A new wave of scrutiny has fallen on protein powders and shakes after a Consumer Reports investigation found that many popular products contain unsafe or concerning levels of lead, reigniting concerns about oversight, industry practices, and consumer protection. 

This controversy underscores deeper regulatory gaps and points toward steps both regulators and manufacturers can, and arguably should, take to monitor and reduce heavy metal exposure.

 

What the Consumer Reports Testing Found

Out of 23 protein powders tested:

• Two products—Naked Nutrition’s Vegan Mass Gainer and Huel’s Black Edition—contained lead levels so high that CR recommended avoiding them altogether.
• Several others, including Garden of Life Sport Organic Plant-Based and Momentous 100% Plant Protein, were flagged for limited use.
• Plant-based powders showed higher contamination than dairy-based ones, likely due to heavy metals in soil and water.
• The average lead levels in the tested powders appear higher than in similar testing done 15 years ago, and fewer products now show undetectable lead levels.

These results echo findings from the Clean Label Project, which in prior testing found that nearly half of 160 powders exceeded California’s Proposition 65 limits for lead, cadmium, arsenic, or mercury.

Industry critics have pushed back, arguing that detecting trace amounts is not the same as demonstrating real risk, and that some reports lack full context about exposure and acceptable limits.

Why Heavy Metals Show Up

Heavy metals such as lead, cadmium, arsenic, and mercury occur naturally in soil and water. Crops like peas, rice, and hemp absorb them during growth. Contamination can also occur during manufacturing or from polluted ingredient sources.

Regulatory Landscape

A core reason this issue garners attention is that dietary supplements (including protein powders) are not pre-approved by the FDA. Their regulatory framework differs from that for drugs or many conventional foods. The FDA does not pre-approve dietary supplements before they reach the market. Under the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act (DSHEA), manufacturers, not the FDA, are responsible for product safety and labeling accuracy.

• The FDA can take action only after a product is sold and found unsafe.
• There are no federal limits for heavy metals in all supplements, although the FDA sets guidance levels for some foods.
• California’s Proposition 65 remains one of the few enforceable standards, requiring warnings for products that exceed “safe harbor” levels of chemicals like lead.

FDA’s Approach to Toxic Elements in Foods & Supplements

The FDA recognizes toxic elements (lead, arsenic, cadmium, and mercury) as environmental contaminants and maintains a “Toxic Elements in Food and Dietary Supplements” program. The agency:

• Collects data via the Total Diet Study and other sampling.
• Issues guidance and “action levels” or tolerances for certain products (especially baby foods) even if not legally binding. 
• Prioritizes regulatory risk management where exposure is highest or most harmful.

But there is no mandatory federal limit specifically for lead or cadmium in all dietary supplements, and the FDA does not systematically test every supplement before sale.

Role of California’s Proposition 65

California’s Proposition 65 (Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986) requires businesses to provide warning if a product exposes consumers to chemicals known to cause cancer or reproductive harm—above a so-called “safe harbor” level. Lead and cadmium are on Prop 65’s list.

• In 2024, the law was amended to require that the warning identify at least one chemical responsible (e.g. “contains lead”) for supplements sold in California. 
• Many consumer safety groups and reports benchmark against Prop 65 thresholds as a practical standard of concern.

Thus, while exceeding Prop 65 doesn’t automatically mean a product violates federal law, it can trigger consumer warnings and reputational risk.

How Manufacturers Can Stay Ahead

Responsible supplement makers can mitigate risk by:

• Testing raw ingredients and finished products for heavy metals using ICP-MS or similar validated methods.
• Auditing suppliers for soil and water contamination risks.
• Setting internal specification limits aligned with Prop 65 or USP guidelines.
• Using third-party certification (e.g., NSF, USP, Informed Sport) to verify purity and labeling accuracy.

These proactive measures protect consumers and demonstrate product integrity, even in the absence of strict federal requirements.

What Consumers Can Do and What the Findings Mean

• Use protein powders judiciously: Many people meet their protein needs through food sources; powders should supplement, not replace.
• Limit use when possible: If a product is flagged for high contamination, limit frequency or look for alternative sources of protein.
• Choose brands with transparency and certification: Look for third-party seals (NSF, USP, ConsumerLab) or published heavy metal testing.
• Watch for Prop 65 warnings: A label that states “WARNING: contains lead” may signal elevated levels (under California law).
• Diversify protein sources: Relying solely on one brand or one plant source increases risk if that product has contamination issues.

The discovery of elevated lead in many protein powders is a wake-up call—but should be interpreted in context. The mere detection of trace metals is not a guarantee of harm; the real question is dose over time and cumulative exposure. Still, the regulatory and industry gaps mean that consumers and manufacturers alike must be vigilant.

Resources

• Consumer Reports. Unsafe Amounts of Lead Found in Some Protein Powders.

https://www.consumerreports.org/lead/protein-powders-and-shakes-contain-high-levels-of-lead-a4206364640/

• Clean Label Project. Protein Powder Category Report. January 2025.

https://cleanlabelproject.org

• U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Environmental Contaminants in Food and Dietary Supplements.

https://www.fda.gov/food/chemical-contaminants-pesticides/environmental-contaminants-food

• U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994 (DSHEA).

https://www.fda.gov/food/dietary-supplements/dietary-supplement-health-and-education-act-dshea

• California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA). Proposition 65: Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986.

https://oehha.ca.gov/proposition-65

• NSF International. NSF/ANSI 173: Dietary Supplements – Standards and Certification.

https://www.nsf.org