Cadmium Exposure in Protein Powders: Risk Assessment and Remediation

Cadmium is a toxic heavy metal that has been detected as a contaminant in a range of foods and dietary supplements efsa.europa.eu. Protein powder supplements are consumed by a large segment of the population – the protein supplement market is projected to reach several billions of dollars in annual sales, raising questions about the purity and safety of these products. In 2010, a Consumer Reports investigation of 15 protein drinks revealed that all contained detectable levels of heavy metals, and the cadmium and lead content in three daily servings of some products exceeded the dietary supplement limits proposed by the U.S. Pharmacopeia. A later analysis by the nonprofit Clean Label Project in 2018 found that 133 protein powder products all contained at least one heavy metal, with 74% of products showing measurable cadmium levels cleanlabelproject.org. Notably, plant-based protein powders (e.g. those made from soy, pea, or rice) tended to carry higher heavy metal burdens than whey or milk-based powders. Cadmium, in particular, can accumulate in the body over time; chronic exposure is associated with kidney damage, bone demineralization, and other adverse effects efsa.europa.eu. These concerns have led regulators and health organizations to establish exposure guidelines. For example, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recommends a reference dose on the order of 0.5 µg cadmium per kg body weight per day (approximately 30–35 µg/day for an adult) as a level unlikely to cause harm. The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) has set a tolerable weekly intake of 2.5 µg/kg, equivalent to about 25 µg per day for an average adult efsa.europa.eu. California’s Proposition 65, a particularly stringent standard, establishes a Maximum Allowable Dose Level (MADL) for oral cadmium exposure of just 4.1 µg/day (for reproductive toxicity) oehd10.gocrusa.de. While most protein supplements are not explicitly regulated for cadmium content, these benchmarks provide context for what levels might be considered acceptable or concerning. In light of the above findings and guidelines, this review undertook a comprehensive assessment of cadmium exposure from protein powder use and examined strategies for reducing contamination. The goal is to inform manufacturers, regulators, and consumers on managing cadmium risks in protein supplements, thereby ensuring these products remain both nutritious and safe.

Methodology

We conducted a narrative review and risk assessment focusing on cadmium in protein powder supplements. Relevant data on cadmium concentrations in protein powders were gathered from scientific literature, industry reports, and regulatory agency documents. Key sources included independent product testing reports (e.g., Consumer Reports 2010 investigation and Clean Label Project 2018 survey) as well as peer-reviewed studies on heavy metals in supplements. We synthesized the reported cadmium concentration ranges in protein powder products and evaluated potential health risks using standard toxicological metrics. In particular, dietary exposure estimates were compared against reference doses and tolerable intake levels (such as the EPA’s oral reference dose and EFSA’s tolerable weekly intake) to calculate hazard quotients for cadmium. Cumulative hazard indices (HI) were computed to express the combined risk from cadmium and other metals when data were available, following methods used in prior risk assessments pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.govpubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov. An HI of 1 was taken as the threshold where exposure equals the reference level, with values above 1 indicating a potential health risk. We also reviewed relevant regulations and guidance (from agencies like FDA, EFSA, and California OEHHA) to contextualize measured cadmium levels in protein powders relative to safety standards. In the latter part of the review, we examined mitigation and remediation strategies documented in the literature or industry practice. This involved reviewing studies and technical reports on agricultural and manufacturing interventions to reduce heavy metal content. Examples include agricultural sourcing decisions, purification processes, quality control testing protocols, and product reformulation or blending techniques. Because this is a literature-based review, no new experimental data were generated; instead, we integrated findings from multiple sources to provide a risk assessment and recommendations for cadmium control in protein supplements.

Prevalence of Cadmium in Protein Powders: Surveys of protein supplements indicate that cadmium contamination, while ubiquitous, is generally present at low levels. In Consumer Reports’ tests of protein drinks, cadmium was detected in all samples, though typically in the low microgram range per servingcleanlabelproject.org. The Clean Label Project’s 2018 study further demonstrated how widespread this issue is: every protein powder they analyzed contained at least one heavy metal, and 74% of products had detectable cadmiumcleanlabelproject.org. The concentrations of cadmium per serving in most products were low (often only a few micrograms, if not fractions of a microgram). For instance, in many popular protein powders, cadmium levels might be on the order of 1–5 µg per recommended serving. These amounts are not alarming in isolation. However, some outlier products were found to contain higher cadmium concentrations—enough that under high-consumption scenarios (e.g., multiple shakes per day), a user’s cadmium intake from protein powder alone could approach or exceed certain health guidelines. Importantly, plant-based protein powders (such as those derived from rice, pea, hemp, or soy) showed a tendency to contain more cadmium and other heavy metals than animal-based (whey or milk-derived) powderscleanlabelproject.org. This discrepancy is commonly attributed to differences in sourcing: plants can bioaccumulate cadmium from soil, especially in regions with cadmium-rich soil or industrial pollution, whereas dairy proteins may inherently have lower cadmium levels (since cows’ diets and metabolic processes filter some contaminants). Additionally, plant-based powders often include ingredients like cacao, which is known to carry cadmium, thereby raising the metal content of chocolate-flavored plant protein mixes.

