: 51 Products to Avoid Critique: The narrator criticizes Consumer Reports' conclusive language (e. g, products to avoid) as inappropriate for a journalistic outlet, given that the lead levels are well below established safety risk thresholds.
0: 31: 14 The Takeaway: Balancing Risks: The ultimate message is that consumers are capable of balancing competing interests (health, ethics, sustainability. While lower lead is better, a vegan athlete might logically choose a plant-based powder with slightly more lead over dairy-based options or eating excessive amounts of meat.
0: 33: 13 The Real Villain: The video concludes by pointing to the root cause: environmental pollution. He states there is no such thing as clean food because all food comes from an increasingly polluted earth.
AI-generated summary created with gemini-2. 5-pro for free via RocketRecap-dot-com. (Input: 22, 576 tokens, Output: 902 tokens, Est. cost: $0. 04.
reply
AI Summary
Abstract:
This video critically analyzes a recent, viral Consumer Reports article about the presence of lead and other heavy metals in protein powders, arguing that while the findings are factually based, their presentation is overly alarmist and lacks essential context. The narrator deconstructs the magazine's methodology, highlighting its reliance on California's Proposition 65 standard (0. 5 micrograms/day, which is described as an extremely conservative right-to-know threshold rather than a practical safety limit. He contrasts this with the U. S. FDA's reference levels (8. 8 micrograms/day for at-risk adults) and scholarly toxicological research, which concluded that the levels of heavy metals found in protein supplements do not pose a significant non-carcinogenic risk to adult consumers. The video explains that plant-based proteins tend to have higher concentrations of heavy metals due to bioaccumulation. Ultimately, the video concludes that consumers should be informed of these minimal risks but are capable of making their own informed decisions by balancing competing interests like health, ethics, and sustainability, rather than adhering to what is framed as a sensationalized warning.
Deconstructing the Alarm: A Contextual Look at Heavy Metals in Protein Powder
0: 00: 03 The Central Claim: Protein powders, especially plant-based ones, contain measurable amounts of lead and other heavy metals due to bioaccumulation from the soil, water, and air. However, the narrator argues a recent Consumer Reports article on the topic is overly alarming.
0: 03: 32 Disclosures & Personal Stance: The narrator discloses that he is an enthusiastic user of protein supplements, viewing them as a more sustainable alternative to meat for building muscle. He also reveals a past sponsorship from a supplement brand.
0: 09: 11 Journalism vs. Scholarship: He frames the Consumer Reports investigation as journalism (a quick first draft) and contrasts it with a 2020 peer-reviewed toxicology study (scholarship) that found the heavy metal levels in protein powders did not increase non-carcinogenic risk for adults.
0: 16: 06 The Problematic Standard: The video's main criticism is that Consumer Reports bases its alarming conclusions on California's extremely conservative Proposition 65 right-to-know law, which sets a threshold of just 0. 5 micrograms of lead per day.
0: 19: 24 Decoding the Numbers: He provides a formula to convert the magazine's dramatic percentages into actual micrograms (divide percentage by 2, then by 100. The worst offending product, a vegan mass gainer, contains about 7. 86 micrograms of lead per serving.
0: 23: 17 Putting Lead Levels in Context: The FDA's reference level for at-risk adults (e. g, those who may become pregnant) is 8. 8 micrograms/day. The actual lowest level associated with harm is 88 micrograms/day, meaning the worst powder has less than one-tenth of the FDA's minimum known harmful dose per serving.
0: 25: 35 Important Caveats: He acknowledges that risks can accumulate for those consuming multiple daily servings or for individuals with high background exposure to lead from their environment (e. g, from old pipes or pollution.
0: 27: 51 Products to Avoid Critique: The narrator criticizes Consumer Reports' conclusive language (e. g, products to avoid) as inappropriate for a journalistic outlet, given that the lead levels are well below established safety risk thresholds.
0: 31: 14 The Takeaway: Balancing Risks: The ultimate message is that consumers are capable of balancing competing interests (health, ethics, sustainability. While lower lead is better, a vegan athlete might logically choose a plant-based powder with slightly more lead over dairy-based options or eating excessive amounts of meat.
0: 33: 13 The Real Villain: The video concludes by pointing to the root cause: environmental pollution. He states there is no such thing as clean food because all food comes from an increasingly polluted earth.
AI-generated summary created with gemini-2. 5-pro for free via RocketRecap-dot-com. (Input: 22, 576 tokens, Output: 902 tokens, Est. cost: $0. 04.
reply
aragusea
UGH, Adam. Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah. Listen, you wasted so much time arguing about why high lead and other heavy metals might not be that important that you TOTALLY MISSED THE KEY POINTS that the Consumer Report article only briefly alluded to, but DID NOT EXAMINE IN CONCLUSIVE DETAIL, and that is that the MOST LIKELY CAUSE of the high lead and heavy metal levels in vegen proteins was that they were using pea protein, which is LARGELY GROWN AND PRODUCED IN CHINA.
