Lead in Protein Powders: What the Consumer Reports Study Got Wrong — And What You Should Know

The recent Consumer Reports analysis of protein powders has drawn widespread attention — and not all of the coverage has been accurate or balanced. As a company committed to rigorous safety and transparency, we at Gnarly Sports Nutrition want to clarify key facts, correct misunderstandings, and help you evaluate protein powders intelligently.

In this post we’ll:

1. Point out what the Consumer Reports piece failed to emphasize
   
   

2. Explain how heavy metals like lead can appear in proteins (especially plant-based ones) as well as whole foods
   
   

3. Suggest what consumers should look for in a supplement
   
   

4. Describe how Gnarly uses NSF third-party testing to keep levels safe
   
   

What the Consumer Reports Study Missed or Underplayed

To be fair, the CR study does highlight an issue that deserves attention: not all protein powders are created equal when it comes to ingredient quality and heavy metal risk. But to truly understand what their findings mean (and don’t mean) it’s important to put the data in context. Several critical factors were either underemphasized or left out entirely, leading some readers to assume that any detectable lead is dangerous, or that all protein powders are equally risky. In reality, the science of nutrition safety is more nuanced. Here are five key points that deserve a closer look.

1. Different safety thresholds weren’t explained.
   Consumer Reports evaluated lead levels using California’s Prop 65 standard, which sets a threshold 1,000 times lower than the level considered safe from reproductive harm. This approach is extremely cautious and not aligned with current scientific consensus. The FDA’s safety threshold remains conservative but reflects a more realistic understanding that trace lead exposure is unavoidable when eating foods grown in or on the earth.
   
   

2. “Detectable” is not automatically “unsafe.”
   A lab’s ability to detect trace micrograms of lead does not mean that those amounts pose a health hazard. Many regulatory and scientific frameworks set acceptable thresholds. The CR report often frames “any detectable lead” as alarming, without always comparing detected levels to risk-based tolerances.
   
   

3. Serving size and cumulative exposure matter.
   If a plant-based “mass gainer” has a larger serving size, raw lead per serving may appear high — but on a per-gram or per-dose basis the contamination may align with what you’d see in other proteins. Also, one shake is less concerning than a lifetime of consistent over-consumption.
   
   

4. Snapshot data, not a complete picture.
   CR tested 23 brands/lots. That does not represent every batch, supplier, or manufacturing run. A negative result for one lot does not guarantee every lot is safe, and vice versa. Broad generalizations should be cautious.

5. Lack of transparency in COAs or testing credentials.
   The report does not always differentiate between brands that do third-party screening, which is an important indicator of trustworthiness.
   
   

Because of these gaps in emphasis, casual readers can walk away believing that every protein powder is dangerous, without appreciating how much variation exists — and how serious manufacturers manage the risks.

Why Vegan / Plant-Based Proteins Tend to Show More Lead

A critical point rarely discussed in media coverage: because vegan or plant-based proteins are derived from plants that grow in soil, they are inherently more likely to absorb trace heavy metals — including lead — depending on soil conditions, water, pollution, and agricultural practices.

• Lead (and other heavy metals) exist naturally in the Earth’s crust and in many soils. Plants take up minerals and trace elements from the soil.
  
  

• If a field’s soil is enriched by industrial pollution, historic lead deposition, irrigation water, or heavy use of certain fertilizers, that plant might pick up more lead than plants in cleaner soil.
  
  

• Proteins from animal sources like whey or casein usually have lower lead levels since animals act as a natural filter for the trace minerals and metals found in soil.
  
  

• Many studies and reviews—including those cited by Clean Label Project and independent reviews—report that plant-based powders on average show higher lead or cadmium levels than whey-based or animal-source products.

Because CR’s report did not emphasize that ecological reality — that vegan proteins are more vulnerable to soil-borne heavy metal uptake — many readers might draw incorrect conclusions (for example, assuming all protein powders would behave the same).

So when you see a headline “lead in protein powder,” realize that some of the highest levels tend to be in plant-based powders, not because the manufacturer is negligent, but because of intrinsic risk in the raw materials. The better measure is: how well does the manufacturer detect, mitigate, and reject problematic lots?

Lead Exists Naturally in Many Whole Foods Too

For those tempted to avoid supplements entirely, it’s important to understand that trace amounts of lead aren’t unique to protein powders. They occur naturally in many whole foods—sometimes in levels equal to or even higher than those found in quality-tested supplements. If Consumer Reports applied the same testing standards to vegetables, similar warnings about trace heavy metals would likely follow.

Vegetables like carrots, sweet potatoes, and spinach, as well as grains and root crops, can contain measurable lead because they grow in soil where the mineral occurs naturally. Even foods grown organically are not exempt from this, since lead cannot be fully removed from the environment.

The takeaway is not to panic about food or supplements, but to understand that “zero” is not a realistic goal. The focus should be on minimizing exposure from all sources through good agricultural practices, responsible sourcing, and consistent third-party testing.

How to Evaluate Protein Powders (Your Consumer Checklist)

When you’re reading media reports or shopping for protein supplements, here are questions to ask or criteria to expect:

1. Prefer brands with third-party certification. Certifications like NSF, USP, or Informed Choice provide more confidence.
   
   

2. Consider the protein source. Whey or animal-derived proteins often carry lower soil-borne metal risk, though that alone is not sufficient for safety.
   
   

3. Compare on a per-gram or per-dose basis. Be wary of comparing a mass gainer (300-500g) directly to a lean protein powder (20-30g).
   
   

4. Rotate among proteins and food sources. Your total dietary exposure to heavy metals matters more than any one scoop.
   
   

How Gnarly Keeps Lead (and Heavy Metals) Well Below Concern

At Gnarly we recognize: trace presence of heavy metals is an unavoidable reality in many raw materials. What sets a high-integrity brand apart is how aggressively we monitor, reject, and certify. Below is how we manage that risk:

• Raw material vetting and supplier auditing. Before we accept anything, ingredient suppliers must provide COAs and allow audits of their growing/processing methods. We prioritize suppliers with low-risk soil histories and documented environmental controls.
  
  

• Batch-level testing for heavy metals. Each production lot is tested internally for lead, cadmium, arsenic, and mercury.
  
  

• Third-party NSF Certified for Sport testing. Every lot we produce is tested and approved by NSF, the gold standard in product testing. Their rigorous certification process evaluates against strict contaminant standards, providing independent, unbiased verification that ensures consistent quality and safety customers can trust. NSF’s certification includes evaluation against standards for contaminants. This independent verification assures customers that results are not biased by in-house analyses.
  
  

Thanks to this layered approach, our lead measurements typically fall at or near non-detect levels in standard servings, and those rare detectable readings are well below any health-based concern threshold.

Conclusion

The Consumer Reports study draws attention to real concerns in the supplement industry. But to interpret it properly, one must appreciate the scientific context: plant-based ingredients are more susceptible to soil-derived contaminants, detectable trace metals do not always imply risk, and the reputation of a brand depends on how it handles those risks, not just whether detection occurred.

At Gnarly, we reject alarmism in favor of rigor. Our multi-tiered safety strategy — from supplier screening to NSF third-party testing — is designed to keep our products well below any concerning threshold.