Sovereign Laboratories Colostrum-LD Liposomal Delivery Dietary Supplement in Vanilla Flavor Analyzed for Lead, Cadmium, Arsenic & Mercury: 2025 Lab Report Here
Purchase information – three images – for the product pictured above (in response to comments from the manufacturer – which can be found on the bottom of this article in the comments section):
A Quick Note from Tamara Rubin:
This product tested positive for traces of Arsenic. Please scroll down to see the full lab report for this product (at the bottom of the article, below the shareable social media graphic with the test results and list of safer choices).
Here’s the link to a landing page containing all the products we have tested and reported on so far (with links to the related articles and lab reports if you just click on the image of the product you would like to know more about and scroll to the bottom).
The full lab report for this product is at the bottom of this article.
As far as safer choices for foods and supplements go, we have a few lists on our food and supplement testing landing page (linked here) that you may find helpful in making safer choices for your family. We even have one dedicated to safer snack choices here. You may also find this link helpful, as it takes you to our most recently updated safer choices list of 49 lab-tested safer foods and supplements!
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.
- 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” or a “Recommended Daily Amount.” If a product reaches the “Action Level” for heavy metals, it has too much of the heavy metals in question.
- Many food and supplement manufacturers misinterpret existing guidance on heavy metals to mean the stated levels are “allowable levels” or “acceptable levels” (in spite of the scientific consensus that there is no safe level of Lead exposure, for example) and consider it reasonable for products to test positive for heavy metals, but at levels that fall below any regulated maximums.
- This is a (perhaps intentional?) misunderstanding/ misinterpretation the food and supplement industry makes — a misunderstanding manufacturers use to justify the presence of heavy metals in products.
- As an example: A common refrain in this realm is when a supplement or food manufacturer proudly proclaims its product meets prop 65 guidelines as it tests positive for Lead, but under the limit noted by Prop 65. This position entirely disregards the well-known scientific fact there is no safe level of Lead exposure for humans.
- 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 or supplement 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) to have metals at a level that is 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 a better (more health-protective) metric than Prop 65 limits as they are more comprehensive and UNRELATED TO SERVING SIZE .
- Serving sizes are set by manufacturers and in many cases do not reflect real world consumption habits and patterns (more on that below).
- Serving size thresholds for toxicity also do not take into account realistic levels of toxicant ingestion from multiple foods and supplements over the course of a given day — or week or month (especially given the fact that many products are typically consumed in quantities far greater than a manufacturer-set serving size).
- Serving sizes are often set to quantities that are intentionally lower than anticipated actual daily consumption of a product (see bag of potato chips example below) — and companies specifically set these lower quantities only in order to be in compliance with Prop 65 (or other serving size-related) standards.
- On the other hand, Action Levels are relevant for any amount of a food or supplement product that may be consumed (any quantity of the food or supplement in question).
- Action Levels are a better (more health-protective) measure as they take into account the total heavy metals content of all products consumed throughout the day (were there to be a federally-mandated, health protective Action Level for all ingested items).
- If the Action Level for all items is protective of children’s health, one would never need to pay any attention to how much of a product a child consumes.
- Action Levels are a more reasonable metric in light of the fact that all federal agencies agree there is no safe level of Lead exposure (especially for children, but truly for all humans).
- If we are evaluating Lead exposure based on serving size, we are contradicting science by asserting that a certain amount of Lead is ok (within arbitrary limits that, again, are not protective of human health).
- PPB (parts per billion/ ppb) measurements are a percentage (albeit a very small percentage) and apply to any quantity of any food or supplement product (tested or ingested).
- If all ingested foods and supplements were evaluated by ppb content for heavy metals across the board (using the same scale for all types of ingested products), confusion over safety limits would be eliminated.
- By retaining a structure of serving size-based exposure, our regulatory agencies are doing a disservice to consumers, and again, (especially) as all federal agencies (and scientists and medical experts) agree there is no safe level of Lead exposure.