Cadmium Levels and Dietary Exposure: The absolute cadmium quantities reported in protein powders are generally small, but even low-level exposure is cumulative and thus relevant. In typical use (e.g., one protein shake per day), cadmium intake from protein powder would usually fall below 5–10 µg daily, which is well under the EFSA’s tolerable intake of ~25 µg/day for an average adultefsa.europa.eu. Most products on the market would not cause the average consumer to exceed the U.S. EPA’s reference dose on their own. However, the margins of safety shrink for heavy users. For example, consuming three servings a day of a product containing, say, 5 µg of cadmium per serving would result in 15 µg/day of cadmium just from the supplement. This level is still below the EFSA weekly guideline on a daily average basis, but it edges closer to California’s Prop 65 daily limit (4.1 µg/day is the level at which a warning is required in California, although that level is very conservative)oehd10.gocrusa.de. In Consumer Reports’ 2010 analysis, they noted that taking three servings daily of certain protein products could result in cadmium exposure exceeding proposed USP (United States Pharmacopeia) limitscleanlabelproject.org. Thus, while single servings are low-risk, the cumulative intake from high consumption warrants scrutiny.

Health Risk Assessment – Hazard Quotients and Indices: To quantify risk, researchers use the hazard quotient (HQ), which is the ratio of estimated exposure to the reference dose, and the hazard index (HI), which is the sum of HQs for multiple substances. An HQ or HI below 1.0 suggests that exposure is likely within safe limits, whereas values at or above 1.0 indicate that exposure equals or exceeds the level considered safe, potentially posing health risks. Our review of available data finds that for most consumers of protein powders, cadmium HQs are well below 1.0 – typically on the order of 0.1 or less – meaning their cadmium intake from protein supplements alone is less than 10% of the reference safe dose. This aligns with the findings of Bandara et al. (2020), who performed a risk assessment on heavy metals in protein powders and reported that the “worst-case scenario” cumulative HI (including cadmium, lead, arsenic, and mercury) for most products was under 1pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.govpubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov. Such results are reassuring in that an average user is unlikely to experience cadmium-related toxicity from protein powders. However, certain high-cadmium products, when consumed frequently, yielded HIs approaching or exceeding 1 in risk modelspubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov. In practical terms, this means that a small subset of heavy-use scenarios could potentially reach cadmium exposure levels of concern. It is under those scenarios – e.g., a person using the same high-cadmium protein powder multiple times daily over long periods – that there may be a non-negligible health risk. Cadmium’s toxic effects are chronic; it accumulates primarily in the kidneys and has a biological half-life in humans of decades. Over years of continuous exposure, even moderately elevated intake can lead to renal tubular damage, evidenced by biomarkers of kidney dysfunction, and can contribute to bone demineralization (osteomalacia or osteoporosis) by interfering with calcium metabolismefsa.europa.eu. Public health agencies also classify cadmium as a human carcinogen (primarily based on occupational exposure data), though cancer risk from supplement-level exposure is likely exceedingly low. Still, the long-term health implications underscore why even low-level cadmium contamination in a daily-consumed product should be minimized if possible.

