Clean Label Project: interesting results

[eatyourspinach]

Study wasn't peer reviewed, amount found were below guidlines and the group is funded by "concerned consumers" FWIW https://www.nutraingredients-usa.com...-legal-action#

[poison]

You knew this would goad me into commenting

My whole purpose in life fulfilled. I know you and meatie sit around and sip bpi bcaa while cleaning your israeli oppressor assault bullpups.

[powercage]

My whole purpose in life fulfilled. I know you and meatie sit around and sip bpi bcaa while cleaning your israeli oppressor assault bullpups.

BlackOutCage

[poison]

BlackOutCage

:/ 300 of em?

[powercage]

:/ 300 of em?

hopefully

[BigDaddyBrose]

Body Fortress has 5 stars. Just going to point that out

BF made my butt a firehouse......

[poison]

hopefully

Thoughts and prayers, brother.

[lucia316]

This thread delivers as much as labdoor

[TheCleanLabel]

I saw this but I never saw them actually display what levels of what were actually in the tested products. Until I see what the amounts of all the chemicals are, I don't really trust it.

You can check out the raw data for this on the website (.../protein-powder-raw-data/)

[eatyourspinach]

You can check out the raw data for this on the website (.../protein-powder-raw-data/)

Why doesn't it say specific brands with the results? What kind of testing methods were used?

[TheCleanLabel]

Study wasn't peer reviewed, amount found were below guidlines and the group is funded by "concerned consumers" FWIW

Actually, we have submitted for and are currently in the process of peer reviews. Nearly 33% of those products tested exceeded established safety limits. And Clean Label Project is funded by 1) donations, 2) grants, 3) crowdfunding, 4) our certification program, and 5) we are an amazon affiliate and amazon smiles beneficiary, much like other nonprofits.

[eatyourspinach]

Actually, we have submitted for and are currently in the process of peer reviews. Nearly 33% of those products tested exceeded established safety limits. And Clean Label Project is funded by 1) donations, 2) grants, 3) crowdfunding, 4) our certification program, and 5) we are an amazon affiliate and amazon smiles beneficiary, much like other nonprofits.

So where does it say which brands did and what the safety limits are? Also was this funded by Ellipse Analytics like your pet food study?https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/commen...onprofit_that/

[masterg20]

You can check out the raw data for this on the website (.../protein-powder-raw-data/)

And your Nutritional Superiority is quite wrong.

[lucia316]

Awesome, this is as good as when the CEO of labdoor joined us to tell us that 20g of protein is 20g of protein so it doesn't matter if the label says 20 or 30g. It's all the same.

[powercage]

Awesome, this is as good as when the CEO of labdoor joined us to tell us that 20g of protein is 20g of protein so it doesn't matter if the label says 20 or 30g. It's all the same.

that was fun

[carguy123]

Awesome, this is as good as when the CEO of labdoor joined us to tell us that 20g of protein is 20g of protein so it doesn't matter if the label says 20 or 30g. It's all the same.

In for round 2!!!!

[ForumNature]

Here is what we say about Clean Label Project:

We understand the headlines surrounding this study are concerning. We take our customers’ health and wellbeing very seriously; however, we believe this report has some serious defects. A few of the most important flaws are below:

1. Clean Label Project’s data, methods, and reports do not appear in any peer-reviewed journals, which means that their research has not gone through the expert scrutiny normally required for this type of research to be regarded as methodologically defensible. Publication in a peer-reviewed journal would also require Clean Label Project to disclose the names of the researchers, authors, and potential conflicts of interest, which they have not done.

2. Clean Label Project only disclosed their anonymized raw data, which doesn’t show the specific brands or varieties they allegedly tested, nor does the raw data show any evidence of their analyses of the data.

3. Clean Label Project has not provided any insight into how its star-based product rating system is quantified. It appears to be very subjective and doesn’t provide consumers any information to make informed purchasing decisions.

4. Clean Label Project fails to disclose that most of the chemicals their reports refer to are in very low levels and, in fact, most of these chemicals are present in the environment as naturally-occurring substances (for example, in the soil and air) or as a result of contamination from human activity. This is likely why the plant proteins seem to be rated lower than most whey proteins – because the plants naturally absorb minerals from the soil in which they grow.