- 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 or supplement 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 or supplement 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 and supplement types (vitamins, 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, the products listed below (the first section of the list 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 January 26, 2025 — 47 Products and 5 “Bonus” Options!:
- Baby Food — 1 — Little Spoon Kale, Carrot + Pear BabyBlends
- Baby Food — 2 —Little Spoon Butternut Squash + Blueberry BabyBlends
- Baby Food — 3 — Little Spoon Sweet Potato BabyBlends
- Baby Food — 4 — Little Spoon Sweet Potato + Carrot BabyBlends
- Baby Food — 5 — Little Spoon Banana + Pitaya BabyBlends
- Beverage — 1 — Honest Kids Organic Appley Ever After Apple Juice Drink: https://amzn.to/4fjGhov
- Beverage — 2 — 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 — Lindt White Chocolate Bar (Made in USA, New Hampshire): https://amzn.to/3OXkyIm
- Candy — Cavendish & Harvey Wild Berry Drops, not organic (Germany): https://amzn.to/3Z1Jxjr
- Coffee & Tea — 1 — Chameleon Handcrafted Organic Cold Brew Concentrate: https://amzn.to/3OcrH77
- Coffee & Tea — 2 — Tao of Tea Organic Genmaicha (Tamara’s favorite, from Japan, sold by a Portland, Oregon-based company!): https://amzn.to/3Dp8Fsd
- Coffee & Tea — 3 — Califia Farms Almond Latte Cold Brew (XX Espresso): https://amzn.to/4gTTGoJ
- Coffee & Tea — 4 — Death Wish Organic Espresso Roast Ground Coffee (Multi-country origin, non-USA): https://amzn.to/3yo1eiL
- Coffee Creamer — Plant-Based — 1 — Laird Superfood Coconut Creamer: https://amzn.to/4fItA7A
- Coffee Creamer — Dairy — 2 — Organic Valley Grassmilk Half and Half: https://amzn.to/4fHJIWT
- Dairy, Cheese – Babybel Mini Original Snack Cheese: https://amzn.to/3ZY5noO
- Fruit Snack — 1 — GoGo Squeez Organic Apple Sauce Pouch: https://amzn.to/3XhWYLe
- Fruit Snack — 2 — Costco’s Kirkland Organic Apple Sauce Pouch: https://amzn.to/4gOYpZ9
- Fruit Snack — 3 — Pure Organic Layered Fruit Bars in Strawberry Banana Flavor: https://amzn.to/3WQEekA
- Fruit Snack — 4 — Once Upon A Farm Dairy Free Fruit Smoothie Pouch in Strawberry Banana Swirl Flavor: https://amzn.to/3CPMbAw
- Fruit Snack — 5 — 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 (pink and white can): https://amzn.to/3YYb849
- Infant Formula — 2 — Bobbie Organic Infant Formula Milk-Based Powder with Iron (green and white can): https://amzn.to/3VOr4Vy
- Infant Formula — 3 — Bobbie Grass-Fed Milk-Based Powder with Iron (green can): https://amzn.to/3ZlAaeJ
- Infant Formula — 4 — ByHeart Infant Formula (USA-made, not organic): https://amzn.to/48DJjTb
- Infant Formula — 5 — HiPP Bio Combiotik Infant Formula Powder – Stage 1 (imported)
- Infant Formula — 6 — 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 — 7 — Kendamil Goat Infant Formula (not organic): This product may be available at Target (it is not available on Amazon)
- Infant Formula — 8 — Kendamil Organic Follow-On Milk (European/ British Toddler Formula, for 6-12 months, Cow Milk): Not available on Amazon (report link)
- Infant Formula — 9 — Kendamil Whole Milk Infant Formula (From Europe, pink can, not organic), available at Target
- Infant Formula — 10 — 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
- Ingredient — 5 (beans) — Jovial Organic Chickpeas, Product of Italy: https://amzn.to/4iRON1l
- 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
- Oil — 3 — Dr. Bronner’s Regenerative Organic Coconut Oil: https://amzn.to/40xwBmv
- 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 — Baby Ddrops – Organic Vitamin D3 Supplement for Babies: https://amzn.to/49C3ktH
- Supplement — 2 — Nordic Naturals Omega-3 Fish Oil: https://amzn.to/48q1j2V
- Supplement — 3 — Mary Ruth’s Organic Toddler Multivitamin Liquid Drops with Iron: https://amzn.to/3YPhcgx
- Supplement — 4 — Pendulum Metabolic Daily Dietary Supplement: https://amzn.to/4gY5wOm
Here’s a link to the lab reports for of all of the foods and supplements we have tested.
