Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Is Huel safe
Executive summary
Consumer Reports tested 23 protein powders and flagged Huel Black Edition for elevated lead (reported as 6.3 µg per 90 g serving) and cadmium, recommending avoidance of that single product; Consumer Reports’ benchmark was a 0.5 µg/day “level of concern” based on California’s Prop 65 [1] [2] [3]. Huel and industry groups counter that Consumer Reports used unusually conservative thresholds and point to NSF testing and regulatory standards showing the product meets recognized limits [4] [5].
1. What the watchdog found — Consumer Reports’ warning
Consumer Reports’ October testing of 23 protein powders reported that many contained heavy metals and that Huel’s Black Edition showed about 6.3 micrograms of lead per serving, a figure CR said put that product among only two it advised consumers to avoid; CR used a 0.5 µg/day benchmark derived from California’s Proposition 65 to set its “level of concern” [1] [2] [3].
2. Huel’s response — testing and standards the company cites
Huel rejects the Consumer Reports framing, saying its products comply with UK/EU food safety rules and pointing to third‑party certification: the company highlights an NSF International test that found no detectable lead above a 3.6 µg threshold and asserts its own testing shows lead in Black Edition between roughly 1.5–2.2 µg per 90 g serving — well under many widely used regulatory benchmarks [4] [5].
3. Why the numbers look so different — differing benchmarks and methodology
Disagreement is largely methodological: Consumer Reports used a Prop 65‑based “level of concern” (0.5 µg/day) that industry critics call an ultra‑conservative reference and not an international regulatory safety limit; by contrast, NSF and other standards use higher daily thresholds (for example, NSF’s 10 µg/day cited in industry commentary), so the same lab measurements can be characterized as dangerously high or within accepted limits depending on which benchmark is applied [5] [4] [6].
4. Legal fallout and commercial consequences
Plaintiffs have filed a proposed class action alleging Huel misled consumers by marketing Black Edition as a “complete meal” while allegedly containing undisclosed elevated lead and cadmium; the complaint cites Consumer Reports’ findings and an independent counsel investigation and notes CR recommended avoiding Huel Black Edition [7] [8] [9]. This litigation frames the dispute not only as a science debate but as a question of marketing and disclosure.
5. Industry context — plant proteins trend and broader testing
Consumer Reports and other investigations have tended to find higher average heavy‑metal concentrations in plant‑based proteins vs. dairy proteins; CR reported about 70% of tested products exceeded its lead “level of concern,” and the industry has pushed back that naturally occurring trace metals in plant ingredients complicate simple safety messages [5] [3].
6. What experts and commentators are saying — two competing narratives
Critics argue CR’s thresholds are precautionary to the point of alarmism (one analyst said CR’s limits may be many times lower than other benchmarks), suggesting the practical risk to most consumers is low if products meet regulatory tests [6] [5]. Consumer Reports and some health advocates counter that lower thresholds reflect special concern for sensitive groups (pregnant people, children) and that repeated daily exposures should be examined across the whole diet [1] [3].
7. Practical takeaways for consumers right now
If you use Huel occasionally, the available sources present competing views: Consumer Reports flagged a high single‑product reading (6.3 µg/serving) and advised avoidance of Huel Black Edition, while Huel and NSF testing claim results are within widely recognized safety standards [2] [4]. Consumers who are pregnant, breastfeeding, or replacing most of their diet with a single product may reasonably prefer the more conservative interpretation; others may weigh Huel’s third‑party testing and regulatory compliance more heavily [1] [4] [5].
8. Limits of current reporting and what to watch next
Available sources document the CR test, Huel’s rebuttals and NSF reports, and a pending class action, but they do not provide a unified, adjudicated regulatory finding or long‑term clinical data showing harm from Huel specifically — nor do they show the full methods and batch variability across time [1] [4] [7]. Watch for court developments, additional independent batch testing, and regulatory statements that harmonize methodology and thresholds.
Summary verdict (based on available reporting): evidence is contested. Consumer Reports flagged Huel Black Edition as containing high lead by its conservative standard (6.3 µg/serving) and recommended avoiding it, while Huel and some industry/third‑party tests say the product meets recognized safety limits [2] [4] [5]. Decide based on your personal risk tolerance, especially if you are in a sensitive group, and monitor follow‑up testing and legal outcomes [7] [1].