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