Stand by for more!
BONUS FIVE: Below are FIVE additional products that each tested positive for trace (very low levels of) Arsenic — 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
- Supplement — Wishgarden Immune Boost Seasonal Rescue for Pregnancy: https://amzn.to/3Cd940N
Amazon links are affiliate links.
Published: January 26, 2025
Sunday
Please scroll down to see the full laboratory test report for the product pictured above. Thank you.
More Key Points to Consider:
- There are almost no reasonable safety limits proposed for toxicant contamination (heavy metal contamination specifically) of foods and supplements consumed by adults (or by the general population) in the United States.
- Any available proposed safety thresholds (and guidance) for foods and supplements consumed by adults are not currently set at levels that are protective of human health, given practical/ actual consumption patterns of foods (vs. manufacturer defined serving sizes).
- The above point is especially important given children eat all foods, not just foods marketed for consumption by children (for example: Find me a pre-teen that won’t go through an entire 5-ounce/ 5-serving bag of potato chips in one sitting)!
- Our focus is (as always) on the health of children.
- By applying the standards proposed by the Baby Food Safety Act of 2021 to all foods and supplements, we are working more in line with standards that protect human health (for all!) given all scientific and medical experts agree there is no safe level of Lead exposure for human beings.
- Said another way: You would never be eating a snack chip out of a bag and say to your 5-year-old child “this product is only marketed for consumption by adults, so you cannot eat it.” That would be ridiculous. Kids eat what we eat, so everything that goes into our bodies in an attempt to nourish us and support our health and well being should be appropriate for any age consumer (not just a demographic designated by the manufacturer based on irrelevant age group-related toxicity standards for a specific product or ingredient).
- Remember: There is no safe level of Lead exposure for human beings. Period.
- This is a non-negotiable point that everyone in the scientific and medical community — everyone who researches Lead poisoning — agrees with.
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
How many tests are included in the heavy metal kit you linked? Is it a one product test or are there many test kits to use for many products that can be sent in periodically. ?
Thanks DTS 🙂
One product for the food testing. One single test – which is why we are crowd-funding the cost of testing and reporting so the information can be available to all for free. Here’s our budget: https://tamararubin.com/budget/
Here’s a link to all of our GoFundMe campaigns that have not yet funded:
https://www.gofundme.com/s?q=tamara+rubin&location-description=Portland%2C+OR&location-lat=45.520247&location-lng=-122.674195&c=342
Sovereign Laboratories disputes the allegations that our product is unsafe and the SimpleLabs test results published on this website. We believe the results are inaccurate and conflict with Sovereign Laboratories heavy metal testing and separate testing conducted by a third party. Sovereign Laboratories has contacted Lead Safe Mama via email on 2/3/2025 and is asking for further study, comparisons of lab testing with ours, and acknowledgement that due to “the approximations” in the lone test that SimpleLabs conducted vs our two different laboratory tests which refute it, the numbers written in this article are false. You’ll note on that specific test offered by SimpleLabs they even call out potential for inaccuracy stating, “MDL values are APPROXIMATIONS ONLY. If you need to guarantee a specific method or MDL, please contact us.” To do a single test that uses approximations which are not specificized and to trash a brand that was built by a Vietnam Veteran for over 30 years, is irresponsible to say the least. As of 9:35 AM on 2/5/2025, Lead Safe Mama has not responded to our initial email asking to work with us to verify our heavy metal testing results (which show the approximation test results published here are inaccurate and that our product is safe).
