Industry responds to Consumer Reports article on heavy metal contamination in protein powders

An October 14, 2025 article from Consumer Reports claims that nearly two-thirds of protein products it had tested, contained more lead in a single serving than its food safety experts say is safe to consume in a day. They tested 23 protein powders and ready to drink shakes from popular brands and found that 70% contained more than 120% of Consumer Report’s level of concern for lead. Three products also exceeded its level of concern for cadmium and inorganic arsenic. Consumer Reports also found that nearly all of the plant protein options it tested had on-average nine time the amount of lead found in dairy proteins. The threshold or concern for lead set by Consumer Reports is 0.5 micrograms per day.

One of the companies stated as having among the highest levels of lead in its product was Huel. The company responded to the report stating that its products undero rigorous testing to meet thresholds set forth by NSF. For example, Huel’s Black Edition protein powder was tested by Consumer Reports to contain 6.3 micrograms of lead per serving, which it said it 1290% of the daily lead limit of 0.5 micrograms. However, NSF’s threshold is 10 micrograms per day, and Huel claims that its own testing found that its Black Edition protein powder contains between 1.5 and 2.2 µg per 90g serving. The 0.5 microgram threshold set by Consumer Reports matches those set by California’s Proposition 65 which is well below Federal thresholds. Huel, and other brands that are part of the Consumer Reports testing also make the claim that heavy metals like lead and cadmium are naturally occurring and it’s common for trace amounts to be in food. That said, while thresholds are set, and exposure is not possible to prevent, there is no known safe level of exposure.

Industry trade groups have responded to the report as well. The Natural Products Association (NPA; Washington, D.C.) denounced the report as alarmist, misleading, and unscientific. “FDA’s position is clear: There’s a difference between detection and danger,” said NPA President and CEO Daniel Fabricant, Ph.D., former director of the Division of Dietary Supplement Programs, in a statement. “Consumer Reports knows that, but it doesn’t fit its narrative.”

NPA also cites a study in Toxicology Reports that the human health risk of heavy metal ingestion from protein powders. That study found that “the exposure concentrations of the studied metals do not pose an increased health risk.”

In a statement, the Council for Responsible Nutrition (CRN; Washington, D.C.) stated that, “CRN supports rigorous science-based evaluation of dietary supplements and functional foods, including protein powders, but we urge caution in interpreting results like those reported in Consumer Reports’ recent testing. While we appreciate that Consumer Reports has published some detail on its methodology, we note that important context is missing—specifically how products were selected, whether testing reflected typical consumer use, and how its ‘levels of concern’ were derived. Without harmonization to established federal benchmarks, or even actual safety risk, such proprietary thresholds can overstate risk and cause unnecessary alarm.”

A similar report published by Clean Label Project in January of 2025 had similar findings. That report too was not sufficiently transparent about the criteria for the threshold that was set. For example, Prop 65 limit for reproductive toxicity of lead is 0.5 mcg per day while FDA's interim reference level for the heavy metal in women of childbearing age has only recently been lowered to 8.8 mcg per day.