5. Many elements of Clean Label Project’s review and report cards are not true, including Clean Label Project’s statement that there is very little regulatory attention being paid at the federal level to minimize consumer exposures to environmental and industrial contaminants and toxins. Federal standards do certainly exist with regard to public health, including provisional total tolerable intake levels that exist for heavy metals (such as lead, arsenic, and cadmium) and are population based. Clean Label Project also failed to mention that FDA has minimum safety levels for the chemicals for which Clean Label Project is “testing.”



We believe that Clean Label Project has released entirely conclusory statements without properly validating their testing methods or data.

[danielmoo]

[powercage]

Here is what we say about Clean Label Project:

We understand the headlines surrounding this study are concerning. We take our customers’ health and wellbeing very seriously; however, we believe this report has some serious defects. A few of the most important flaws are below:

1. Clean Label Project’s data, methods, and reports do not appear in any peer-reviewed journals, which means that their research has not gone through the expert scrutiny normally required for this type of research to be regarded as methodologically defensible. Publication in a peer-reviewed journal would also require Clean Label Project to disclose the names of the researchers, authors, and potential conflicts of interest, which they have not done.

2. Clean Label Project only disclosed their anonymized raw data, which doesn’t show the specific brands or varieties they allegedly tested, nor does the raw data show any evidence of their analyses of the data.

3. Clean Label Project has not provided any insight into how its star-based product rating system is quantified. It appears to be very subjective and doesn’t provide consumers any information to make informed purchasing decisions.

4. Clean Label Project fails to disclose that most of the chemicals their reports refer to are in very low levels and, in fact, most of these chemicals are present in the environment as naturally-occurring substances (for example, in the soil and air) or as a result of contamination from human activity. This is likely why the plant proteins seem to be rated lower than most whey proteins – because the plants naturally absorb minerals from the soil in which they grow.

5. Many elements of Clean Label Project’s review and report cards are not true, including Clean Label Project’s statement that there is very little regulatory attention being paid at the federal level to minimize consumer exposures to environmental and industrial contaminants and toxins. Federal standards do certainly exist with regard to public health, including provisional total tolerable intake levels that exist for heavy metals (such as lead, arsenic, and cadmium) and are population based. Clean Label Project also failed to mention that FDA has minimum safety levels for the chemicals for which Clean Label Project is “testing.”



We believe that Clean Label Project has released entirely conclusory statements without properly validating their testing methods or data.

[OT2000]

That sig looks really familiar

[masterg20]

Here is what we say about Clean Label Project:

We understand the headlines surrounding this study are concerning. We take our customers’ health and wellbeing very seriously; however, we believe this report has some serious defects. A few of the most important flaws are below:

1. Clean Label Project’s data, methods, and reports do not appear in any peer-reviewed journals, which means that their research has not gone through the expert scrutiny normally required for this type of research to be regarded as methodologically defensible. Publication in a peer-reviewed journal would also require Clean Label Project to disclose the names of the researchers, authors, and potential conflicts of interest, which they have not done.

2. Clean Label Project only disclosed their anonymized raw data, which doesn’t show the specific brands or varieties they allegedly tested, nor does the raw data show any evidence of their analyses of the data.

3. Clean Label Project has not provided any insight into how its star-based product rating system is quantified. It appears to be very subjective and doesn’t provide consumers any information to make informed purchasing decisions.

4. Clean Label Project fails to disclose that most of the chemicals their reports refer to are in very low levels and, in fact, most of these chemicals are present in the environment as naturally-occurring substances (for example, in the soil and air) or as a result of contamination from human activity. This is likely why the plant proteins seem to be rated lower than most whey proteins – because the plants naturally absorb minerals from the soil in which they grow.

5. Many elements of Clean Label Project’s review and report cards are not true, including Clean Label Project’s statement that there is very little regulatory attention being paid at the federal level to minimize consumer exposures to environmental and industrial contaminants and toxins. Federal standards do certainly exist with regard to public health, including provisional total tolerable intake levels that exist for heavy metals (such as lead, arsenic, and cadmium) and are population based. Clean Label Project also failed to mention that FDA has minimum safety levels for the chemicals for which Clean Label Project is “testing.”



