Extraordinary (& outrageous!) Test Results for Now Organic Kelp Pure Powder Super Green Supplement: November 2024 Laboratory Report
Batch info for the product we tested:
Quick note from Tamara Rubin:
Wow.
Just…
Wow.
Scroll down to see the lab report for this product (at the bottom of this page).
If you have been using this product, we encourage you to consider stopping use immediately.
Please also contact your doctor and ask if they recommend that you get tested (a urine or blood test might be appropriate — more on that here) for Arsenic and Cadmium, if they are able to conduct a full heavy metals panel.
Please also click the link below and report this product to the FDA for hazardous levels of Cadmium and extremely hazardous levels of Arsenic (especially given it is a supplement that many take daily for purported health “benefits,” a supplement which is incredibly toxic even after taking into account the relatively small recommended daily dose). If enough people report this product, the FDA might actually take action: https://www.fda.gov/safety/report-problem-fda
Note: While our graphic below compares the results to the recommended Action Levels proposed with the Baby Food Safety Act of 2021, this is only provided for context. There is not a comparable “total content” level of concern (a level of concern not based on an industry stated “serving size,” but relative to consumption of any amount of the product) for products intended and marketed for consumption by adults. Said another way, adults are not well-protected when it comes to the concern for high levels of toxicants in products (foods and supplements) they may consume daily. It is also important to note that the question of organic Arsenic vs. inorganic Arsenic is not relevant when the Arsenic levels are this high. High levels of either form of Arsenic can cause similar damage/ symptomatic expressions (more on that here).
For those new to the Lead Safe Mama website:
Tamara Rubin is a multiple-federal-award-winning independent advocate for childhood Lead poisoning prevention and consumer goods safety, and a documentary filmmaker. She is also a mother of Lead-poisoned children (two of her four sons were acutely Lead-poisoned in 2005).
- Tamara owns and runs Lead Safe Mama, LLC — a unique community collaborative woman-owned small business for childhood Lead poisoning prevention and consumer goods safety.
- Since July 2022, the work of Lead Safe Mama, LLC has been responsible for six product recalls (FDA and CPSC).
- All test results reported on this website are science-based, accurate, and replicable.
- Please check out our press page to see some of the news coverage of our work, linked here.
This is an ad-free article.
Advertising and affiliate income help Lead Safe Mama, LLC cover the costs of the work we do here (independent consumer goods testing and childhood Lead poisoning prevention advocacy). We have removed ads from most of our more widely-read articles (and newly published articles, too — like this one!) to make them easier for you to read. In addition to supporting this work by starting any shopping you might be doing with a click on our affiliate links, if you would like to support the independent consumer goods testing and childhood Lead poisoning prevention advocacy work of Lead Safe Mama, LLC by making a contribution (which will also help us keep our more widely-read articles ad-free), click here. Thank you!
Important Background: What is an Action Level?
Please note the following key points:
The original lab report for this product is below (at the bottom of this page).
The graphic above shows the levels of metals detected in this product (in red) along with the low threshold of detection (in orange, above the action levels discussed/ or in green, below the action levels discussed) for each metal not detected with the laboratory testing Lead Safe Mama, LLC had completed for this product. The numbers are juxtaposed (in blue) to the “Action Level” proposed by the medical and scientific community in 2021 as part of the Baby Food Safety Act. For this round of testing, SimpleLab (our laboratory testing provider) had a change of labs and their low threshold of detection is slightly higher than in previous testing rounds.
- These 2021 levels were proposed as “Action Levels” because they are (in fact) protective of human health.
- An “Action Level” is NOT the same as a “Maximum Allowable Level.”
- Many food manufacturers misinterpret guidance on heavy metals to mean “allowable levels” and consider it reasonable for products to test positive below these levels.
- This is a (perhaps intentional?) misunderstanding/ misinterpretation the food industry makes — a misunderstanding that food manufacturers use to justify the presence of heavy metals in products.
- Heavy metals accumulate in the body.
- It is the cumulative/ aggregate impact of heavy metal exposure (over a lifetime) that makes even small/ incidental/ seemingly trivial exposures particularly damaging and dangerous. You can read more about that here.
- Once a food product has the amount of heavy metal (Lead, Cadmium, Mercury, or Arsenic) noted (above) as the “Action Level,” that product is officially considered (by the scientific and medical community) unsafe for consumption by children as toxicants (found at-or-above these levels) are in the range of heavy metal levels that have been demonstrated to cause lasting harm.
- Action Levels are unrelated to serving size.
