Which protein powder brands have published independent third‑party heavy‑metal test results and what do those reports show?
Executive summary
Independent third‑party testing of lead-contamination-2025">protein powders is patchy but public: Consumer Reports laboratory tests of 23 popular powders found more than two‑thirds contained more lead above CR’s safety threshold [1], Clean Label Project published a broad survey of 165 products and flagged higher contamination among many plant‑based and organic powders [2], and a mix of companies and small testing projects (Mamavation, some brands like Naked and Orgain) have released certificates or summaries of third‑party results [3] [4] [5]. However, no single public registry captures every brand’s certificate of analysis, and some popular makers (e.g., MyProtein, Isopure) have been called out for lacking published third‑party testing [6].
1. What “third‑party testing” exists and who is publishing it
Large consumer organizations and independent nonprofits have led the public testing effort: Consumer Reports commissioned lab testing of 23 protein powders and published results in October 2025 and follow‑up pieces in 2026 [1] [7], while the nonprofit Clean Label Project bought and tested 165 top‑selling powders and published a detailed “Protein Study 2.0” with rankings and contaminant data [2]. Smaller independent consumer projects such as Mamavation have also sent batches of products to EPA‑certified labs for testing of pesticides, PFAS and heavy metals [5]. Separately, brands or ingredient suppliers sometimes post certificates of analysis (COAs) or public statements about third‑party testing — Naked Nutrition has cited supplier testing and a third‑party test for a specific product, and Orgain has been noted for favorable third‑party lab results in editorial roundups [3] [4].
2. Which brands have published or made third‑party heavy‑metal results available
Clean Label Project’s dataset and public list cover scores for many named brands across 165 products and thus functionally “publishes” third‑party results for those included in its survey [2]. Consumer Reports’ list of 23 tested products identifies specific commercial powders and reports their lead and other metal levels [1]. Journalistic coverage and brand statements show that Naked Nutrition disclosed supplier and product‑level testing for at least one Vegan Mass Gainer, and Orgain’s products have been credited with high third‑party lab marks in industry reviews [3] [4]. That said, trade aggregators and ranking sites have flagged that certain widely sold brands — MyProtein and Isopure among them — lack publicly posted independent testing, advising caution [6].
3. What those reports show about heavy metals (lead, cadmium, etc.)
Consumer Reports found that more than two‑thirds of the 23 products it tested contained more lead per serving than CR’s food‑safety experts say is safe for daily consumption (CR’s reference was 0.5 micrograms per serving), with some samples exceeding that by multiple times [1] [8]. Clean Label Project’s wider testing also documented measurable levels of lead, cadmium and other contaminants across many products and reported that certified organic and plant‑based powders averaged higher lead concentrations, attributing that pattern to how plants bioaccumulate metals [2]. By contrast, targeted retesting by Consumer Reports of five reader‑requested chocolate powders found low lead levels in those products, illustrating brand‑ and SKU‑level variation and that not all powders are high in lead [8] [7]. Smaller lab projects (Mamavation) and some brand COAs reported non‑detects or levels below health benchmarks for specific analytes and flavors, but those results are product‑specific and not a blanket exoneration [5] [3].
4. How to interpret these published results—and the gaps that remain
Published third‑party testing demonstrates two clear realities: contamination is measurable and varies dramatically by product and formulation, and transparency matters because many brands do not publish COAs or lack independent certification like NSF Certified for Sport [2] [9]. The public data show both problem patterns (many powders with concerning lead levels in CR and Clean Label datasets) and exceptions (individual products with low lead in follow‑up CR testing and some brand COAs) [1] [8] [3]. Reporting limitations are significant: Consumer Reports and Clean Label Project sampled specific SKUs, not entire brands’ portfolios; some outlets and brands have released partial data rather than full lab reports; and U.S. federal regulation does not currently require premarket heavy‑metal limits for supplements, making third‑party transparency the pragmatic way for consumers to judge safety [10] [2].