Here are the relevant passages:
Although there were some exceptions, products made with plant-based proteins generally tested higher for lead than those using meat- or dairy-based sources. All the plant-based powders CR tested relied on pea protein as a main ingredient. Though soy remains among the most popular plant-based protein in terms of total crop volume, pea protein has emerged as a popular alternative due to its flavor profile and comparatively low allergenicity.
Many companies don’t disclose where they source their pea protein, making it hard to know exactly where the products we tested came from. Historically, though, much of the pea protein used in U. S. food production is imported from China, according to data from the U. S. International Trade Commission. That’s notable because while the FDA has the authority to audit foreign supplement makers, it rarely does.
I don't know if you have ever looked at air pollution maps or looked at the levels of water pollution in the rest of the world, but China is HORRIBLY POLLUTED. I do NOT trust anything that is grown there and I will not buy any foods that I know are grown or produced there.
It turns out that frozen peas are NOT grown in China. I looked at my bags of Great Value frozen peas from Walmart, and they are marked Product of Belgium. So, yeah I consider Belgium as safe as the USA.
Edamame beans, which are just young soy beans, are almost ALL GROWN IN CHINA. Weird, how the USA is such a mass producer of soy beans, and yet American farmers refuse to harvest their soy beans earlier to produce Edamame instead of soy beans. Only a tiny numbers of US farmers have started to harvest Edamame, and these are almost impossible to find in the grocery stores. So, I refuse to buy frozen edamame beans.
So, Adam, you and Consumer Reports have clearly MISSED the forest for the trees here. Having followed this topic of contaminated foods from China for many years, the problem is that China is sending us INDUSTRIALLY POLLUTED foods. Pea protein has grown hugely in popularity in the last 5-10 years, and that is because soy protein and wheat gluten (which are largely produced here in the USA) have gotten slammed for their own health issues and I am sure China discovered that they could sell huge amounts of pea protein to the USA at super cheap prices like with everything else.
Soy protein, wheat gluten, whey, and egg white proteins have been used in the US for decades and decades, and nobody has ever discovered a problem with lead and heavy metal contamination, because almost all of that was produced here in the USA.
You need to look at this problem as one that is almost certainly skewed by the industrially contaminated pea protein that is getting imported at cheap prices from China, something that only started in the last 5-10 years
I would note that Beyond Meat burgers use pea protein as their main protein source, while Impossible Burger uses soy protein, and Morningstar patties are mostly a combination of wheat gluten and soy protein.
reply
UGH, Adam. Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah. Listen, you wasted so much time arguing about why high lead and other heavy metals might not be that important that you TOTALLY MISSED THE KEY POINTS that the Consumer Report article only briefly alluded to, but DID NOT EXAMINE IN CONCLUSIVE DETAIL, and that is that the MOST LIKELY CAUSE of the high lead and heavy metal levels in vegen proteins was that they were using pea protein, which is LARGELY GROWN AND PRODUCED IN CHINA.
Here are the relevant passages:
Although there were some exceptions, products made with plant-based proteins generally tested higher for lead than those using meat- or dairy-based sources. All the plant-based powders CR tested relied on pea protein as a main ingredient. Though soy remains among the most popular plant-based protein in terms of total crop volume, pea protein has emerged as a popular alternative due to its flavor profile and comparatively low allergenicity.
Many companies don’t disclose where they source their pea protein, making it hard to know exactly where the products we tested came from. Historically, though, much of the pea protein used in U. S. food production is imported from China, according to data from the U. S. International Trade Commission. That’s notable because while the FDA has the authority to audit foreign supplement makers, it rarely does.
I don't know if you have ever looked at air pollution maps or looked at the levels of water pollution in the rest of the world, but China is HORRIBLY POLLUTED. I do NOT trust anything that is grown there and I will not buy any foods that I know are grown or produced there.
It turns out that frozen peas are NOT grown in China. I looked at my bags of Great Value frozen peas from Walmart, and they are marked Product of Belgium. So, yeah I consider Belgium as safe as the USA.
Edamame beans, which are just young soy beans, are almost ALL GROWN IN CHINA. Weird, how the USA is such a mass producer of soy beans, and yet American farmers refuse to harvest their soy beans earlier to produce Edamame instead of soy beans. Only a tiny numbers of US farmers have started to harvest Edamame, and these are almost impossible to find in the grocery stores. So, I refuse to buy frozen edamame beans.
So, Adam, you and Consumer Reports have clearly MISSED the forest for the trees here. Having followed this topic of contaminated foods from China for many years, the problem is that China is sending us INDUSTRIALLY POLLUTED foods. Pea protein has grown hugely in popularity in the last 5-10 years, and that is because soy protein and wheat gluten (which are largely produced here in the USA) have gotten slammed for their own health issues and I am sure China discovered that they could sell huge amounts of pea protein to the USA at super cheap prices like with everything else.
Soy protein, wheat gluten, whey, and egg white proteins have been used in the US for decades and decades, and nobody has ever discovered a problem with lead and heavy metal contamination, because almost all of that was produced here in the USA.