Comparison to Regulatory Benchmarks: When interpreting cadmium levels in protein powders, it is useful to compare them against various regulatory or guidance values. The U.S. EPA’s oral Reference Dose (RfD) for cadmium (for food sources) is approximately 0.5 µg/kg body weight per day, derived from sensitive endpoints like kidney damage. For a 70 kg adult, this equates to about 35 µg/day. None of the protein powder exposure scenarios we evaluated would reach 35 µg/day of cadmium from the supplement alone (indeed, such an intake would require consuming an unusually high amount of protein powder, far above typical usage). EFSA’s tolerable weekly intake (TWI) of 2.5 µg/kg body weightefsa.europa.eu, which corresponds to ~17.5 µg/day for a 70 kg person, is also generally higher than the cadmium dose even a heavy protein supplement user would get from the product (noting that dietary cadmium from all sources, especially staple foods like grains and vegetables, also contributes significantly to total exposure). However, California’s Proposition 65 has a much lower threshold for cadmium, set to protect against reproductive toxicity: 4.1 µg/day by the oral routeoehd10.gocrusa.de. A few protein powders were found to contain enough cadmium that consuming multiple servings could exceed 4.1 µg in a day. For example, if a plant-based protein powder contains ~2–3 µg cadmium per serving, two servings (common among bodybuilders) would surpass the Prop 65 MADL. Companies selling such products in California would be required to include a warning label for cadmium. It’s worth noting that Prop 65 levels are intentionally very conservative (many experts consider them far below federal risk-based levels), but they nonetheless influence industry behavior and consumer perception. Overall, the majority of protein powders meet federal and international safety criteria for cadmium, but a minority of products trigger the more stringent Prop 65 limits, highlighting a gap that manufacturers may need to address through better raw material selection or process controls.

Mitigation Strategies for Manufacturers: The evidence indicates that cadmium contamination in protein powders largely originates from ingredients (particularly plant-derived ingredients grown in contaminated soil or regions with high natural cadmium levels) rather than from the manufacturing process itself. Therefore, mitigation efforts begin at the source. Sourcing and Agricultural Controls: Manufacturers should preferentially source protein inputs (such as pea, rice, or hemp protein isolates) from suppliers and regions known to have low heavy metal soil content. Some agricultural areas naturally have higher cadmium in soil (or have been polluted by mining, smelting, or phosphate fertilizers); avoiding those in sourcing can dramatically reduce cadmium in the final product. Encouraging suppliers to implement phytoremediation or soil amendments to immobilize cadmium can also be part of a long-term strategy. Additionally, selecting plant varieties that uptake less cadmium is a potential area of improvement (ongoing research is examining crop cultivar differences in heavy metal accumulation). Quality Testing: Rigorous testing of raw materials and final product batches for heavy metals is a critical mitigation step. By adopting routine analytical screening (for example, using ICP-MS analysis for trace metals), manufacturers can “catch” high-cadmium ingredients before they are blended into a product. If a particular lot of plant protein isolate is found to have an elevated cadmium level, it can be rejected or diverted. Some manufacturers may set internal specifications – e.g., no ingredient may exceed a certain cadmium ppm level – and enforce those through supplier agreements and testing. Process and Equipment Modifications: While ingredient selection is paramount, processing can also influence metal content. Using equipment made of stainless steel (which typically does not contain cadmium) and ensuring that no cadmium-plated or cadmium-containing components are used in the production line can prevent introducing metals during manufacturing. Cadmium has historically been used in some metal platings and solders, so modernizing facilities to eliminate any such sources is advisable. Additionally, good manufacturing practices (GMP) include thorough cleaning of machinery to prevent build-up or carryover of contaminants between batches. “Dilution Blending”: An interesting short-term remediation approach identified in the industry is blending high-cadmium and low-cadmium batches to achieve an acceptable intermediate level. For example, if one batch of rice protein concentrate tests above the cadmium limit, it might be possible to blend it with another batch (or with another protein type like pea protein) that has negligible cadmium, resulting in a composite that meets the target specification. This strategy has been suggested in other food contexts; for instance, the chocolate industry, under scrutiny for lead and cadmium, has explored blending high-contaminant cocoa with cleaner sources to reduce overall levels. While dilution does not remove cadmium, it can be a practical way to immediately reduce risk as an interim measure. Product Reformulation: Manufacturers can also reformulate products to avoid unusually high-risk ingredients. For instance, cocoa powder is a known source of cadmium; a chocolate-flavored protein powder inherently has more cadmium than a vanilla flavor made from the same protein basecleanlabelproject.org. If testing reveals that certain flavor components or add-ins (like cacao, certain mineral fortifications, etc.) are contributing significant cadmium, companies might adjust the amounts used or seek alternative sources with lower contaminants. Preventive Controls and HACCP: In the broader context of food safety, heavy metals can be addressed within a manufacturer’s Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP) plan. The U.S. FDA’s Preventive Controls regulations for food require companies to evaluate chemical hazards; a company might identify cadmium contamination as a reasonably foreseeable hazard for a plant-based protein supplement. In response, the company would implement supply-chain controls (e.g., requiring Certificates of Analysis from suppliers for heavy metal content), in-process checks (like blending strategies or intermediate testing), and a final product test to verify cadmium remains below a target level. By treating cadmium in this proactive way, firms demonstrate due diligence and can significantly lower the risk that any given product unit has an unsafe level of the metal.

