Most of the plant-based protein on the market is sourced from China and seems to be contaminated with high levels of lead - probably due to poor processing controls, and far in excess of natural plant or animal sources.

[–] Zephorah@discuss.online 6 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

If it follows the chocolate heavy metal contaminants across brands, it’s likely the machinery used to grind things.

[–] geekwithsoul@piefed.social 4 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Unfortunately Chinese manufacturers have a long history of using harmful fillers in consumables, even for the non-export market so it's hard to tell how much is accidental and how much intentional.

[–] ayyy@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I dunno if I would consider that to be the norm…those people got the death penalty for what they did, after all.

[–] geekwithsoul@piefed.social -1 points 2 weeks ago

They got the death penalty more for being dumb enough to get caught. Chinese goods - from aircraft parts and concrete to food and clothing have repeatedly been found to have dangerously cut corners and/or inadequately ensured product safety.

[–] AbouBenAdhem@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

The study says they sourced their proteins from “Not Company LTDA”, which seems to be Chilean.

[–] geekwithsoul@piefed.social 4 points 2 weeks ago

Oh, it's so much worse than that - NotCo (the sponsor of the study, not just the source of the protein) is using an LLM to create plant-based alternatives to animal-based foods, such as milk, burgers, and mayonnaise. And just because they're based in Chile, I wouldn't take that to mean that's where the plant protein is coming from, as they're just the "designers" of these foods, not the manufacturers.

[–] skibidi@lemmy.world 6 points 2 weeks ago

Plants naturally pick up heavy metals from the soil they grow in, generally these are rather small amounts and both humans and animals can process them. There is almost no danger in consuming plants unless the soil is dangerously contaminated (generally an industrial source, or occasionally a fluke a geography).

The problem comes with the concentrated protein supplements, as it also concentrates the contaminants. Protein supplements are generally sourced from the fruit of the plant, e.g. the bean from soy or the pea from pea. This is also where much of the soil nutrients bioaccumulate, as the plant is sending a bunch of water to the fruit in order to make it grow. When millions of soybeans are then ground up and concentrated into protein powder, the lead/cadmium/arsenic/Mercury remain behind in the powder - still in low amounts, but enough that if someone is using large amounts of the supplement daily they can be ingesting a lot more heavy metals than they are aware of.

With animal-sourced proteins, contamination is generally lower (although plenty of brands still have concerning levels) simply because the protein is sourced from places where heavy metals don't preferentially accumulate. E.g. lead bioaccumulates in bones and teeth, cow-sources protein is generally whey (from milk) or more rarely from the muscles - both places naturally lower in lead Owing to the cow's biochemistry.

For the record, I am a vegetarian (vegan + eggs) and use vegan protein supplements. I buy from brands which publish third party testing results on heavy metals contamination by lot to help control this exposure risk.

[–] limer@lemmy.ml 4 points 2 weeks ago

According to the research I read, in this community, for some reason it’s the plant protein supplements that have more

[–] usernamesAreTricky@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (2 children)

I assume you are referring to the consumer reports headlines, they have been greatly misleading. They have been using an extremely low level as their bar for concern. Here's a recent piece talking about that

This is an unachievable safety target, significantly below the lead you get from average daily food consumption

[...]

But compared to the FDA’s more realistic numbers, 6.3 micrograms is 71.6 percent of the reference level for women of childearing age, meaning it’s safe even for at-risk individuals. For adult males, who are more likely to glug protein shakes, the risk is negligible. Children, with some exceptions, shouldn’t be consuming protein powder at all

[...]

And it bears noting that Consumer Reports’s tests showed levels of lead that were higher than tests of Huel carried out by the National Sanitation Foundation, an independent testing body, which showed that a serving of Huel Black came in under 3.6 micrograms

https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/465552/protein-powder-lead-poisoning-fda-supplements-consumer-reports

(https://archive.is/y6ZHk for paywall)

[–] geekwithsoul@piefed.social 10 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

There is no safe level of lead in consumables. The standards being tossed around are basically about forcing government or corporate action, not about what's actually healthy to consume.