You need to look at this problem as one that is almost certainly skewed by the industrially contaminated pea protein that is getting imported at cheap prices from China, something that only started in the last 5-10 years
I would note that Beyond Meat burgers use pea protein as their main protein source, while Impossible Burger uses soy protein, and Morningstar patties are mostly a combination of wheat gluten and soy protein.
reply
drewmitchell9554
I have a scoop of whey protein 3-4x a week, so i read the CR article with great interest, and i had a feeling you'd post about it soon enough. I'm mostly happy with both.
Something i wish CR had put more column inches into covering was the trend that we're heading into getting too much protein overall. How many first-worlders are actually using the protein they consume in excess of the 70g or so adults 'need' Does that group constitute more than a rounding error overall Every sedentary adult that is hitting 120g protein per day is producing very expensive waste at the other end of their digestive tract, at the cost of a small but measurable hit to their kidneys and things like the heavy metal accumulation discussed here. As you point out, anything that grows out of the ground has this problem to varying degrees. I still eat rice 3-4x a week, but there's also a kerfuffle every few years about arsenic levels in rice.
As in so many discussions about risk level, for most risks out there, the ideal level is zero and part of life is balancing out what your tolerable risk budget is beyond that zero in order to do the things you want to do. A scoop of pea protein is probably less additional hazard than what you'd get from crossing a busy street. But why take on the additional micrograms of lead if you're not using the excess protein
You've covered very well in your previous videos that body building is a fun niche hobby that should be understood as such and not as a universal ideal of physical health. The average Joe out there is living through a very messy information environment of so many different pitches on how to optimize their bodies without nearly as much forethought into what goals they should want to optimize towards.
I think the best current universal advice is to lift some heavy things so you don't lose the skill, replace known-problem sources like red meat with healthier ones like whey protein, don't eat more than you need, and then still be kind of sloppy in your decision making because life should be about enjoying things. I still buy and eat clearance sale meat. Make good choices but once every now and then spice it up.
reply
I have a scoop of whey protein 3-4x a week, so i read the CR article with great interest, and i had a feeling you'd post about it soon enough. I'm mostly happy with both.
Something i wish CR had put more column inches into covering was the trend that we're heading into getting too much protein overall. How many first-worlders are actually using the protein they consume in excess of the 70g or so adults 'need' Does that group constitute more than a rounding error overall Every sedentary adult that is hitting 120g protein per day is producing very expensive waste at the other end of their digestive tract, at the cost of a small but measurable hit to their kidneys and things like the heavy metal accumulation discussed here. As you point out, anything that grows out of the ground has this problem to varying degrees. I still eat rice 3-4x a week, but there's also a kerfuffle every few years about arsenic levels in rice.
As in so many discussions about risk level, for most risks out there, the ideal level is zero and part of life is balancing out what your tolerable risk budget is beyond that zero in order to do the things you want to do. A scoop of pea protein is probably less additional hazard than what you'd get from crossing a busy street. But why take on the additional micrograms of lead if you're not using the excess protein
You've covered very well in your previous videos that body building is a fun niche hobby that should be understood as such and not as a universal ideal of physical health. The average Joe out there is living through a very messy information environment of so many different pitches on how to optimize their bodies without nearly as much forethought into what goals they should want to optimize towards.
I think the best current universal advice is to lift some heavy things so you don't lose the skill, replace known-problem sources like red meat with healthier ones like whey protein, don't eat more than you need, and then still be kind of sloppy in your decision making because life should be about enjoying things. I still buy and eat clearance sale meat. Make good choices but once every now and then spice it up.
reply
hankglidden1463
6: 45 Meat is far too resource intensive of a product to be a staple food for billions of people, that would be beyond the know carrying capacity our planet Not eating meat is 100% an ecological net positive, but that statement is objectively false. If you're referring to land usage, it's false, we produce 350 million tons of meat a year, that's about enough for 18% of the calories and 37% of the protein for 8 billion people, to achieve that, we use 77% of the total land suitable for such uses, the vast majority of which is low-efficiency grazing that could be drastically improved. If you're referring to carbon emissions, it's false, that planet's total carbon sink (the amount the planet can sustainably process without altering the environment) is 20 GT of CO2 a year, total human CO2 production is currently at 41 GT a year, the cumulative meat industry contributes about 6 - 7 GTs of that, well within what the planet can handle once green energy become much more widespread over the coming decades. Beef in particular is quite shit for the environment, and consuming less of it would do alot of good. Ruminants like cattle, bison, and lamb take up 70 - 80% of the land, 70% of the water, and 80% of the GHG footprint (Curtesy of enteric fermentation, which produces over 90% of the methane in all meat production. Beyond ruminants however, meat production does not pose a large-scale ecological risk.