- Action Levels are relevant for any amount of a food product that may be consumed (any quantity of the food in question).
- PPB (parts per billion/ ppb) measurements are a percentage (albeit a very small percentage) and apply to any quantity of the food product tested.
- For more discussion about serving size considerations (and why relying on “serving size” to limit toxicant exposure is not a relevant metric/ not a metric protective of human health), read this article.
- These “Action Levels” proposed in 2021 are the levels at which the scientific and medical community believe the manufacturer (or government) needs to take ACTION to fix the problem.
- One “Action” would be for the manufacturer to take steps to reduce the levels of toxicants in the food product.
- Another “Action” would be for the manufacturer to cease sales of the product until the product could be made safe.
- Another “Action” would be for the manufacturer to inform the public that a specific food product has an unsafe level of the metal detected at-or-above the “Action Level” — making a highly-visible public announcement regarding which relevant batches of the product should be recalled/ no longer consumed.
- The Action Levels proposed with the Baby Food Safety Act of 2021 were not arbitrary toxicant levels, but were proposed because they are the levels most protective of human health. However, the Baby Food Safety Act of 2021 was not passed into law.
- Regardless of the fact the Baby Food Safety Act of 2021 never passed into law — and it is therefore legal to have foods and supplements marketed for consumption by children test positive for Lead, Cadmium, Mercury, and Arsenic at-or-above these levels — these Action Levels still reflect the current (modern/ relevant) advice of the medical and scientific communities as levels both achievable by the industry and safeguards of infant and toddler health.
- Food and supplement industry lobbyists fought against formalizing these proposed “Action Levels” as a government standard, alleging the levels were unachievable.
- The list of safer choices (below) clearly demonstrate these Action Levels as achievable across a range of food types (salt, flour, coffee, oatmeal, chia seeds, hemp seeds, soy milk, packaged fruit-based snacks, beverages, and more).
- The legitimacy of these levels as “Action Levels”/ “Levels of Concern” (even though they were not adopted as law) is mirrored by the legitimacy of the American Academy of Pediatrics’ level of concern for Lead in water, which is 1 ppb despite the FDA’s official “level of concern” for Lead in water being 15 ppb (you can read more about that here).
“Simply Not Achievable”
To reiterate: While the packaged, processed food industry would have consumers (and the government) believe the standards proposed in 2021 are unachievable, this industry position (an oft-rearticulated response to nearly every set of laboratory test results for food and supplements that we have published to date) is simply not true.
It is possible to make safer processed, packaged food products and supplements that fall well below the safety limits for toxicants proposed within the Baby Food Safety Act of 2021. To wit, all of the products listed below tested “non-detect” for Lead, Cadmium, Mercury, and Arsenic — several even tested non-detect for Lead with the low threshold of detection being “less than 1.5 ppb.”
Below is an EXPANDING list of products (foods and supplements) that have tested “non-detect” for Lead, Mercury, Cadmium, and Arsenic with independent, third-party, crowd-funded laboratory testing coordinated by Lead Safe Mama, LLC (an Oregon-based small business with a unique community-collaborative business model and a focus on consumer goods safety and childhood Lead poisoning prevention).
–
The limits of detection for each of the metals tested are noted in the lab report for the specific product listed. To see the full lab report for any of these products, type the brand name into the search bar at the top of any page on Lead Safe Mama dot com (and scroll down to the bottom of the related article).
–
Flavors tested are noted, and other flavors of the same product (or other products from the same brand) have either not been tested or have been tested but did not yield similar results. Test results only apply to the specific products linked below.