We believe that Clean Label Project has released entirely conclusory statements without properly validating their testing methods or data.

Thank you sir!

Very well articulated.

[Bigdumogre]

That sig looks really familiar

So does the back of your head

[OT2000]

So does the back of your head

You’re so sweet to me

[Bigdumogre]

You’re so sweet to me

That’s because you take care of me

[lucia316]

Here is what we say about Clean Label Project:

We understand the headlines surrounding this study are concerning. We take our customers’ health and wellbeing very seriously; however, we believe this report has some serious defects. A few of the most important flaws are below:

1. Clean Label Project’s data, methods, and reports do not appear in any peer-reviewed journals, which means that their research has not gone through the expert scrutiny normally required for this type of research to be regarded as methodologically defensible. Publication in a peer-reviewed journal would also require Clean Label Project to disclose the names of the researchers, authors, and potential conflicts of interest, which they have not done.

2. Clean Label Project only disclosed their anonymized raw data, which doesn’t show the specific brands or varieties they allegedly tested, nor does the raw data show any evidence of their analyses of the data.

3. Clean Label Project has not provided any insight into how its star-based product rating system is quantified. It appears to be very subjective and doesn’t provide consumers any information to make informed purchasing decisions.

4. Clean Label Project fails to disclose that most of the chemicals their reports refer to are in very low levels and, in fact, most of these chemicals are present in the environment as naturally-occurring substances (for example, in the soil and air) or as a result of contamination from human activity. This is likely why the plant proteins seem to be rated lower than most whey proteins – because the plants naturally absorb minerals from the soil in which they grow.

5. Many elements of Clean Label Project’s review and report cards are not true, including Clean Label Project’s statement that there is very little regulatory attention being paid at the federal level to minimize consumer exposures to environmental and industrial contaminants and toxins. Federal standards do certainly exist with regard to public health, including provisional total tolerable intake levels that exist for heavy metals (such as lead, arsenic, and cadmium) and are population based. Clean Label Project also failed to mention that FDA has minimum safety levels for the chemicals for which Clean Label Project is “testing.”



We believe that Clean Label Project has released entirely conclusory statements without properly validating their testing methods or data.

Solid assessment, but who is "We?"

[neddo]

Here is what we say about Clean Label Project:

We understand the headlines surrounding this study are concerning. We take our customers’ health and wellbeing very seriously; however, we believe this report has some serious defects. A few of the most important flaws are below:

1. Clean Label Project’s data, methods, and reports do not appear in any peer-reviewed journals, which means that their research has not gone through the expert scrutiny normally required for this type of research to be regarded as methodologically defensible. Publication in a peer-reviewed journal would also require Clean Label Project to disclose the names of the researchers, authors, and potential conflicts of interest, which they have not done.

2. Clean Label Project only disclosed their anonymized raw data, which doesn’t show the specific brands or varieties they allegedly tested, nor does the raw data show any evidence of their analyses of the data.

3. Clean Label Project has not provided any insight into how its star-based product rating system is quantified. It appears to be very subjective and doesn’t provide consumers any information to make informed purchasing decisions.

4. Clean Label Project fails to disclose that most of the chemicals their reports refer to are in very low levels and, in fact, most of these chemicals are present in the environment as naturally-occurring substances (for example, in the soil and air) or as a result of contamination from human activity. This is likely why the plant proteins seem to be rated lower than most whey proteins – because the plants naturally absorb minerals from the soil in which they grow.

5. Many elements of Clean Label Project’s review and report cards are not true, including Clean Label Project’s statement that there is very little regulatory attention being paid at the federal level to minimize consumer exposures to environmental and industrial contaminants and toxins. Federal standards do certainly exist with regard to public health, including provisional total tolerable intake levels that exist for heavy metals (such as lead, arsenic, and cadmium) and are population based. Clean Label Project also failed to mention that FDA has minimum safety levels for the chemicals for which Clean Label Project is “testing.”



We believe that Clean Label Project has released entirely conclusory statements without properly validating their testing methods or data.