47% of 160 Top Selling Protein Powders Tested Exceed P65 Limit for Toxic Metals [pdf]

Re:47% of 160 Top Selling Protein Powders Tested Exceed P65 ... by aantix on Tuesday January 14, 2025 @10:18AM (#42698248)

You might as well not even publish the report if you're not listing the offending protein powders.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:47% of 160 Top Selling Protein Powders Tested Exceed P65 ... by hombre_fatal on Tuesday January 14, 2025 @10:21AM (#42698287)

Pfft, didn't you check their website?

https://cleanlabelproject.org/the-best-worst-protein-powder-...

Oh... the "worst protein powders" section is just a link to:

https://www.consumerreports.org/health/nutrition-healthy-eat...

I wouldn't be surprised if they have zero data and it's just a money grab for their "certification badge".

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:47% of 160 Top Selling Protein Powders Tested Exceed P65 ... by kmoser on Tuesday January 14, 2025 @10:38AM (#42698536)

I wonder how they determined which ones to test? I thought Orgain was a huge brand of protein powder but I couldn't find it listed.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:47% of 160 Top Selling Protein Powders Tested Exceed P65 ... by hprotagonist on Tuesday January 14, 2025 @10:23AM (#42698314)

> Oh... the "worst protein powders" section is just a link to:

> https://www.consumerreports.org/health/nutrition-healthy-eat...

paywalled.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:47% of 160 Top Selling Protein Powders Tested Exceed P65 ... by felixarba on Tuesday January 14, 2025 @10:21AM (#42698290)

Honestly, like they published every single statistic, except the actual offenders.

If it’s such an important mission for them, then why not publish the offenders?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:47% of 160 Top Selling Protein Powders Tested Exceed P65 ... by hombre_fatal on Tuesday January 14, 2025 @10:43AM (#42698616)

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.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:47% of 160 Top Selling Protein Powders Tested Exceed P65 ... by lazide on Tuesday January 14, 2025 @10:24AM (#42698327)

Gotta pay the bills somehow, apparently.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:47% of 160 Top Selling Protein Powders Tested Exceed P65 ... by MattGaiser on Tuesday January 14, 2025 @10:21AM (#42698277)

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.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:47% of 160 Top Selling Protein Powders Tested Exceed P65 ... by hombre_fatal on Tuesday January 14, 2025 @10:23AM (#42698308)

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.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:47% of 160 Top Selling Protein Powders Tested Exceed P65 ... by MattGaiser on Wednesday January 15, 2025 @10:58PM (#42721007)

Most notable case was in Canada.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/subway-defamation-lawsuit-c...

CBC was sued by Subway for figuring out that their chicken was less chicken than one might think.

[ Parent | on HN ]