LIST UPDATED November 26, 2024:
- Beverage — Olipop Grape Tonic: https://amzn.to/4cjFYZu
- Breakfast Item — 1 — Nature’s Path Envirokidz Organic Panda Puffs: https://amzn.to/4fo1crf
- Breakfast Item — 2 — One Degree Organic, Gluten-Free, Sprouted Rolled Oats (Canada): https://amzn.to/3WIQ1BN
- Candy — Cavendish & Harvey Wild Berry Drops, not Organic (Germany): https://amzn.to/3Z1Jxjr
- Coffee — 1 — Chameleon Handcrafted Organic Cold Brew Concentrate: https://amzn.to/3OcrH77
- Coffee — 2 — Death Wish Organic Espresso Roast Ground Coffee (Multi-country Origin, non-USA): https://amzn.to/3yo1eiL
- Plant-Based Coffee Creamer — 1 — Laird Superfood Coconut Creamer: https://amzn.to/4fItA7A
- Dairy Coffee Creamer — 2 — Organic Valley Grassmilk Half and Half: https://amzn.to/4fHJIWT
- Fruit Snack — 1 — GoGo Squeez Organic Apple Sauce Pouch: https://amzn.to/3XhWYLe
- Fruit Snack — 2 — Pure Organic Layered Fruit Bars in Strawberry Banana Flavor: https://amzn.to/3WQEekA
- Fruit Snack — 3 — Once Upon A Farm Dairy Free Fruit Smoothie Pouch in Strawberry Banana Swirl Flavor: https://amzn.to/3CPMbAw
- Fruit Snack — 4 — Pure Organic Layered Fruit Bars in Raspberry Lemonade Flavor: https://amzn.to/3XcFsIp
- Infant Formula — 1 — Bobbie Organic Gentle Infant Formula Milk-Based Powder with Iron: https://amzn.to/3YYb849
- Infant Formula — 2 — Bobbie Grass-Fed Milk-Based Powder with Iron: https://amzn.to/3ZlAaeJ
- Infant Formula — 3 — ByHeart Infant Formula (USA-Made, not organic): https://amzn.to/48DJjTb
- Infant Formula — 4 — HiPP Bio Combiotik Infant Formula Powder – Stage 1 (imported)
- Infant Formula — 5 — Holle Bio Goat Stage 2 Infant Formula (for 6-10 months, organic, European — Swiss/ German/ Austrian) is not available on Amazon, but the Stage 3 version of this product is (not yet tested, but will likely test similarly): https://amzn.to/3BVU7zI
- Infant Formula — 6 — Kendamil Goat Infant Formula (not organic): This product may be available at Target (it is not available on Amazon)
- Infant Formula — 7 — Kendamil Organic Follow-On Milk (European/ British Toddler Formula, for 6-12 months, Cow Milk): Not available on Amazon (report link)
- Infant Formula — 8 — Kendamil Organic Infant Formula (Cow Milk): Not available on Amazon but may be available at Target
- Ingredient — 1 (salt) — Jacobsen’s Sea Salt (Oregon, USA): https://amzn.to/4dcbk5L
- Ingredient — 2 (baking flour) — Jovial Organic Einkorn Flour (Italy): https://amzn.to/3LIqxix
- Ingredient — 3 (seeds) — Costco Kirkland Organic Hemp Seeds: https://amzn.to/4e05RP9
- Ingredient — 4 (seeds) — Navitas Organic, Gluten-Free Chia Seeds (Mexico): https://amzn.to/3YvE7xC
- Oil — 1 — Chosen Foods 100% Avocado Oil (not organic): https://amzn.to/3YDZSuv
- Oil — 2 — Dr. Adorable’s Organic Perilla Seed Oil (Korea): https://amzn.to/3NDt7Yc
- Plant-Based Milk — 1 — Kiki Milk Organic Plant Based Milk (original flavor): https://amzn.to/3AA6Qrt
- Plant-Based Milk — 2 — West Soy Unflavored Unsweetened Organic Soy Milk: https://amzn.to/4dwev8l
- Supplement — 1 — Nordic Naturals Omega-3 Fish Oil: https://amzn.to/48q1j2V
- Supplement — 2 — Mary Ruth’s Organic Toddler Multivitamin Liquid Drops with Iron: https://amzn.to/3YPhcgx
Stand by for more!
–
BONUS FOUR: Below are FOUR additional products that each tested positive for trace (very low levels of) Arsenic — including the product featured above in this report — at levels considered safe by all standards (with the limits of detection noted in the lab report for the specific product listed):
- Infant Formula — Kendamil Goat Toddler Milk, not Organic (positive for traces of Arsenic): May be available at Target or through other online retailers of European infant formulas
- Fruit Snack — That’s It Apple Cherry Bars, not Organic (positive for traces of Arsenic): https://amzn.to/4fHkSWV
- Oil — Chosen Foods 100% Pure Avocado Oil — Organic (postive for traces of Arsenic): https://amzn.to/3BVQYQa
- Supplement — Now Sunflower Lecithin, not Organic (positive for traces of Arsenic): https://amzn.to/3AFdHzO
Amazon links are affiliate links.
Published: November 12, 2024
Tuesday
Hello! We are continually working on publishing a LOT of test results very quickly this month. We sent 67 products to the lab for testing in September 2024 and 61 products in October 2024. We have not yet reported on all of those products as we are still waiting to receive final reports from the lab for many of them.
We will be updating this section of each article (with more information about the specific product and other similar products for context) as time permits, but we wanted to ensure the greater Lead Safe Mama community (and the general public) had access to this scientific data (about foods and supplements in their home) as quickly as possible.
