Washington, D.C.—The mainstream media headlines are alarming:

CR assured readers that they needn’t panic if they’ve been using any of the products tested, or if they take protein supplements, since many of these powders are “fine to have occasionally, and even those with the highest lead levels are far below the concentration needed to cause immediate harm.” That said, CR maintained that most people don’t need protein supplements. The report quoted Tunde Akinleye, the CR food safety researcher who led the testing project: “We advise against daily use for most protein powders, since many have high levels of heavy metals and none are necessary to hit your protein goals.” 

Natural Products Industry Leaders Respond to CR Report on Protein Powders

The Natural Products Association (NPA) called the CR report “alarmist, misleading and unscientific.” The trade association pointed out that the industry’s efforts to reduce the inadvertent consumption of heavy metals is appreciated, but “the reality is that the levels of lead flagged by Consumer Reports are far below amounts present in many foods, including some fruits and vegetables. FDA’s own science-based action levels for lead in foods intended for infants and young children establish thresholds that are achievable and protect the public. While these guidelines do not apply directly to dietary supplements, they offer a critical perspective. The levels Consumer Reports calls ‘high’ fall significantly below FDA’s established action thresholds.”

NPA President and CEO Daniel Fabricant, Ph.D., said, “FDA’s position is clear: There’s a difference between detection and danger. Consumer Reports knows that, but it doesn’t fit its narrative.”

Adding perspective, NPA explained that CR has raised concerns about the presence of heavy metals in protein powders, in the past. This lead to a 2020 analysis published in Toxicology Reports that set out to determine if heavy metal concentrations (arsenic, cadmium, mercury and lead) reported in protein powder supplements posed human health risks. The conclusion: the typical intake of dietary supplements would not result in adverse health effects due to heavy metals. NPA added that industry members conduct rigorous ingredient testing under federally mandated current good manufacturing practices (cGMPs) applicable to dietary supplement products and voluntarily screen for heavy metals using advanced analytical methods to ensure safety and compliance. “Responsible supplement makers including those who belong to NPA are already going above and beyond what the law requires,” Dr. Fabricant said. “Meanwhile, Consumer Reports is using scare headlines to undermine the credibility of a $70 billion+ industry built on transparency, safety and science.”

The Council for Responsible Nutrition (CRN) also took issue with the Consumer Reports findings, issuing the following statement:

“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.

“The mere detection of heavy metals such as lead, cadmium, or arsenic does not equate to a health hazard. Modern testing methods are extraordinarily sensitive and capable of identifying trace amounts of naturally occurring elements that are found broadly in soil, water, and plants. Supplement manufacturers are already required under federal Good Manufacturing Practices to test for contaminants and ensure compliance with federal standards.

“By contrast, Consumer Reports’ use of its own internal ‘Level of Concern’ benchmarks—standards not recognized by any regulator—creates a misleading impression of risk. A finding that a product exceeds CR’s self-imposed threshold is not the same as exceeding a government safety limit, nor is it evidence of any safety risk to consumers. When products are manufactured and tested in accordance with FDA requirements, levels of naturally occurring elements are expected to remain well within safe ranges.

“CRN and its members remain committed to transparency, continuous safety monitoring, and to supporting federal science-based standards that provide consumers with confidence without distorting risk.”

The final word

Driving home the point on quality science and safety versus scare tactics, Dr. Fabricant stated: “Every time this issue comes up, NPA’s position has been the same—base public health decisions on data, not drama. If any product exceeds safe limits, fix it. But let’s stop pretending that detecting parts per billion of naturally occurring elements reveals a public health emergency.”