[–] usernamesAreTricky@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

Sure, but they intentionally built in large margins to these reference. Of course zero lead is ideal, but it's not what happens in practice. The metric consumer reports used has a 1000x safety factor vs the FDA's 10x safety factor

The FDA’s studies of dietary lead exposure show that the average American adult consumes between 1.7 and 5.3 micrograms daily through their normal food intake

[...]

The FDA, as part of its “Closer to Zero” campaign and using a 10X safety factor, has set its reference levels at 2.2 micrograms per day for children and 8.8 for women of childbearing age (to protect against accidental fetal exposure). This means that regularly exceeding these might pose health risks.

[...]

California’s Prop 65, however, used a far higher 1,000X safety factor (1,000 times lower than minimal known unsafe levels) to arrive at 0.5 micrograms of lead per day as its reference level.

From the same article as above

[–] geekwithsoul@piefed.social 6 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

"The American Conference of Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) develops Biological Exposure Indices (BEI) as guidance values for assessing biological monitoring results in occupational settings by individuals trained in the discipline of industrial hygiene to assist in the control of potential workplace health hazards and for no other use. These values are not fine lines between safe and dangerous concentrations and should not be used by individuals without training in the discipline of industrial hygiene." https://archive.cdc.gov/www_atsdr_cdc_gov/csem/leadtoxicity/safety_standards.html

The truth is none of the standards are based entirely on safe/not-safe levels - they know none of it is safe, but governments are hesitant to hold corporations responsible. And zero-lead is what "happens in practice" for responsible manufacturers. It's not some unavoidable contaminant that can't be removed.

[–] reddifuge@lemmy.world 0 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I would rather have a little more lead in my food than cholesterol, which is an actual killer.

[–] geekwithsoul@piefed.social 0 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Congratulations! That is definitely the dumbest take I've seen on the Internet for at least a month - which is saying something in 2025. Here's your trophy 🏆

[–] reddifuge@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Elaborate?

[–] geekwithsoul@piefed.social 0 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Dietary cholesterol has very little impact on blood cholesterol levels - about 80% of the cholesterol in your blood comes from your liver producing it and it produces more with saturated and trans fats in your diet, not cholesterol in the food you eat. Diets high in those fats and other factors such as obesity affect your blood cholesterol to a much greater degree. Almost all cholesterol in food is never absorbed by your body.

As for lead, your exposure is always cumulative, as the body holds on to it forever (it treats it as if it's calcium and never lets it go). So there's no actual "safe" level of exposure to lead. In addition, because of how central calcium is to the operation of the nervous system, when that calcium is replaced with lead, there's a host of lifelong negative effects that result including both physical and mental degradation. Oh, and for women, that lead is passed directly on to their children, who then also have to deal with all the negative effects.

What you said is like if someone said "I'd rather have a little plutonium in my food, rather than too much sugar."

[–] reddifuge@lemmy.world 0 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

Haha, thanks for the laugh. Saturated fats also come from animals.

And that is a bold lie that dietary cholesterol has very little impact on blood cholesterol levels. I've read the exact study you did. Good try though.

[–] geekwithsoul@piefed.social 0 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

And coconut and palm oils…

[–] reddifuge@lemmy.world 0 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

I feel bad for you. Exaggerating numbers from a study to push your own bias is so fucking cringe. It's been fun, won't be responding to your troll comments anymore though.

I look forward to never reading the giant manifesto you will probably write.

[–] geekwithsoul@piefed.social 0 points 2 weeks ago

Enjoy your reality-free life.

[–] limer@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 weeks ago

Maybe you are correct. But I have seen hundreds of papers and claims about to not worry about this or that, since I began reading news in the 1970s. And I have noticed a trend of smart people being wrong.

I think it’s good to be cautious