Please scroll down to see the full laboratory test report for the product pictured above. Thank you for your patience.
As there are almost no reasonable safety thresholds proposed for toxicants (heavy metals) consumed by adults (in foods and supplements), our focus is (as always) on the health of children. The available proposed safety thresholds (and guidance) for foods consumed by adults are not set at levels protective of human health and are therefore irrelevant to the work we do here at Lead Safe Mama, LLC.
This is the Lead Safe Mama Amazon affiliate link to purchase a test kit similar to what we use for our laboratory testing.
To see more articles related to the laboratory testing of foods and supplements Lead Safe Mama, LLC is conducting (including background on this initiative and safer food choices and guidelines), click the pink square below. To see the full, independent, third-party laboratory report for the product pictured above, please scroll down to the bottom of this page.
Amazon links are affiliate links. If you purchase something after clicking on a Lead Safe Mama, LLC Amazon affiliate link, Lead Safe Mama, LLC may receive a percentage of what you spend — at no extra cost to you.
Lab report for the product pictured above:
Never Miss an Important Article Again!
Join our Email List
of course the FDA website reporting system is ‘unavailable at this time’! This was on 11/13/24.
Greetings, I am interested in this study. Can you provide the full research protocol please. Is Leonard Rubin related to Tamara Rubin? Leonard Rubin collected the sample, who carried out the research study itself?
Just submitted an FDA complaint.
I’m especially surprised it is not high in mercury coming from the sea. So why cadmium and arsenic?
Can you please post
– Lot #
– Code #
– Best by date
for the Now kelp product that was tested?
I’m filing complaints with NOW and FDA.
Thank you!
Hi – I just updated the article with a photo with the batch info (it’s near the top of the page). Thank you.
Tamara
In 2006 when Ibecame a patient of Dr. Gonzalez, I was on his protocol and was on a kelp supplement for the iodine. I had a hair test to check my heavy metals as I had had mercury poisoning with a botched up dental crown. My tests came back showing high levels of arsenic. I did a little digging on the internet, simply asking what were common sources of arsenic poisoning and kelp came up. I quit kelp supplementation immediately and Dr. Gonzalez was superb. He said, leave it to my patients to make discoveries like this. So I am not surprised about this finding. @Tamara, may I nominate you for MAHA team?
Thank you. Someone already has – but feel free to chime in! There’s some drama already here – lol, so I don’t expect much to come of this: https://discourse.nomineesforthepeople.com/t/tamara-rubin/4498
Thank you for informing us about unsafe products, it is very valuable to have this information. I forwarded your article to my integrative veterinarian who prescribes supplements, including NOW supplements for the animals, and she brought up some cogent points. I thought I would post them to you, because it only seems fair that the manufacturer has a chance to respond to these data. Here is the vet’s response:
Hi Carol,
Although the arsenic levels are really high in this product, I’m not happy with the reaction of lead safe mama. Firstly, I think she should test a bunch of kelp products and see if this is a problem with all of them before attacking Now so harshly. And before asking the readers to contact the FDA so Now gets investigated, which could ruin the company. And I think she should have contacted Now and await their response. Also, she should ask the company Now for the certificate of analysis of their product and see what they got as values when they got the product tested. I just think it’s really dangerous to get the FDA involved. They are so anti-supplements anyway.
I would ask Now for all the CoAs to see what results they got when they got the products tested.
Thanks for alerting me.
This is a misinformed response (from your vet) as it does not protect the consumer / patient and errs on the side of protecting the company (and their bottom line). The Hippocratic Oath (summarized) is “First Do No Harm”.
We publish our results here on the website and make the actual lab report available to consumers (at the bottom of each article) so they can quickly stop using a product that may be dangerous.
There is no way this product could be construed as safe (or as having health benefits that outweigh the risks), given the levels of toxicants found – which are extreme (the most extreme of any product we have tested).
This is also the FIFTH seaweed product we have tested. ALL FIVE have been heavily contaminated (with similar toxicant profiles).
You can see the others here: https://tamararubin.com/category/seaweed/
Are you familiar with the following Upton Sinclair quote?
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”
Your vet is earning a living (at least part of their income) selling products from this brand. It’s going to be hard for them to admit their advice to patients was ill advised, especially if it will impact their bottom line. They have clear bias in their perspective (based on the details shared in your comment).