If you said the exact same thing but replaced meat with beef I'd probably agree with you, but in spite of only making up around 20% of the ecological impact, non-ruminants account for close to 80% of total caloric meat consumption. We have so, SO many bigger fish to fry to regards to ecological sustainability than non-ruminant meat production.
reply
6: 45 Meat is far too resource intensive of a product to be a staple food for billions of people, that would be beyond the know carrying capacity our planet Not eating meat is 100% an ecological net positive, but that statement is objectively false. If you're referring to land usage, it's false, we produce 350 million tons of meat a year, that's about enough for 18% of the calories and 37% of the protein for 8 billion people, to achieve that, we use 77% of the total land suitable for such uses, the vast majority of which is low-efficiency grazing that could be drastically improved. If you're referring to carbon emissions, it's false, that planet's total carbon sink (the amount the planet can sustainably process without altering the environment) is 20 GT of CO2 a year, total human CO2 production is currently at 41 GT a year, the cumulative meat industry contributes about 6 - 7 GTs of that, well within what the planet can handle once green energy become much more widespread over the coming decades. Beef in particular is quite shit for the environment, and consuming less of it would do alot of good. Ruminants like cattle, bison, and lamb take up 70 - 80% of the land, 70% of the water, and 80% of the GHG footprint (Curtesy of enteric fermentation, which produces over 90% of the methane in all meat production. Beyond ruminants however, meat production does not pose a large-scale ecological risk.
If you said the exact same thing but replaced meat with beef I'd probably agree with you, but in spite of only making up around 20% of the ecological impact, non-ruminants account for close to 80% of total caloric meat consumption. We have so, SO many bigger fish to fry to regards to ecological sustainability than non-ruminant meat production.
reply
saharmesri1810
Reminds me of the recent concerns regarding heavy metals in baby food. Right around when my own kiddo was starting solids, a ton of articles came out showing heavy metals found in store bought baby food (including organic brands, which of course would cause any parent to panic. The problem is, it's not like the food manufacturers are just purposefully contaminating their food with heavy metals, and it wasn't coming from issues with the mass-production process. The heavy metals came from the vegetables themselves, with the highest levels in things like rice cereal and root vegetable purees. So then parents think, well what if I just make my own baby food at home But the issue with that is, the rice and root vegetables we buy from the store ALSO have similar heavy metal contamination, due to the soil they are grown in. When you go to the store you have no idea where the vegetable came from or the soil composition. So what if we grow our own vegetables and make our own baby food Well that doesn't help because not everyone has the privilege of being able to do that, AND do we know that our own soil at home isn't contaminated Apparently there were arsenic mines in the mountains near my house! My soil could be much much worse than the soil at the farms. The point is, no matter how hard you try, it's basically impossible to avoid this. So what to do with our babies We can't skip vegetables. Basically variety, diversity, is the best answer. Don't just give them ONLY root vegetables or rice. Give a mix of foods and just move on with your life.
reply
Reminds me of the recent concerns regarding heavy metals in baby food. Right around when my own kiddo was starting solids, a ton of articles came out showing heavy metals found in store bought baby food (including organic brands, which of course would cause any parent to panic. The problem is, it's not like the food manufacturers are just purposefully contaminating their food with heavy metals, and it wasn't coming from issues with the mass-production process. The heavy metals came from the vegetables themselves, with the highest levels in things like rice cereal and root vegetable purees. So then parents think, well what if I just make my own baby food at home But the issue with that is, the rice and root vegetables we buy from the store ALSO have similar heavy metal contamination, due to the soil they are grown in. When you go to the store you have no idea where the vegetable came from or the soil composition. So what if we grow our own vegetables and make our own baby food Well that doesn't help because not everyone has the privilege of being able to do that, AND do we know that our own soil at home isn't contaminated Apparently there were arsenic mines in the mountains near my house! My soil could be much much worse than the soil at the farms. The point is, no matter how hard you try, it's basically impossible to avoid this. So what to do with our babies We can't skip vegetables. Basically variety, diversity, is the best answer. Don't just give them ONLY root vegetables or rice. Give a mix of foods and just move on with your life.
reply
DrunkenKnuckle
Very informative video.
One correction though at 20: 00 in your video you mentioned wishing Consumer reports had noted better that mass gainer and protein powders are not the same thing, but You named the link 2025 Consumer Reports investigation of heavy metals in protein supplements but the actual name of the article from Consumer reports is protein Powders and Shakes Contain High Levels of Lead
you also mentioned at 25: 00 (calling it a Protein powder again) they mentioned 8. 5 micrograms of Inorganic arsenic, claiming it to be twice the daily limit
you clearly did alot of work and frankly made me less scared of that report. Any thoughts on how much inorganic arsenic in real world examples we should be taking
I do like that your video focused on what we already consume as normal eating humans when it comes to heavy metals in our food. Thanks for the practical food analogy. Especially the over protein consumption for human sustainability Good Info!
My takeaway from you informative video is this:
Protein and weight Supplements by it's very nature allows us to increase our daily limits of food intake (usually for cosmetic or other muscle growth reasons) by way of condensing the amount of protein we would normally get from eating more of the natural source of protein/powder ingredients. including the harmful stuff.
reply
Very informative video.