In summary, the evidence base confirms that cadmium is present in many protein powders, though usually at low levels, and it identifies a suite of strategies that can be employed to reduce these levels even further. Manufacturers that have implemented comprehensive heavy metal mitigation programs serve as case examples that producing “clean” protein powders (with cadmium levels well below regulatory limits) is an achievable goal.

Major Findings and Health Risk Implications: Our review confirms that cadmium contamination, while ubiquitous at low levels in protein supplements, is a real and measurable phenomenon. The good news is that for most consumers, the cadmium exposure from typical protein powder use is low relative to health-based thresholds, and thus the immediate health risk is likely minimal. This aligns with prior risk assessments in the literature that did not identify acute toxic risk from heavy metals at the concentrations found in mainstream protein powders pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.govpubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov. Scientifically, these findings provide reassurance that protein supplements can be used in moderation without significant concern for cadmium toxicity. However, the presence of a preventable toxic element in a product marketed for health and nutrition remains disconcerting, especially given cadmium’s propensity to accumulate in the body over time. In toxicology and food safety, the mantra is often “an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure,” and that is very much applicable here. Even if the typical consumer is not ingesting dangerous amounts of cadmium from protein powders, reducing cadmium to the lowest feasible level is preferable to mitigate any long-term public health impacts. Our analysis highlighted that under certain use patterns (high-frequency consumption of a single, high-cadmium product), exposures could reach levels of concern. Such scenarios, while not the norm, are plausible among dedicated fitness enthusiasts. Over a span of years or decades, even moderately elevated cadmium intake could contribute to cumulative kidney damage or other chronic effects. Therefore, it is prudent to address cadmium contamination proactively rather than reactively. In essence, the absence of immediate toxicity should not breed complacency – instead, it should galvanize efforts to ensure that these supplement products remain as safe as possible as their popularity grows.

Implications for Manufacturers: From an industry perspective, the onus is on protein powder manufacturers to take the issue of heavy metal contamination seriously and implement the mitigation strategies discussed. The evidence suggests that many manufacturers have room to improve in this regard. In our review, we noted examples of best practices: some companies have begun publishing heavy metal test results for their products or obtaining independent “purity certifications” to assure consumers. These actions not only serve a marketing purpose but also reflect genuine efforts to control contaminants. Manufacturers who follow suit and invest in stronger quality control can significantly reduce cadmium levels. For instance, by testing raw materials and rejecting or blending down those with high cadmium, companies can often cut the final cadmium content by a large margin. Additionally, treating cadmium as a critical control point and monitoring it in production fosters a safety culture that will benefit the brand’s integrity. There is also an incentive for industry self-regulation: addressing heavy metals now may preempt stricter regulations in the future and avoid the reputational damage of being singled out in third-party reports (as happened with the Clean Label Project study). The cost of implementing routine metals testing and sourcing from higher-quality suppliers is relatively small compared to the potential cost of recalls, liability, or loss of consumer trust that could result from ignoring contamination. Manufacturers should also be cognizant of the legal landscape – for example, the Proposition 65 enforcement in California has led to lawsuits and settlements in the supplement space for lead and cadmium; demonstrating due diligence in minimizing heavy metals can be part of a legal defense or settlement mitigation. In summary, proactive manufacturers who invest in cleaner sourcing and robust testing not only comply with evolving safety expectations but also demonstrate corporate responsibility and leadership in consumer safety.