Please watch my documentary film and share it with your vet – to better educate them on the subject:
T
Response from NOW – Katy Banaszewski, NOW(R) Senior Director of Quality:
We appreciate Lead Safe Mama for bringing attention to the issues surrounding heavy metal content in consumer products and advocating for product safety. We are fully committed to ensuring the safety and quality of our products and providing transparent information to our consumers.
Product Safety and Regulatory Compliance
Our product undergoes rigorous testing in our ISO 17025-accredited laboratory to ensure it meets all regulatory standards for heavy metals, including arsenic and cadmium. We comply with the strict limits established by regulatory authorities, and our test results confirm that these levels are well within safe limits for regular adult use. Please note that this product is not intended for children; it is specifically formulated for adults who have different tolerances and nutritional requirements.
Clarification on Regulatory Reference
We would like to clarify that the Baby Food Safety Act of 2021, mentioned in Lead Safe Mama’s post, does not apply to this product. This Act specifically addresses heavy metal levels in baby food, which have different regulatory limits and considerations due to infants’ unique developmental needs and sensitivities. Applying these standards to an adult dietary supplement can be misleading, as adults have significantly different tolerances. Our product complies with adult safety guidelines established by the relevant regulatory agencies for dietary supplements, rather than those intended for baby food.
Natural Composition of Kelp
Our product is derived from natural kelp, which may contain trace levels of certain elements, including arsenic. These traces result from natural environmental factors and not from contamination. The arsenic found in kelp is primarily in organic form, which is considered less toxic than inorganic arsenic. According to current scientific research and industry guidelines, the levels present in our product are deemed safe when consumed as directed.
Commitment to Transparency and Consumer Safety
We are dedicated to continuously monitoring the latest research and regulatory guidelines to ensure our products remain safe and effective. We recognize that consumer safety is a shared priority, and we encourage open dialogue and feedback from both consumers and advocates. If anyone has specific health concerns, we strongly recommend consulting with healthcare professionals and contacting us at productinfo@nowfoods.com for additional information about our product testing and quality standards.
Thank you again to Lead Safe Mama and our consumers for their engagement and dedication to product safety. We value the opportunity to address these concerns openly and transparently.
I was just looking into the Arsenic levels since we use this product. I also learned that seaweed (especially Kelp) is often high in *organic arsenic* (as opposed to inorganic arsenic). Apparently our bodies are better able to process the organic form of arsenic. Unless the arsenic is tested to see which form it is, we don’t know if these are truly unsafe levels or not. I’m still going to continue to research this though because the Now Kelp is such an affordable and easy way to get iodine — I don’t want to panic and throw it out unless I am pretty certain it’s not worth the risk. Also, although Arsenic is a health concern, it does have a short half-life and is excreted in the urine, unlike some of the other heavy metals that store in our bodies.
Please read the linked article above that discusses the similar impacts of high levels of both types of Arsenic. My husband has stopped taking this product.
T
Read the article from Iowa Health and Human Services you linked to. It does mention that “Exposure to high levels of some organic arsenic compounds may cause effects similar to those of inorganic arsenic.”
It also says: “Organic arsenic compounds are less toxic than inorganic arsenic compounds.”
And “Absorbed arsenic is rapidly distributed into tissue storage sites with a blood half-life of <6 hours."
"Due to the short half-life of arsenic in the blood, urine is the preferred specimen for detection of exposure. Elevated urine results should be fractionated to differentiate between toxic inorganic forms and relatively nontoxic organic forms."
"Normally, humans consume 5 to 25 micrograms (mcg) of arsenic each day as part of their normal diet… After a seafood meal (seafood contains a nontoxic, organic form of arsenic), the urine output of arsenic may increase to 300 mcg/L (micrograms per liter) for 1 day, after which it will decline to <25 mcg/L."
Now let's see if my math is correct:
The testing result for the heavy metals you posted is ppb (ug/kg).
1 ug/g is a ppm.
The serving amount for the NOW Kelp is 90mg (.091g).
After converting ug/kg to ug/g, I got 7.29 ug/g (ppm) per serving.
(ug is the same as mcg)
I know you use the proposed Baby Food Standard (which I'm not opposed to), but according to the Health Ranger's proposed standards (www.lowheavymetalsverified.org), this product would score somewhere between an "A" and "B". Still not ideal, but again, we don't know how much is organic and how much is inorganic. Either way, it doesn't sound as scary as 81,000 ppb.
If I made a mistake, let me know.
Because so many things are toxic these days (heavy metals are just one concern among hundreds), and our finances are not unlimited, I have to be able to prioritize which things are a true threat and which are not. I would be curious to see testing for organic produce, animal products and whole foods to see how those compare and to establish background levels. It feels impossible to avoid it all.