One correction though at 20: 00 in your video you mentioned wishing Consumer reports had noted better that mass gainer and protein powders are not the same thing, but You named the link 2025 Consumer Reports investigation of heavy metals in protein supplements but the actual name of the article from Consumer reports is protein Powders and Shakes Contain High Levels of Lead
you also mentioned at 25: 00 (calling it a Protein powder again) they mentioned 8. 5 micrograms of Inorganic arsenic, claiming it to be twice the daily limit
you clearly did alot of work and frankly made me less scared of that report. Any thoughts on how much inorganic arsenic in real world examples we should be taking
I do like that your video focused on what we already consume as normal eating humans when it comes to heavy metals in our food. Thanks for the practical food analogy. Especially the over protein consumption for human sustainability Good Info!
My takeaway from you informative video is this:
Protein and weight Supplements by it's very nature allows us to increase our daily limits of food intake (usually for cosmetic or other muscle growth reasons) by way of condensing the amount of protein we would normally get from eating more of the natural source of protein/powder ingredients. including the harmful stuff.
reply
lomiification
i thought it was from you where i heard that people trying to gain muscle way overeat on protein and that you can get the same muscle by eating the same amount of calories in carbs, as long as you arent protein deficient. might be worth a look and maybe a debunk if you havent.
either way, this seems like something the protein markers could drastically reduce without too much work since theyre already heavily processed foods.
id be excited to see a followup study about bodybuilder lead exposure. if they dont, thats very strong evidence to not pay much of any attention to lead in the protein powders.
another video idea - how did the FDA get to using a safety factor of 100 for mechanical engineering school we had something like 2. im guessing that its smoothing over things they didnt control for when they were testing, like body weight, exposure time, other foods they were eating. 100 seems like they dont have a ton of confidence in that number, but maybe also to account for people having many servings/companies setting serving sizes way too small
with reference to whoever the vox author was, do we have a problem with leftover lead on our fields from leaded gas when's that gonna go away or is there new sources of lead being introduced such that it will always be a problem
reply
i thought it was from you where i heard that people trying to gain muscle way overeat on protein and that you can get the same muscle by eating the same amount of calories in carbs, as long as you arent protein deficient. might be worth a look and maybe a debunk if you havent.
either way, this seems like something the protein markers could drastically reduce without too much work since theyre already heavily processed foods.
id be excited to see a followup study about bodybuilder lead exposure. if they dont, thats very strong evidence to not pay much of any attention to lead in the protein powders.
another video idea - how did the FDA get to using a safety factor of 100 for mechanical engineering school we had something like 2. im guessing that its smoothing over things they didnt control for when they were testing, like body weight, exposure time, other foods they were eating. 100 seems like they dont have a ton of confidence in that number, but maybe also to account for people having many servings/companies setting serving sizes way too small
with reference to whoever the vox author was, do we have a problem with leftover lead on our fields from leaded gas when's that gonna go away or is there new sources of lead being introduced such that it will always be a problem
reply
strayorion2031
#NotAnExpert but my undergrad thesis was on lead on food, and I'm still working with neuroscience for my master's, I completly agree with Ragusea: almost every food we eat has measurable amounts of lead, that's why one the names of the lead management programs is Closer to Zero because it's functionally imposible to get rid of all of it, you can only get closer to 0, and despite what a lot more people would want, your heavy metal exposure is much more related to where you live or your job than on most lifestyle choices (exceptions: tabacco and eating in mexican earthenware, etc, besides that, there is little that you can do to reduce your heavy metal levels besides demanding that your goverment implements stricter regulations on many industries. Lead is so dangerous because almost all biological system have never been exposed to it in the entire history of earth, until the humans started to actually extract it and chemically turning it into more soluble forms that have no problem entering in your body, and now that these soluble molecules of lead are free on the enviroment, it's virtually impossible to get rid of them
reply
#NotAnExpert but my undergrad thesis was on lead on food, and I'm still working with neuroscience for my master's, I completly agree with Ragusea: almost every food we eat has measurable amounts of lead, that's why one the names of the lead management programs is Closer to Zero because it's functionally imposible to get rid of all of it, you can only get closer to 0, and despite what a lot more people would want, your heavy metal exposure is much more related to where you live or your job than on most lifestyle choices (exceptions: tabacco and eating in mexican earthenware, etc, besides that, there is little that you can do to reduce your heavy metal levels besides demanding that your goverment implements stricter regulations on many industries. Lead is so dangerous because almost all biological system have never been exposed to it in the entire history of earth, until the humans started to actually extract it and chemically turning it into more soluble forms that have no problem entering in your body, and now that these soluble molecules of lead are free on the enviroment, it's virtually impossible to get rid of them
reply
knightshousegames
I think people just see the headline and (as with most things) don't read into the details
I had a couple of people send this to me like I know you use protein powder so you should see this then I read into it and the one I use is listed in the Better Choice section.
I feel like the plant based mass gainers were already pretty dodgy and questionable to begin with, since they are just a pile of whatever they can throw in there to add calories, mostly a giant pile of maltodexterin with a little bit of protein powder, so finding out they also had a ton of lead in them didn't feel like a huge surprise. Quite honestly theres probably a ton of problems with those mass gainers, the heavy metals being only one of them.