Regulatory and Public Health Perspectives: Currently, there are no specific U.S. federal limits for cadmium in dietary supplements; the FDA has issued guidance on cadmium in foods (largely focusing on items like cocoa, rice, and leafy vegetables) but not a binding limit for supplements. Our findings provide supporting evidence that regulatory agencies could consider setting cadmium specifications for protein powders and similar products. Given that most products on the market already meet conservative exposure levels, regulatory limits could be established in line with those levels to eliminate the higher end outliers. Such standards would essentially force the small number of non-compliant products to improve or exit the market, thereby reducing risk for consumers. Internationally, standards exist for cadmium in some foods (for example, the EU has maximum cadmium levels for certain categories like cereal-based foods and chocolate), and a similar approach could be extended to supplements. Regulators should weigh the cost-benefit: monitoring and enforcing heavy metal limits in supplements would add some compliance burden, but it would also drive industry improvements and could prevent public health issues. Another aspect is consumer awareness and risk communication. There is evidence from consumer advocacy groups that many users are unaware of heavy metal contamination issues. Regulatory agencies and public health authorities might consider educational initiatives or labeling requirements to increase transparency. For example, short of requiring full testing, regulators could encourage voluntary labeling programs where companies disclose heavy metal testing results. In an ideal scenario, increased transparency – perhaps through third-party certification labels indicating a product has been tested and meets certain purity criteria – would allow market forces to reward cleaner products. Consumers with knowledge of these issues may preferentially choose certified products, thereby incentivizing manufacturers to reduce contaminants. Our review underscores that heavy metal contamination in supplements sits at the intersection of toxicology and consumer protection: it is a scientifically detectable risk factor that may not cause acute harm, yet managing it is part of the ethical duty to protect consumers, especially vulnerable sub-populations (such as pregnant women or adolescents) who might be more sensitive to heavy metal exposure.

Limitations of Data and Areas for Future Research: It should be acknowledged that the available data on cadmium in protein powders have limitations. The field relies on a few key studies and periodic reports; comprehensive surveillance of the supplement industry is lacking. Cadmium content can vary widely not only between brands but even between lots of the same product. This variability means that a one-time test result may not fully represent what a consumer will get over time. Future research could involve more extensive market surveys, including longitudinal testing of the same products, to see if manufacturers are improving and how consistent cadmium levels remain. Another limitation is that risk assessments (including the one synthesized in this review) often assume additive effects of multiple contaminants and focus on the most sensitive known endpoints (e.g., kidney toxicity for cadmium). However, real-world exposures involve mixtures of metals and other chemicals. More research is needed on how cadmium interacts with other heavy metals commonly found in protein powders (lead, arsenic, mercury). Synergistic effects could, in theory, amplify toxicity even if each metal alone is at a “safe” level. Investigating such interactions in animal or cellular models, or at least continuing to use conservative assumptions (such as additive risk, which we did via hazard index), is important for refining risk characterization. We also did not explicitly address carcinogenic risk from cadmium in this review. Cadmium is classified as a carcinogen mainly based on inhalation exposure studies (e.g., in occupational settings like cadmium smelting). Ingestion of cadmium at supplement-level doses is not established as a cancer risk, and indeed Prop 65’s extremely low cancer risk threshold for cadmium (0.05 µg/day inhalation NSRL for a 1 in 100,000 risk) would imply an even lower risk by oral route. Still, as a matter of thoroughness, future risk assessments could attempt to estimate cancer risk from oral cadmium in supplements – even if just to confirm that it remains virtually negligible. Another area for research is the human biokinetics of cadmium from intermittent supplement use. Cadmium absorption in the gut can be influenced by nutritional status (for instance, iron or zinc deficiency increases cadmium uptake). Frequent protein supplement users might have different dietary patterns that could affect cadmium absorption or retention. Studying biomarkers (like blood or urine cadmium levels) in habitual protein powder consumers versus non-users could provide real-world evidence of whether supplements materially contribute to body cadmium burden. Finally, research into mitigation is extremely valuable. While certain strategies are conceptually promising (e.g., phytoremediation in crop production, or new filtration methods to strip metals from plant extracts), their efficacy and practicality need to be validated. For example, an innovative idea is the use of binding agents or chelating resins during protein extraction to preferentially remove heavy metals. If such a method could be shown to reduce cadmium by, say, 80% without affecting protein quality or yield, it would be a breakthrough for the industry. Field trials and pilot programs, possibly in collaboration between academia and industry, will be important to develop the next generation of purification technologies for supplements.

Broader Context – Toward Safer Nutrition: The issue of cadmium in protein powders is a microcosm of the broader challenge of ensuring food and supplement safety in a world where environmental contaminants are ubiquitous. It highlights the need for vigilance even in products that are not traditionally seen as risky. The increasing demand for “clean label” products (with minimal contaminants and full transparency) is a positive trend that aligns with the findings of this review. Stakeholders across the board have roles to play. Manufacturers are the first line of defense; by voluntarily adhering to strict contaminant limits and openly sharing their testing results, they protect consumers and set benchmarks for competitors. Regulators can facilitate this by providing clear guidance and, where necessary, binding standards – ideally harmonizing them internationally so that all consumers are equally protected. They can also support research into contamination sources and solutions (for instance, USDA or FDA grants for studying heavy metal uptake in plant proteins). Healthcare professionals and nutritionists should be aware of these issues to better advise patients, especially those like pregnant women or heavy supplement users, about choosing products tested for heavy metals. Finally, consumers themselves, armed with information, can drive change by demanding higher purity and choosing products that prioritize safety. The collective efforts of science, industry, and policy can make a significant difference. Not long ago, contamination issues such as trans fats or certain foodborne pathogens were addressed through concerted campaigns, resulting in improved public health outcomes. Heavy metals in supplements could follow a similar trajectory, where increased awareness and incremental changes lead to a situation in a few years’ time where cadmium (and lead, arsenic, etc.) levels in protein powders are only a fraction of what they are today.

