Hi Gina, thank you for your comment. You bring up valid points – there is no safe level of lead and that’s particularly important for early development (pregnancy and childhood) so why not have a conservative threshold?
We aimed to balance the contributions of the report with federal guidance and scientific literature. The common pushback on California’s MADL of 0.5 is that its value is not rooted in research on adverse outcomes like FDA’s IRLs are. Consumer Reports even acknowledges this stating: “Our results are meant to provide guidance on which products have comparatively higher levels of lead, not to identify the point at which lead exposure will have measurable harmful health effects.” I do think *this point* is important, but something many readers may not know (or read in the headlines). Indeed a low reference point can certainly be helpful as you said, but context can also help reduce unnecessary fear. We made sure to include how mcg/day can quickly add up with those certain products.
You’re correct, California’s MADL is not a regulatory limit but considered a “right-to-know” law used for warning labels. I also agree, protein is best consumed from whole foods (along with the benefits of its food matrix) – but protein powders can also be a tool for folks with unique needs or goals (performance, body composition, sarcopenia, malnutrition, feeding issues).
All this to say, I think two things can be true. The report and CA’s Prop 65 MADL bring awareness and advocacy to the important public health issue of heavy metal contamination, and, headlines and interpretation of the results have not been necessarily grounded in science. Our goal was to balance the two to help readers feel informed (in under 500 words 😊).