Absorption of Arsenic into the tissues can cause organ failure – over time (especially with chronic, daily use / daily exposure – as one might expect from a supplement), so the fact that it is not circulating (not measurable in urine over time) is fairly irrelevant.
If you have ever watched one of those true crime documentaries where the person was poisoned by arsenic – it is a slow build up over time (as determined by post-mortem tissue samples and hair testing).
Sorry I don’t follow. The test result shows 81,000 ppb of arsenic. This is 81 ppm. The Health Ranger’s lowest ranking (D) requires <40 ppm. Therefore, according to his standards, the product would score an F.
Am I missing something?
Thank you for this comment!
Hi Aj — not sure why I can’t reply directly to you or Tamara. I assumed maybe Tamara turned off replies? Anywho, 81,000 ppb is the same as ug/kg (micrograms per kilogram). I converted it to micrograms per gram (ug/g or ppm) because a serving size of the NOW Kelp is 90 milligrams (if you use the product, you know the scoop is teeny tiny — you don’t need much to get the benefits of iodine from it which what appeals to me). 90mg is 0.09g or 0.00009kg.
81,000 ug/kg X 0.001 kg/g = 81 ug /g
81 ug /g X 0.09g = 7.29 ug/g or >> 7.29 ppm <<
And we don't know how much of that is organic vs. inorganic (as already discussed above).
I was just trying to add some perspective, but ultimately people can do whatever they want. Converting the testing results to actual serving size seems like an important part of *science* too. You would get iodine poisoning from this product if you consumed a kilogram of it, so not sure why micrograms per kilogram is the measure. Maybe I'm missing something. I'm open to discussing and figuring this out. I'm not sure if I'd be able to show my math any clearer than this though, so hopefully it makes sense to you now.
The mistake is in your last line of math: the units ug/g x g = ug. Not ug/g. So you are getting a dose of 7.29 ug, but the concentration is still 81 ppm (parts/million). The units ppm and ppb are dose-independent. It remains the same regardless of serving size.
Sure, serving size makes a difference, but scientists and policymakers take into consideration total exposure and *daily dose over time* when setting safety limits. This is important because this exposure is cumulative. For example, when setting the limits for various sunscreen ingredients, the EU, FDA, etc. assume you apply it daily, all over your body, at a certain concentration per square inch to set a good margin of safety. Then they say you can’t put more than x% in a product. Yes, if you apply the sunscreen to just your face at x% you’ll get a lower dose than if you apply it all over. But the regulation takes chronic exposure into consideration and builds that into an easier-to-enforce limit on concentration that is dose-independent.
Thank you for chiming in with this before I had a chance to!
I see what you are saying. To set a standard, they need to be able to base it on concentration because various products have different serving sizes, volumes, weights, etc. And it sounds like you also agree: the serving size does matter. It seems especially relevant for this specific product which is such a tiny serving. If I have a gallon of juice, it has a given concentration of sugar in it. But I would be ingesting a fraction of the sugar if I took a sip of it as opposed to drinking the whole gallon. And my body would be able to process natural fructose (organic arsenic) much better than say high fructose corn syrup (inorganic arsenic).
Ultimately we are on the same side: if I had my way, I would consume zero heavy metals and have everything I buy be perfectly pure. Wouldn’t that be great! I have yet to find a vegan food-based iodine supplement that doesn’t have some arsenic (or worse in it) because there are natural levels in seafood and seaweed. Fish has iodine but many other toxins accumulated in their flesh (plus I’m ethical vegan). Whole seaweed is a good source of iodine and other nutrients but also has background levels of arsenic. From the other testing, it seems like iodized salt is contaminated with heavy metals (and typically has no other natural minerals). All the supplements seem to be contaminated. I need iodine, and NOW kelp is USDA organic and food-based. If anyone has any better suggestions please share! I’ve already spent countless hours of my life trying to figure this out.
Under Prop 65 (which I know isn’t perfect) 7.29 ug appears to be within “No Significant Risk Level” (10 µg/day). And that is for *inorganic arsenic* specifically. Granted that doesn’t leave much room for other sources of arsenic in our daily food and environment. Not sure how difficult it would be to test for the different types of arsenic, but that would be really helpful for future testing.