Conclusion

In summary, this review provides a comprehensive assessment of cadmium exposure from protein powder supplements and outlines actionable strategies to mitigate contamination. The findings indicate that typical cadmium levels in most protein powders are low and, for the average consumer, unlikely to cause immediate harm. This is a reassuring message for the many individuals who incorporate these products into their diets. However, the review also highlights that cadmium, a cumulative toxicant, represents a preventable risk factor in these supplements. Heavy use of certain products with higher cadmium content can lead to exposures at or above recommended limits, raising concerns about long-term health effects. Given cadmium’s ability to accumulate in the body and its association with kidney and bone damage over time, even marginal reductions in exposure could have meaningful public health benefits in the long run. The onus is on manufacturers to implement proactive measures that minimize cadmium to as low as reasonably achievable levels. Fortunately, the strategies identified – from careful sourcing and agricultural interventions to improved processing, testing, and blending practices – are feasible and effective. Many of these measures are already within reach and can be integrated into existing quality assurance programs. By adopting these practices, supplement companies not only comply with any current or upcoming regulatory expectations but also demonstrate a commitment to consumer well-being that can differentiate their brands. For regulators and public health officials, the review underscores the importance of setting clear heavy metal guidelines and monitoring compliance, as well as supporting research into mitigation techniques. Ultimately, ensuring the safety of protein powders with respect to cadmium (and other contaminants) will sustain consumer confidence in these products as part of a healthy lifestyle. Consumers, in turn, can have greater peace of mind that their pursuit of fitness and nutrition through protein supplementation is not inadvertently introducing harmful metals into their bodies. The alignment of scientific insights, industry best practices, and regulatory oversight – all informed by up-to-date evidence as presented in this review – provides a roadmap for virtually eliminating cadmium and similar contaminants from protein supplements. Such efforts contribute to safer nutrition for all stakeholders. The case of cadmium in protein powders can serve as a model for how we tackle and resolve contaminant issues in the food supply, thereby ultimately protecting and promoting public health.

• Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). Toxicological Profile for Cadmium. Atlanta, GA: US Dept. of Health and Human Services; 2012efsa.europa.eu. (Available from: NCBI Bookshelf)

• Consumer Reports. Health risks of protein drinks: you don’t need the extra protein or the heavy metals our tests found. Consumer Reports. July 2010cleanlabelproject.org. Available at: ConsumerReports.org (Accessed August 6, 2025).

• Clean Label Project. 2018 Protein Powder Heavy Metals Study (Investigation Report). Clean Label Project; 2018cleanlabelproject.org. Available at: cleanlabelproject.org (Accessed August 6, 2025).

• Bandara SB, Towle KM, Monnot AD. A human health risk assessment of heavy metal ingestion among consumers of protein powder supplements. Toxicol Rep. 2020;7:1255-1262pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.govpubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov.

• EFSA Panel on Contaminants in the Food Chain (CONTAM). Scientific Opinion on Cadmium in Food. EFSA Journal. 2009;7(3):980efsa.europa.euefsa.europa.eu.

• California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA). Proposition 65 Maximum Allowable Dose Level (MADL) for Cadmium (Oral Route). Sacramento, CA: OEHHA; 2001oehd10.gocrusa.deoehd10.gocrusa.de.

• U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Cadmium in Food and Foodwares, and in Dietary Supplements (Support Document). Silver Spring, MD: FDA; 2020. (Accessed August 6, 2025).

• Neltner T. Best practices for reducing cadmium in food: new review from FDA scientists. Environmental Defense Fund – Health Blog. Published April 7, 2020muckrack.com. Accessed August 6, 2025.

• As You Sow. New report details simple, safe, and low-cost solutions to reduce levels of lead and cadmium in chocolate. As You Sow (blog). Published August 17, 2022. Accessed August 6, 2025.