Are Consumer Reports wrong for putting this out there or doing this research Absolutely not, I was glad people were concerned enough about me to show it to me, but I also feel like them calling some of what they reviewed protein powders is just a straight misnomer and comparing those mass gainers to dairy based protein powders isn't an apples to apples comparison
reply
I think people just see the headline and (as with most things) don't read into the details
I had a couple of people send this to me like I know you use protein powder so you should see this then I read into it and the one I use is listed in the Better Choice section.
I feel like the plant based mass gainers were already pretty dodgy and questionable to begin with, since they are just a pile of whatever they can throw in there to add calories, mostly a giant pile of maltodexterin with a little bit of protein powder, so finding out they also had a ton of lead in them didn't feel like a huge surprise. Quite honestly theres probably a ton of problems with those mass gainers, the heavy metals being only one of them.
Are Consumer Reports wrong for putting this out there or doing this research Absolutely not, I was glad people were concerned enough about me to show it to me, but I also feel like them calling some of what they reviewed protein powders is just a straight misnomer and comparing those mass gainers to dairy based protein powders isn't an apples to apples comparison
reply
nizerp
Who would say more of a bad thing is better or fine when you know you could have less of that bad thing It's worth noting that Consumer Reports is a consumer advocacy agency that uses journalism to share its independent testing and research. You can appreciate that information without dissemination is largely useless. Personally, that's a distinction that takes the sting out of the subtle ad hominem attack on CR's motives for clicks. Their motive is consumer advocacy. For consumers avoiding powders that may expose you to a meaningful percentage of a widely agreed safe daily allowance is a reasonable recommendation. Why should I choose a powder with 1200-1500% of the Prop 65 threshold or nearly 100% of the FDA threshold when I could choose one with practically no lead Clumsy or oversimplified communication is a fair critique, but fundamentally the article clearly outlines how to get less of a bad thing. It also raises attention to health and safety that is entirely consistent with CR's core mission for truth, transparency, and fairness in the marketplace.
reply
Who would say more of a bad thing is better or fine when you know you could have less of that bad thing It's worth noting that Consumer Reports is a consumer advocacy agency that uses journalism to share its independent testing and research. You can appreciate that information without dissemination is largely useless. Personally, that's a distinction that takes the sting out of the subtle ad hominem attack on CR's motives for clicks. Their motive is consumer advocacy. For consumers avoiding powders that may expose you to a meaningful percentage of a widely agreed safe daily allowance is a reasonable recommendation. Why should I choose a powder with 1200-1500% of the Prop 65 threshold or nearly 100% of the FDA threshold when I could choose one with practically no lead Clumsy or oversimplified communication is a fair critique, but fundamentally the article clearly outlines how to get less of a bad thing. It also raises attention to health and safety that is entirely consistent with CR's core mission for truth, transparency, and fairness in the marketplace.
reply
nialltracey2599
Sorry, but there is a reason he said most people and didn't mention the exceptions, because the exceptions are already aware they're exceptions, because they are in specific communities that discuss it all the time.
Protein supplements have got popular because the fact that they are used by athletes has been mischaracterised as saying they are good for you. They are good for athletes, and it's arguably good that the protein shakes are in the drinks dispenser at most gyms now.
However, even most gym users don't actually need them, let alone people buying a supermarket lunch meal deal (yes, we have protein supplemented drinks and snacks in lunchtime takeaway meals in the UK now)
Everyone likes to think they do more exercise than they actually do, and if they named the exceptions in the paper, everyone would self-identify as an exception and keep chugging the stuff.
I don't see why you, as a professional journalist and someone serious about weight training, don't get this.
reply
Sorry, but there is a reason he said most people and didn't mention the exceptions, because the exceptions are already aware they're exceptions, because they are in specific communities that discuss it all the time.
Protein supplements have got popular because the fact that they are used by athletes has been mischaracterised as saying they are good for you. They are good for athletes, and it's arguably good that the protein shakes are in the drinks dispenser at most gyms now.
However, even most gym users don't actually need them, let alone people buying a supermarket lunch meal deal (yes, we have protein supplemented drinks and snacks in lunchtime takeaway meals in the UK now)
Everyone likes to think they do more exercise than they actually do, and if they named the exceptions in the paper, everyone would self-identify as an exception and keep chugging the stuff.
I don't see why you, as a professional journalist and someone serious about weight training, don't get this.
reply
petergerdes1094
There is a bigger problem here about expert communication. If experts shy away from saying true things out of fear that people will use that as an excuse to believe/do something dumb in the long run they lose public trust because people reasonably think: hey if there was something good/bad about X I couldn't trust the experts to tell me so all I learn from them is there aren't 0 arguments on the other side.
I understand the pro-social motivation. You don't want idiots starting to do something harmful to themselves because you said that people with X, Y and Z rare conditions should use protein and people often falsely self-diagnos (eg gluten intolerance. But in the long run people realizing you are shaping what you let them hear because of what you fear they may do with the information doesn't actually avoid those harms -- it makes them worse because now they only trust the cranks about the issue.
reply
There is a bigger problem here about expert communication. If experts shy away from saying true things out of fear that people will use that as an excuse to believe/do something dumb in the long run they lose public trust because people reasonably think: hey if there was something good/bad about X I couldn't trust the experts to tell me so all I learn from them is there aren't 0 arguments on the other side.
