Consumer Reports Overinflates Lead and Heavy Metals Concern in Protein Supplement Survey
Dec 10, 2025
Consumer Reports Overinflates Lead and Heavy Metals Concern in Protein Supplement Survey
Whenever Consumer Reports comes out with quality testing results for dietary supplements, the ground shakes in the industry as it usually points to a huge risk for consumers. That was the case recently, with testing on protein supplements apparently revealing significant risks from lead and other heavy metals. But it pays to scrutinize the data and the details to see what the real risks are as Consumer Reports appears to have provided some misinformation to consumers that overinflated the concern on this occasion.
On October 14, 2025, Consumer Reports reported significant concerns with lead in protein supplements. It was updated on October 22, 2025, after industry comments. A similar survey of heavy metals in supplements was done in 2012. The recent testing and summary considered a Consumer Reports level of concern for lead of 0.5 ug/day, but in the article, they didn’t disclose where it came from or the relevance; you have to go to the attached PDF and fine print. Here, we dig into the details further and explore the industry standards limits for heavy metals to see if there really is a concern that was exposed here, and to what degree.
Looking Closely At The Data
In the recent investigation, Consumer Reports purchased and tested 23 popular protein powders and ready-to-drink protein shakes (including dairy-, beef-, and plant-based products) for heavy metals (lead, cadmium, arsenic). The headline was catchy, saying, “More than two-thirds of them contain more lead in a single serving than our experts say is safe to have in a day.” They found that over two-thirds (about 70 %) of the products contained more than 0.5 micrograms (µg) of lead per single serving. Earthshattering right?
The article emphasizes that while a single serving of these products with high lead content likely won’t cause immediate harm in most healthy adults, chronic daily use of products with elevated lead (or cadmium/arsenic) may raise long‐term risks—especially for children, pregnant women, or anyone accumulating exposure from multiple sources. It also notes that federal regulation of dietary supplements in the U.S. does not currently set strict maximum limits for lead in protein powders, meaning manufacturers are largely self-regulated and consumers are advised to favor whole-food protein sources or choose products with verified low heavy-metal levels.
Interpreting The Data The Right Way
We certainly second the warning on heavy metals consumption for children and pregnant women and appreciate that element of the article. In the Understanding Lead Exposure section, the following is now noted as part of the Consumer Reports article update and follow-up:
“The FDA has set 'interim reference levels'—these are estimates, not regulations or action levels, designed to protect against lead toxicity—for children and women of childbearing age. Those levels are currently 2.2 micrograms and 8.8 micrograms per day, respectively. An FDA spokesperson told CR there is sufficient evidence that the 8.8 micrograms per day benchmark should be applied to all adults.
The average American adult is exposed to up to 5.3 micrograms of lead each day through their diet, according to a 2019 analysis published by scientists at the FDA.” Reporting based on the Consumer Reports article was robust, drumming up further concern as this sampling shows. CBS News started its story with, “Some protein powders and shakes contain unsafe levels of lead, according to a Consumer Reports investigation.” Food and Wine noted, “only a handful of brands were deemed safe for regular use in the nonprofit’s analysis.” Healthline, in their reporting, noted astronomical percentages in their article, saying that one plant-based powder (Naked Nutrition Vegan Mass Gainer) measured 7.7 µg of lead per serving (~1,570 % of the 0.5 µg “level of concern”), and another (Huel Black Edition) measured 6.3 µg (~1,290 % of the threshold). Prevention.com highlighted that plant-based products showed much higher lead levels on average: about nine times more than dairy-based powders, and about twice as much as beef-based powders.
Should You Worry?
So, was the concern really as big as Consumer Reports suggested? Not according to industry standard limits for heavy metals.
It turns out the 0.5 ug/day limit used by Consumer Reports is the safe harbor maximum allowable dose level (MADL) for reproductive toxicity in California’s Proposition 65. It is not indicative of a level of concern for the general toxicity of lead. Prop 65 also has a much higher No Significant Risk Level (NSRL) for cancer at 15 ug/day, which was ignored by Consumer Reports.
Consumer Reports did not disclose in the article where the limit came from, nor the relevance of the limit they used to reproductive toxicity. You have to dig into the attached PDF and fine print to figure that out. That’s not consumer advocacy, that’s creating consumer confusion and obfuscating the real general toxicity concern with heavy metals that is relevant at a much higher level according to industry standard limits.
The 2012 survey done by Consumer Reports used the US Pharmacopeia (USP) proposed limits for lead at the time, now considered the gold standard for general toxicity. In 2012, the USP proposed limit was 15 ug/day. That level is now a permitted daily exposure (PDE) of 5 ug/day for dietary supplements in USP Chapter <2232>. So, for whatever reason, this time around, Consumer Reports opted to consider a risk level for lead that is 100 times lower than the industry standard and representative of a suggestive level at which there may be a potential for reproductive harm, used only in Prop 65 in California, not the much higher level of risk associated with general toxicity used by USP.
Heavy Metals And Your Health
Also of note is that when considering the other heavy metals in the recent survey, Consumer Reports considered the EPA limits for arsenic and cadmium, not the USP limits for supplements or other industry standard limits. Consumer Reports used a cadmium limit of 4.1 ug/day, and the USP limit is 5 ug/day. And for arsenic, the limit wasn’t stated, but for one product with 8.5 ug/serving, they said it was twice the daily limit. So, the arsenic limit they chose was 4.25 ug/day, while USP has a limit of 15 ug/day. So, in the article, the lower limit used for arsenic would seem to overinflate the concern, while the concern for cadmium is close to the industry standard limits for cadmium in supplements and appears to be a legitimate level of concern. Overall if Consumer Reports evaluated heavy metals levels according to the dietary supplement industry standard limits for heavy metals represented by USP in Chapter <2232> or used in the American National Standards Institute 173 for dietary supplements (ANSI 173) the level of concern would be significantly less than what Consumer Reports represented for lead, also to a degree for arsenic, while cadmium concerns were based on a level of concern on par with industry standards.
The Bottom Line
Some of this is now discussed after industry comments and responses from brands, but surely Consumer Reports could have done a better job themselves by evaluating heavy metals using consistent levels of risk for heavy metals, as they did in 2012, and by using the industry-standard limits like USP that they considered previously. Here, they appear to have overinflated the concern, particularly for lead, by using a threshold of concern that most do not consider to be relevant broadly to the general toxicity of lead in dietary supplements. Put bluntly, Consumer Reports should have held themselves to a higher standard here.
CERTIFIED CLIENTS
Search by Lot, Product, Brand, Category, or Other Keyword.
Certified Drug Free
Certified Quality
Certified GMP
Certified CBD