Prop 65 Arsenic: https://oehha.ca.gov/proposition-65/chemicals/arsenic-inorganic-arsenic-compounds
That also doesn’t take into account the other toxicants found in the NOW product. The level of Cadmium (a known carcinogen) is extremely high. My husband is also vegan and was taking this daily for years. He is 66 years old. He has also had 24 precancerous colon polyps in two years (first colonoscopy – 17, second one two years later -7). He stopped taking the NOW supplement the day we sent it to the lab. I don’t want him to ingest anything that might increase his risk of dying of colon cancer. Colon cancer sucks. My best friend (when I was 26) died of colon cancer. It was fast and very aggressive. He was 39. My son is named after him. His death was very very messy.
That sounds awful — I’m sorry your husband has been through all that. Both of my parents died of cancer — so many of us have been personally impacted by cancer. That is a big reason I try my best to avoid toxins as well. There are so many things in this world that are contributing to our toxic load — it’s so hard to say any one thing is causing it, but it makes sense to eliminate as much as possible and keep our detox pathways running smoothly.
Not sure if this will be helpful, but the amount of cadmium per serving of the NOW kelp is .0342ug. Prop 65 only has a *No Significant Risk Level* for cancer at 0.05 µg/day for inhalation (https://oehha.ca.gov/proposition-65/chemicals/cadmium). I’m in no way interested in gobbling down a bunch of cadmium if I can help it, but thankfully “Orally ingested cadmium is poorly bioavailable, but inhaled cadmium fumes are readily bioavailable.” (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK536966/) Perhaps that is why they don’t have a NSRL for ingested cadmium for cancer risk on the Prop 65 website, or maybe they just haven’t figured it out yet. The Maximum Allowable Dose Level (MADL) – Oral for reproductive toxicity is 4.1 µg/day.
Hope you all take good care. I know we are all doing the best we can. It’s a challenging time to be alive in so many ways, and I wish we could trust our government agencies to prioritize our health above money and power. I also wish the whole world wasn’t coated in toxins.
If not NOW brand, do you have a recommendation for iodine?
We’re working on finding a safer option. We’re also working on possibly taking legal action against NOW. Please remember: serving size related limits for things that have no safe exposure levels (as determined by scientists – not regulatory agencies) are not relevant as they are not protective of human health – they have only been set to protect corporations from liability. Please watch my film if you have not yet.
We saw your film years ago at a screening in Portland.
In the meantime, life goes on and I still need iodine. :/
I’ll be curious to see how the lawsuit plays out and if any interesting info comes to light.
I came across this and Vitamin Code Prenatal also tested extremely high in Arsenic and one of the prenatal ingredient is Sea Kelp. I wonder if this is why it tested at 1900 ppb in arsenic. I mailed a sample of left over prenatals yesterday to an independent lab to test how much arsenic is inorganic since inorganic arsenic is much worse than organic arsenic. I did this because I took this while pregnant and the saftey of my children is my top priority. I need to know.
Did you get any results yet?
Hi Heather. No results yet. The lab said they are due before or by 1/10/25. I am assuming it will mostly be inorganic arsenic due to all the raw veggies and brown rice on the packaging. I am very worried since I read high exposure to arsenic in utero is extremely toxic to a fetus. I read a study that online that says: Beginning in 1958, the city of Antofagasta in northern Chile was exposed to high arsenic concentrations (870 µg/L) when it switched water sources. The exposure abruptly stopped in 1970 when an arsenic-removal plant commenced operations. A unique exposure scenario like this—with an abrupt start, clear end, and large population (125,000 in 1970), all with essentially the same exposure—is rare in environmental epidemiology. Evidence of increased mortality from lung cancer, bronchiectasis, myocardial infarction, and kidney cancer has been reported among young adults who were in utero or children during the high-exposure period. So if the prenatal I took had 1,900 ppb of arsenic and I.took 3 capsupes per day that puts me at 5,700 ppb per day. This is terrifying, unless I am missing something here? Even if by some miracle it is mostly organic arsenic, organic is not well understood by scienctists and it may also be harmful. And if young adults exposed to 870 ppb in utero had a 6x increase in lung cancer as young adults, where does that put my children who were possibly exposed to 5,700 ppb daily in utero? I can post my lab results as soon as I get them, if that is allowed. Results will show total arsenic and how much of it is inorganic.
The concentration stays the same no matter how many pills you took, so it’s still 1900 ppb not 5700!
Aj, I reached out to the lab that Tamara used for the results. The lab rep emailed me this:
” The EPA’s limit for inorganic arsenic in drinking water is 10 µg/L (micrograms per liter).
In dietary supplements, arsenic levels are generally expected to be low, with limits varying by region.
