Which specific protein powder SKUs did Consumer Reports and Clean Label Project test, and what were the numeric heavy‑metal levels for each?
Executive summary
Consumer Reports conducted laboratory tests on two rounds of protein powders and ready‑to‑drink shakes (initially 23 products, later expanded with five additional powders), reporting per‑product lead, arsenic, cadmium and mercury measurements in a supporting methodology document and flagging specific products for avoidance based on a 0.5 µg/day lead “level of concern” (CR) [1] [2] [3]. The Clean Label Project tested a much larger set (reported variously as 133, 134 or 160 products across its publications) and published aggregate contaminant findings and per‑sample heavy‑metal lab methods (ICP‑MS) but, crucially, did not disclose brand‑or‑SKU‑level numeric heavy‑metal values in the public whitepaper, which prevents a line‑by‑line numeric comparison with Consumer Reports’ dataset [4] [5] [6].
1. Consumer Reports — which SKUs and what numeric data are available
Consumer Reports says it tested 23 popular protein powders and ready‑to‑drink shakes in its October 2025 report and later added heavy‑metal testing on five more powders (Clean Simple Eats, Equate, Premier Protein, Ritual, and Truvani) in response to reader questions, and it published a methodology sheet that reports values for lead, arsenic, cadmium and mercury per product in micrograms per serving and parts per billion — meaning CR’s dataset does include SKU‑level numeric heavy‑metal values, including lead in µg/serving and comparisons to CR’s 0.5 µg/day level of concern [1] [7] [2]. Consumer Reports reported that about 70% of the products it tested contained more than 120% of its 0.5 µg/day lead threshold and explicitly recommended against daily use of certain products, naming Naked Nutrition’s Mass Gainer and Huel’s Black Edition among the most concerning in coverage summarizing the study [1] [3]. The exact numeric readings per SKU are contained in CR’s test appendices/methodology sheet referenced by CR, but the specific per‑product numbers are not reproduced in the other reporting excerpts provided here [2].
2. Clean Label Project — scope, method and why SKU‑level numbers are missing
The Clean Label Project’s Protein Study (branded “Protein Study 2.0”/category whitepaper) tested well over a hundred protein powders — sources report figures of 133, 134 and 160 products across several CLP publications — and measured arsenic, cadmium, lead and mercury using ICP‑MS at an independent lab, Ellipse Analytics, producing aggregate findings such as that 47% of products exceeded at least one federal or state regulatory set (including California Prop 65) and that plant‑based proteins tended to show higher contamination than whey‑based powders [4] [6] [8]. However, Clean Label Project did not publish a product‑by‑product table of numeric heavy‑metal concentrations tied to brand/SKU in the public whitepaper, and researchers who tried to model exposures noted the lack of public identifiers forced assumptions about serving sizes and prevented product‑level cross‑reference with other datasets [5] [4]. Therefore, while CLP provides detailed lab methods and summary statistics, it did not make SKU‑level heavy‑metal numbers publicly available in the materials cited here [5].
3. How the two studies overlap, diverge, and where public data exist
Both programs tested similar analytes (lead, arsenic, cadmium, mercury) and used accredited laboratory methods, and both flagged plant‑based powders as more likely to show higher heavy‑metal levels on average [4] [1]. Consumer Reports published product‑level results (per their methodology sheet) and applied a 0.5 µg/day lead benchmark to rate products and make consumption recommendations [2] [1]. Clean Label Project published broader prevalence metrics (e.g., 47% exceeding at least one regulatory threshold, and 21% over 2× Prop 65 in some reporting) but withheld SKU‑identifiers in the public report, which means no complete public mapping of CLP numeric values to specific SKUs is available in the sources provided [4] [6] [5]. Industry groups and trade associations criticized CLP and CR for differing thresholds and context — noting federal benchmarks differ from California Prop 65 and that naturally occurring heavy metals complicate interpretation — an explicit caveat in reporting of both studies [9] [6].
4. Bottom line, data limitations, and next documentary steps
The authoritative, SKU‑level numeric heavy‑metal data needed to answer “for each specific SKU what were the microgram or ppb readings?” are available publicly for Consumer Reports’ tested SKUs in CR’s methodology appendices (CR reports per‑product µg/serving and ppb values and identifies particular powders to avoid) but are not reproduced here in the supplied material, while Clean Label Project’s whitepaper reports laboratory methods and per‑sample summary statistics but does not publish brand/SKU‑level numeric heavy‑metal readings in the public report excerpts provided [2] [4] [5]. Any precise, side‑by‑side SKU list with numeric heavy‑metal levels would therefore need to be pulled directly from Consumer Reports’ methodology PDF for those 23+5 SKUs and from a CLP dataset (if CLP elects to release SKU‑identified results) — the current public summaries confirm scope and trends but do not permit a complete itemized numeric table from the sources supplied [1] [4] [5].