Comment Keep you hat on (Score 2) 101
They compared results to California’s "Proposition 65" threshold, which is only a consumer-warning benchmark and not a federal law.
Proposition 65 sets an extremely low “level of concern” of 0.5 micrograms of lead per day, far below the FDA’s own guidance of 15 micrograms per day for adults.
These figures are expressed as daily intake, not concentration in the product.
In contrast, the EU regulates heavy metals as contaminants in food supplements under Regulation (EU) 2023/915, which limits lead to 3 milligrams per kilogram of product, equal to 3,000 micrograms per kilo.
A typical 30-gram serving would therefore legally contain up to about 90 micrograms of lead. Numerically that is much higher than both US reference levels, but EU rules are binding law, not advisory, and products are routinely tested before and after they reach the market.
In the US, supplements are only lightly regulated under the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act, and companies do not need pre-market approval.
So while California’s Proposition 65 looks much stricter, it is mainly a consumer-warning regime, not an enforceable contamination limit, whereas the EU system sets a legal ceiling but enforces it systematically.
In short, the problem described by Consumer Reports reflects US regulatory gaps rather than something likely to occur widely in the US, though the EU’s numeric limit is paradoxically higher because it is designed as a legal cap, not a “no-risk” benchmark.