I understand the pro-social motivation. You don't want idiots starting to do something harmful to themselves because you said that people with X, Y and Z rare conditions should use protein and people often falsely self-diagnos (eg gluten intolerance. But in the long run people realizing you are shaping what you let them hear because of what you fear they may do with the information doesn't actually avoid those harms -- it makes them worse because now they only trust the cranks about the issue.
reply
EricAnimeFreak
In general, mono cropped vegetables are more likely to have higher lead content than beef. The primary determinant of lead content in both is the level of lead in the soil or feed they are exposed to, but plants inherently accumulate heavy metals from the soil and air more effectively than animals do. Studies by consumer safety organizations like Consumer Reports and the Clean Label Project have consistently found that plant-based protein powders tend to have significantly higher lead content than animal-based protein powders, such as whey or dairy-based options. If you want to reduce lead intake, consume more animal-based foods.
There is an estimated 2. 7 billion hectares of potentially arable land in the world that is not currently cultivated. Theoretically, this land could support approximately 1. 35 billion cows if allocated for grazing, if the estimate is correct.
reply
In general, mono cropped vegetables are more likely to have higher lead content than beef. The primary determinant of lead content in both is the level of lead in the soil or feed they are exposed to, but plants inherently accumulate heavy metals from the soil and air more effectively than animals do. Studies by consumer safety organizations like Consumer Reports and the Clean Label Project have consistently found that plant-based protein powders tend to have significantly higher lead content than animal-based protein powders, such as whey or dairy-based options. If you want to reduce lead intake, consume more animal-based foods.
There is an estimated 2. 7 billion hectares of potentially arable land in the world that is not currently cultivated. Theoretically, this land could support approximately 1. 35 billion cows if allocated for grazing, if the estimate is correct.
reply
kingofthend
The journalist who wrote the report used to be a tech reporter with no background in toxicology. I don't think you necessarily need the credentials to write about a topic but when it comes to something this complex I'd really prefer that these reports would be written by people with basic understanding of the subject matter. Also another issue I (occasionally) have with investigative journalism is that they have a hard time letting a story go when it turns out theres nothing there. When you spend months working on a story and it turns out not to be a big deal it's very very difficult to let a story die, especially when you have already invested a lot of resources into it and I have a feeling this might be what happened here.
Personally I'll keep using whey powder which I now know contains about as much lead per serving as a carrot.
reply
The journalist who wrote the report used to be a tech reporter with no background in toxicology. I don't think you necessarily need the credentials to write about a topic but when it comes to something this complex I'd really prefer that these reports would be written by people with basic understanding of the subject matter. Also another issue I (occasionally) have with investigative journalism is that they have a hard time letting a story go when it turns out theres nothing there. When you spend months working on a story and it turns out not to be a big deal it's very very difficult to let a story die, especially when you have already invested a lot of resources into it and I have a feeling this might be what happened here.
Personally I'll keep using whey powder which I now know contains about as much lead per serving as a carrot.
reply
taiiat0
i may not be an expert on this, but i think it's always worth trying to minimize the amount of Lead exposure our Food and environment give us.
if we can detect an amount of Lead that's measureable in a practical sense, i want to reduce it.
both out of intuition and basing on the experts my entire life saying we do not have a bar for a 'safe' level of Lead exposure, any at all is considered unsafe.
will some micro micro level crash everything to pieces probably not, but i'll keep on saying it's worth it to try to minimize it everywhere we can. not just for 1st World regions either, for everyone. if we can have less Lead, i want less Lead.
and to be clear, that is not that any particular Food is bad. i only care about Peoples' Lead exposure and how we can reduce it, no matter who they are.
reply
i may not be an expert on this, but i think it's always worth trying to minimize the amount of Lead exposure our Food and environment give us.
if we can detect an amount of Lead that's measureable in a practical sense, i want to reduce it.
both out of intuition and basing on the experts my entire life saying we do not have a bar for a 'safe' level of Lead exposure, any at all is considered unsafe.
will some micro micro level crash everything to pieces probably not, but i'll keep on saying it's worth it to try to minimize it everywhere we can. not just for 1st World regions either, for everyone. if we can have less Lead, i want less Lead.
and to be clear, that is not that any particular Food is bad. i only care about Peoples' Lead exposure and how we can reduce it, no matter who they are.
reply
ssj3gohan456
Not to be down too much on the premise, but 'wanting to be as jacked as a 43yo with unremarkable genetics can be' isn't necessarily a healthy or worthwhile goal. It's something that is culturally and socially acceptable at the moment, but both from a health (in the objective sense) and mental health perspective it's one of those things that causes so, so, soooo many issues in the world. From the relatively benign fact that people spend too much time working out and end up becoming gymbros (a decidedly unattractive type of personality) or even falling down the supplement/gymbro/fascism pipeline, to the serious stuff like taking the easy way out and ending up with steroid-induced kidney failure or serious anger issues that cause domestic violence incidents.
