What’s really inside your protein powder

In late September, Consumer Reports reignited a long-running debate over protein powder safety. The publication tested 23 best-selling brands and found trace amounts of heavy metals like lead in nearly all of them, with a few above its self-defined “level of concern.” The findings sparked confusion more than clarity — raising new questions about what testing standards actually tell us and how safe these products really are.

Experts say the concern is understandable, but the data tells a more nuanced story.

What the data actually shows

Dr. Adrian Chavez, a nutrition scientist and educator, says the limits used in the report don’t reflect modern science. “Consumer Reports applied extremely strict cutoffs that aren’t supported by research,” he explains. “Their threshold for lead exposure was far below what health agencies consider concerning.”

In other words, the trace amounts found in most products don’t equal dangerous exposure — but they do make for attention-grabbing headlines. “Those unrealistic values make the products seem riskier than they are, which is what drives media coverage year after year,” Chavez says.

Beyond the numbers

The conversation around heavy metals isn’t new, but this latest report landed in the middle of a broader shift toward “clean” eating and supplement transparency. Dr. Nima Alamdari, Chief Scientific Officer at Ritual, says that’s both progress and a challenge. “There’s been a renewed focus on what’s inside the products we use every day, from heavy metals and contaminants to banned substances,” he says. “It’s an important step toward transparency — but we still have to evaluate the credibility of testing.”

Alamdari explains that the 0.5-microgram figure used by Consumer Reports isn’t a safety limit at all; it’s a Proposition 65 warning level, a California regulation that triggers a label if daily exposure might exceed that threshold. For context, the FDA’s reference point for lead is about 8.8 micrograms per day — meaning most results in the report would be considered low risk by federal standards.

Both experts agree on one thing: the metals come from nature, not negligence. “Heavy metals are everywhere in the environment,” Chavez says. “They’re found in soil, crops, and even the equipment used in processing — which is why plant proteins tend to test higher than animal-based ones.”

Alamdari adds that growing conditions matter too. “No company intentionally adds heavy metals,” he says. “But when levels reach several micrograms per serving, it should be a signal for brands to strengthen sourcing and supplier oversight.”

What defines a safe supplement

Despite the noise, there’s broad agreement on what consumers should look for: testing and transparency. “Third-party certification is one of the best ways to ensure a supplement is safe and accurately labeled,” Alamdari says. Certifications like NSF Certified for Sport®, USP Verified, and Clean Label Project confirm products are independently tested for contaminants and label accuracy.

Chavez agrees: “Anyone can create a supplement and make any claims they want without oversight. That’s why testing is important. Companies that use third-party testing will make it clear on their website — and ideally share results publicly.”

The real takeaway

There’s no solid evidence that trace amounts of heavy metals in these products are harming you. And yet, the supplement industry still lacks consistent regulation, and that leaves consumers responsible for asking better questions.

Both experts say the goal isn’t to create fear but awareness. “Start by supporting brands that are open about their testing and sourcing practices,” Alamdari says. “The burden shouldn’t fall solely on consumers, but awareness drives accountability.”

In the end, safety isn’t about eliminating risk entirely. It’s about knowing who you’re buying from and choosing brands that are transparent about what’s inside.