Consumer Reports found 2/3 of top protein powders exceed lead limits in Oct. 14 testing

Protein powder has been having a moment. It’s not just for gym bros anymore. It’s protein pastas, protein cereals, protein sodas, and even Starbucks protein cold foam. And according to a new Consumer Reports investigation published Oct. 14, the “more protein equals better health” story comes with a toxic hitch.

Paris Martineau led Consumer Reports’ first protein testing since 2010, and the headline number is grim: more than two-thirds of the 23 most popular protein powders and ready-to-drink shakes sold in the U.S. contained more lead in a single serving than Consumer Reports’ food safety experts say is safe to consume in a day. Worse, some products clocked in at dramatically higher levels. Naked Nutrition’s Vegan Mass Gainer, for example, registered 7.7 micrograms of lead per serving, which Consumer Reports says is 1,572% of its level of concern. Another top seller, Huel Black Edition, registered 6.3 micrograms of lead, or 1,288% of CR’s limit.

So what does that mean for decision-makers who live in the world of supplements, wellness brands, and retailer shelves? It means the risk is not theoretical, not rare, and not easily avoided by “just pick the right label.” Consumer Reports’ testing was built around what lead exposure can add up to when products are used the way many customers use them. Martineau told Fortune that the problem hits especially hard because the user base often takes protein daily or multiple times a day. In other words, the “single serving” is not a one-off. For many consumers, it is a routine.

Consumer Reports also makes the recommendation explicitly, not politely: “We advise against daily use for most protein powders, since many have high levels of heavy metals and none are necessary to hit your protein goals.” Martineau said she was surprised by both the existence of detectable and concerning lead and the degree of consistency across products. Her other bombshell is the direction of travel. The earlier 2010 round found “concerning levels” of heavy metals too, but this time the risks appeared to be growing alongside the industry. Martineau said Consumer Reports found higher levels of lead, higher average lead, and even that “the worst product we tested this time contained twice as much lead as the worst product we tested 15 years ago.”

That reversal is where the business implications get sharp. You might expect safety standards to tighten over time as the category matures. Martineau’s point, as presented by Fortune, is that “it’s not always the case,” and the contamination problem is not reducible to a simple “someone cut corners” narrative. She describes a supply-chain and biology story: plant-based protein powders were overwhelmingly the most contaminated category, with the average lead in those products about nine times the amount Consumer Reports found in dairy proteins like whey. Her explanation is straightforward. Plants act like sponges, absorbing whatever is in the surrounding environment, so lead in soil can end up inside the protein ingredient.

Then processing can amplify the issue. Martineau emphasized that protein supplements are highly processed food, and she wasn’t using “processed” as a buzzword. The basic process involves machines that isolate and convert the pea plant into a powder over many steps. In a system where inputs can already contain heavy metals, more steps can mean more opportunities for contamination levels to carry through and potentially intensify.

Even if you accept the manufacturing complexity, the regulatory backdrop is what turns this from a consumer issue into a board-level governance problem. Protein powders are generally categorized as dietary supplements, which means they operate in a regulatory gray area with limited oversight before they hit shelves. There is no federal limit for how much lead is allowed in a protein powder, and companies are expected to self-regulate. Martineau described the setup as “a strange setup,” noting that the FDA does not approve supplements before they’re sold.

Fortune reports the inspection reality is small relative to the market. The FDA inspected just 600 of the 12,000 registered supplement manufacturers last year, and only 90 of those inspections were foreign plants, even though much of the U.S. supplement supply chain runs through overseas factories. The gap leaves consumers effectively blind, and it also changes how much “trust” brands can safely ask for without third-party proof.

Some companies market NSF safety certifications, but Consumer Reports notes NSF allows 10 micrograms of lead per day, which is 20 times CR’s limit of 0.5 micrograms. Martineau framed CR’s approach as conservative, and she argued there’s no known safe amount of lead. Her practical implication for companies is clear: some brands can produce products with low lead levels, and more should do that, “if not all.”

Now zoom out to the category itself. Martineau’s position is that people do not need protein powder. Fortune includes her point that many people don’t need as much protein as they think they do. She said that unless someone is in special groups like certain athletes, people who could be pregnant, or older adults, they likely only need 0.8 grams of protein per kilogram of body weight per day, and that amount is “really easy” to get from whole foods. Harvard Health is cited as agreeing with that 0.8 grams per kilo number. The report also frames the RDA as a minimum to avoid deficiency, not a target to exceed. And it notes most Americans already surpass it without trying, with protein making up about 16% of daily calories in the U.S., above the recommended 10%.

This is where the strategy meets culture. Martineau describes a “health halo” around protein, where brands turn processed foods into wellness objects. The unsexy advice, per her, is eating whole foods instead of using protein powder as a shortcut. For executives, that’s not just messaging advice. It’s a reminder that when a category is built on aspiration and repetition, any credible evidence of harm can trigger a fast trust reset. If consumers believe they are buying safety and instead find contamination, even the best product claims risk getting treated as marketing until proven otherwise.

The strategic stake for founders, investors, and operators in the supplement and wellness ecosystem is simple: heavy metals are not a reputational problem you can spin away after the fact. They are an input problem, a process problem, and a regulation problem. And according to Martineau’s Oct. 14 findings, the risk can rise even as the industry grows. In a world where retailers, certification schemes, and consumer expectations all matter, the question stops being “will someone test again?” and becomes “are we ready for what the next test will measure?”