reply
Not to be down too much on the premise, but 'wanting to be as jacked as a 43yo with unremarkable genetics can be' isn't necessarily a healthy or worthwhile goal. It's something that is culturally and socially acceptable at the moment, but both from a health (in the objective sense) and mental health perspective it's one of those things that causes so, so, soooo many issues in the world. From the relatively benign fact that people spend too much time working out and end up becoming gymbros (a decidedly unattractive type of personality) or even falling down the supplement/gymbro/fascism pipeline, to the serious stuff like taking the easy way out and ending up with steroid-induced kidney failure or serious anger issues that cause domestic violence incidents.
reply
food
Adam Ragusea [7: 18]: _So, I advocate protein powder as a more sustainable alternative for my gym bros, even the dairy-based powders, because those are just byproducts of a cheese industry that is gonna make cheese regardless of whether you buy the leftover whey. _
They would still make cheese even if they couldn’t sell as much whey to make protein powder, but they would probably make less cheese (and therefore, less milk would be harvested) because they would have to sell the cheese at a higher price to make a profit (as a supply and demand equilibrium was reached in a competitive market) since their income from selling whey would be lower.
PS: In the economic world there are no byproducts, only assets and liabilities.
reply
Adam Ragusea [7: 18]: _So, I advocate protein powder as a more sustainable alternative for my gym bros, even the dairy-based powders, because those are just byproducts of a cheese industry that is gonna make cheese regardless of whether you buy the leftover whey. _
They would still make cheese even if they couldn’t sell as much whey to make protein powder, but they would probably make less cheese (and therefore, less milk would be harvested) because they would have to sell the cheese at a higher price to make a profit (as a supply and demand equilibrium was reached in a competitive market) since their income from selling whey would be lower.
PS: In the economic world there are no byproducts, only assets and liabilities.
reply
SilliusMaximusXI
The whole thing about our planet not being able to sustain meat consumption is absolute nonsense. Most of what cattle eat are things we cannot eat and would be waste anyway such as: grain stalks and grass- from areas where growing crops would not be profitable. If meat farming was so much more resource intensive, why is it not that much more expensive per nutrient than vegetables
Besides the planet is also a lot bigger than people think and can actually support a much much larger population- land defined as fertile land is only land that is currently profitable to farm on with current technology and demand for food; even rocky grassy remote hillsides can grow crops.
reply
The whole thing about our planet not being able to sustain meat consumption is absolute nonsense. Most of what cattle eat are things we cannot eat and would be waste anyway such as: grain stalks and grass- from areas where growing crops would not be profitable. If meat farming was so much more resource intensive, why is it not that much more expensive per nutrient than vegetables
Besides the planet is also a lot bigger than people think and can actually support a much much larger population- land defined as fertile land is only land that is currently profitable to farm on with current technology and demand for food; even rocky grassy remote hillsides can grow crops.
reply
petergerdes1094
I wish I could treat meat as a treat or even be a vegan. Unfortunately, for obvious market based reasons vegetarian and vegan food tends to be made to appeal to the kind of person who likes vegetables etc -- rather than people like me who find them too disgusting and bitter to eat.
Yes, if I put in enough work cooking things from scratch I can make curries and other vegan dishes I like but it's hard to find recipes (most vegan recipes are also made for people who enjoy vegan food) and it's just too much time.
From a moral POV if someone could design cookbooks/websites if not affordableb premade foods for people like ne
reply
I wish I could treat meat as a treat or even be a vegan. Unfortunately, for obvious market based reasons vegetarian and vegan food tends to be made to appeal to the kind of person who likes vegetables etc -- rather than people like me who find them too disgusting and bitter to eat.
Yes, if I put in enough work cooking things from scratch I can make curries and other vegan dishes I like but it's hard to find recipes (most vegan recipes are also made for people who enjoy vegan food) and it's just too much time.
From a moral POV if someone could design cookbooks/websites if not affordableb premade foods for people like ne
reply
miseentrope
Hey, Adam, it isn't just gym bros (as you say) relying on protein powders. Senior citizens, especially low-income and/or differently abled, are encouraged to supplement their diets with protein powders. and these powders frequently show up donated to food banks that serve the underserved. I'd hate for the CR info to leak into toxic misinfo on social media, etc and dissuade (scare) those folks from getting desperately needed protein from easy-to-mix and drink nutrition.
Thanks for breaking down the numbers so I can share with volunteers at and those served by food banks.
reply
Hey, Adam, it isn't just gym bros (as you say) relying on protein powders. Senior citizens, especially low-income and/or differently abled, are encouraged to supplement their diets with protein powders. and these powders frequently show up donated to food banks that serve the underserved. I'd hate for the CR info to leak into toxic misinfo on social media, etc and dissuade (scare) those folks from getting desperately needed protein from easy-to-mix and drink nutrition.
Thanks for breaking down the numbers so I can share with volunteers at and those served by food banks.
reply
Add a review, comment
Other channel videos
