• limer@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    1 day ago

    I would imagine the plant based group had more heavy metals, if given most brands

      • skibidi@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        23 hours ago

        Plants naturally pick up heavy metals from the soil they grow in, generally these are rather small amounts and both humans and animals can process them. There is almost no danger in consuming plants unless the soil is dangerously contaminated (generally an industrial source, or occasionally a fluke a geography).

        The problem comes with the concentrated protein supplements, as it also concentrates the contaminants. Protein supplements are generally sourced from the fruit of the plant, e.g. the bean from soy or the pea from pea. This is also where much of the soil nutrients bioaccumulate, as the plant is sending a bunch of water to the fruit in order to make it grow. When millions of soybeans are then ground up and concentrated into protein powder, the lead/cadmium/arsenic/Mercury remain behind in the powder - still in low amounts, but enough that if someone is using large amounts of the supplement daily they can be ingesting a lot more heavy metals than they are aware of.

        With animal-sourced proteins, contamination is generally lower (although plenty of brands still have concerning levels) simply because the protein is sourced from places where heavy metals don’t preferentially accumulate. E.g. lead bioaccumulates in bones and teeth, cow-sources protein is generally whey (from milk) or more rarely from the muscles - both places naturally lower in lead Owing to the cow’s biochemistry.

        For the record, I am a vegetarian (vegan + eggs) and use vegan protein supplements. I buy from brands which publish third party testing results on heavy metals contamination by lot to help control this exposure risk.

      • geekwithsoul@piefed.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        1 day ago

        Most of the plant-based protein on the market is sourced from China and seems to be contaminated with high levels of lead - probably due to poor processing controls, and far in excess of natural plant or animal sources.

        • Zephorah@discuss.online
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          1 day ago

          If it follows the chocolate heavy metal contaminants across brands, it’s likely the machinery used to grind things.

            • ayyy@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              21 hours ago

              I dunno if I would consider that to be the norm…those people got the death penalty for what they did, after all.

              • geekwithsoul@piefed.social
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                20 hours ago

                They got the death penalty more for being dumb enough to get caught. Chinese goods - from aircraft parts and concrete to food and clothing have repeatedly been found to have dangerously cut corners and/or inadequately ensured product safety.

          • geekwithsoul@piefed.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            1 day ago

            Oh, it’s so much worse than that - NotCo (the sponsor of the study, not just the source of the protein) is using an LLM to create plant-based alternatives to animal-based foods, such as milk, burgers, and mayonnaise. And just because they’re based in Chile, I wouldn’t take that to mean that’s where the plant protein is coming from, as they’re just the “designers” of these foods, not the manufacturers.

      • limer@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 day ago

        According to the research I read, in this community, for some reason it’s the plant protein supplements that have more

    • usernamesAreTricky@lemmy.mlOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      I assume you are referring to the consumer reports headlines, they have been greatly misleading. They have been using an extremely low level as their bar for concern. Here’s a recent piece talking about that

      This is an unachievable safety target, significantly below the lead you get from average daily food consumption

      […]

      But compared to the FDA’s more realistic numbers, 6.3 micrograms is 71.6 percent of the reference level for women of childearing age, meaning it’s safe even for at-risk individuals. For adult males, who are more likely to glug protein shakes, the risk is negligible. Children, with some exceptions, shouldn’t be consuming protein powder at all

      […]

      And it bears noting that Consumer Reports’s tests showed levels of lead that were higher than tests of Huel carried out by the National Sanitation Foundation, an independent testing body, which showed that a serving of Huel Black came in under 3.6 micrograms

      https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/465552/protein-powder-lead-poisoning-fda-supplements-consumer-reports

      (https://archive.is/y6ZHk for paywall)

      • geekwithsoul@piefed.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 day ago

        There is no safe level of lead in consumables. The standards being tossed around are basically about forcing government or corporate action, not about what’s actually healthy to consume.

        • usernamesAreTricky@lemmy.mlOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          1 day ago

          Sure, but they intentionally built in large margins to these reference. Of course zero lead is ideal, but it’s not what happens in practice. The metric consumer reports used has a 1000x safety factor vs the FDA’s 10x safety factor

          The FDA’s studies of dietary lead exposure show that the average American adult consumes between 1.7 and 5.3 micrograms daily through their normal food intake

          […]

          The FDA, as part of its “Closer to Zero” campaign and using a 10X safety factor, has set its reference levels at 2.2 micrograms per day for children and 8.8 for women of childbearing age (to protect against accidental fetal exposure). This means that regularly exceeding these might pose health risks.

          […]

          California’s Prop 65, however, used a far higher 1,000X safety factor (1,000 times lower than minimal known unsafe levels) to arrive at 0.5 micrograms of lead per day as its reference level.

          From the same article as above

          • geekwithsoul@piefed.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 day ago

            “The American Conference of Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) develops Biological Exposure Indices (BEI) as guidance values for assessing biological monitoring results in occupational settings by individuals trained in the discipline of industrial hygiene to assist in the control of potential workplace health hazards and for no other use. These values are not fine lines between safe and dangerous concentrations and should not be used by individuals without training in the discipline of industrial hygiene.” https://archive.cdc.gov/www_atsdr_cdc_gov/csem/leadtoxicity/safety_standards.html

            The truth is none of the standards are based entirely on safe/not-safe levels - they know none of it is safe, but governments are hesitant to hold corporations responsible. And zero-lead is what “happens in practice” for responsible manufacturers. It’s not some unavoidable contaminant that can’t be removed.

      • limer@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 day ago

        Maybe you are correct. But I have seen hundreds of papers and claims about to not worry about this or that, since I began reading news in the 1970s. And I have noticed a trend of smart people being wrong.

        I think it’s good to be cautious