For example:
European Union –> Typically, arsenic levels in supplements should not exceed 0.1 mg/kg (100 µg/kg) for inorganic arsenic.
The concentration in this sample is 1.9 mg/kg, which is 19 times higher than the EU’s inorganic arsenic guideline for supplements. This is concerning unless the arsenic in your multivitamin is confirmed to be predominantly in its less toxic organic form (e.g., found naturally in seafood).
If consumed at typical multivitamin dosages (e.g., 1 tablet/day, assuming ~1 g/tablet), the daily arsenic intake from this supplement would be 1.9 mg. While this amount is low, the toxicity depends on the form of arsenic and cumulative exposure from other sources. ”
Is the lab rep imcorrect? What I understood is if the concentration is 1,900 ppb fpr 1 gram amd each capsule weighs 1 gram then I consumed about 5,700 ppb since I comsumed 3 capsules daily. I typed this exact thing to the lab rep as well. Please let me know if the lab rep is wrong. Thank you
Assuming 1 g/pill (is that true? You weighed it?):
1,900 ppb = 1.9 ppm = 1.9 ug/g
1.9 ug/g * 1 g/pill = 1.9 ug/pill (note: this is ug not mg! 1.9 ug is 0.0019 mg)
1.9 ug/pill * 3 pills = 5.7 ug (note: this is ug not mg or ppm!)
I really hope that came out on separate lines for legibility… So you consumed 5.7 ug/day (aka. 0.0057 mg/day), all at a concentration of 1900 ppb. The math about that concentration being 19x higher than the quoted concentration limit is correct.
Think of it like this. Lets say I have a big bucket of marbles, half of them are black and half are white. I mix them well and you grab a scoop of them. You’re going to have roughly half white. You grab another scoop. Even though you have more white marbles now, your total is still about half white. If you kept scooping till you took ALL my marbles, you know the concentration you’d have would remain 50:50. After all, that’s what I had in my bucket at the start. Your amount of whites changes, but not your concentration of whites/total. ppb is concentration, while ug is the amount.
Hi Aj! Thank you. I did weigh the capsules. I have a scale at home. Each capsule is about a gram. I’m a bit confused with your calculations. Isin’t ug referred to ppb sometimes? In your calculations you write that each pill is 1.9 ug. Is that correct? If ug is also ppb then are you saying each capsule is 1.9 ppb of arsenic?
μg/L
A unit of measurement that expresses the mass of a substance per liter of liquid. In aqueous solutions, μg/L is sometimes referred to as ppb because there are one billion micrograms in one liter.
ppb is a percentage – ppb applies for any amount of a material – it does not change with the amount.
No, ug isn’t referred to as ppb. Parts per billion (ppb) is a concentration, whereas ug is a measure of mass that can be weighed. You can express ppb (parts per billion) in different units like ug/L (micrograms per liter) or ug/Kg (micrograms per kilogram), etc. But you need that “per ___” that says how much of the arsenic is in a larger quantity for it to be a concentration like ppb. There are 1900 parts of arsenic for every billion parts in the pills. Or with different units, there are 1900 micrograms of arsenic for every kilogram of pills.
Each pill has about 1.9 ug of arsenic in it since they weigh 1g. Because you had 3 pills daily the *amount* you had was 5.7 ug of arsenic daily. The *concentration* of arsenic in the product you had is 1900 ppb = 1.9 ppm = 1900 ug/Kg = 1.9 ug/g. As Tamara stated, the ppb does not change. It remains 1900 ppb no matter how many pills you take. What increases is the amount of arsenic you consumed in total.
I think I understand now. I truly appreciate your help and apologize for my confusion. So basically 1,900 ppb is a concentration or like Tamara stated, a percentage and it does not change with the amount. . I have been comparing my exposure to a study conducted of people in Northern Chile who were exposed to 870 ug / L of arsenic in utero. These people later developed cancer as young adults. I am trying to compare my exposure to theirs. I know there are a lot of factors to consider but trying to get somehwat of an idea. Lets just say the pregnant mother was drinking 2 liters of water per day and the water had 870 ug / L of arsenic. Is this worse than consuming 3 (1 gram) pills at 1,900 ug/kl of arsenic? Let’s see if I can do that math here ….. 870 ug / L = .87 ppm = .87 ug / g * 2,000 g = 1,740 ug. I am not very good at math so forgive me if this is way off!
Hi Tamara, I have the lab results for Vitamin Code Prenatal showing inorganic arsenic and total arsenic. Am I allowed to post these results in the group?
Can you email that to me first? I would really appreciate that. Thank you! TamaraRubin@mac.com