February 5, 2025 – Wednesday
6:24 p.m.
Hello.
This is the first communication we have received from you.
Thank you for writing.
Our test results show your product tested positive for 44 ppb Arsenic. The testing is accurate within the parameters stated on the lab report at the bottom of this article.
How much Arsenic do your internal test results show?
Most companies that dispute the results of the independent, third-party lab testing we are doing are not looking at results in parts per billion (but instead are only reviewing their toxicant content as a function of serving size).
Parts per billion total content levels are not related to serving size, and are not related to Prop 65 compliance or any other regulatory standards based on serving size.
Our lab report shows the product is non-detect for Lead, Cadmium, and Mercury with a low threshold of detection of 5 ppb.
Another similar colostrum product we tested also tested positive for Arsenic – you can see that lab report here:
https://tamararubin.com/2024/11/armra-colostrum-supplement/ So it would seem this is a reasonable concern for this class of products – the concern that colostrum products may test positive for Arsenic in the range of double digit parts per billion.
If you want to share a link to your test results here – we would be happy to take a look at them (or you can just respond and let us know what Arsenic levels you found – as measured in parts per billion).
As stated in the article – we are looking at safety concerns for products that may be consumed by children, when held in the context of the more health-protective Action levels proposed with the baby food safety act of 2021. The 2021 proposed standard for products consumed by young children was an Action level of 10 ppb Arsenic. Your product exceeds that level. For a product to exceed that level is not illegal (as stated above), nor is it a consideration related to any publicly available enforceable regulatory standard.
If you would like batch information for the sample of your product that we tested, we would be happy to provide that to you.
Thanks again for being in touch.
Lead Safe Mama, LLC
P.S. It also appears (from your statement above) that you do not understand the meaning of the term MDL. You may want to research that so you better understand what that means and the implications. The MDL is different from the RESULT. MDLs may vary, however The RESULT is not in question at all.
Here’s a definition found with a quick internet search – that may be helpful:
“Method detection limit,” or “MDL,” means the minimum measured concentration of a substance that can be reported with 99% confidence that the measured concentration is distinguishable from method blank results.”
I know you haven’t disclosed the lot number so we went back over a full year of testing results in multiple batches and all are within our safety limits from both labs that we use. You are going off of one test which uses approximations vs our testing which I believe is more accurate. Please search you email folders as apparently the email I sent to the email listed on your published test result is no longer active or ? We legit want to go over the results between your test and our tests. Put your lab in touch with ours and get to bottom of where this high number came from that does not match our results and get to the truth of it. Or you can contact me directly at my email address that I used to post my initial comment and this one. Thank you.
Hi Roger –
I am thousands of miles away out of the country – on different time-zone than you (& with a very full schedule).
I get hundreds (if not thousands) of messages each day and I do my best to respond as quickly as I can.
You are not being ignored.
Your statement that I have “not disclosed” the lot number is not true. You have not asked for it until now. I have to have my assistant grab that information from our storage facility – as I do with every lot number request. I will take this note here as your request for the lot information (even though it is not very “request-like”).
The level of aggression in your comments (and your apparent lack of understanding of the science and the work we do here) is fairly disturbing.
T
Hello Roger,
I have a request in to my assistant to get a photo of the product packaging with the lot / batch information from our storage. I will share that information with you (in the form a photo, which I will post above in this article) as soon as I have it. I will also comment back here to let you know it has been posted.
I can share the following information with you in the meantime (& I will also post images with these details above in the article):
– The product was purchased on Amazon on December 10, 2024
– The price we paid for the product was $127.95
– The product was delivered on December 15, 2024
– The Vendor info (shown on Amazon) is:
VSano
30 N. Alamos Drive
Cottonwood, AZ
86326-4020
USA
The cost of testing and reporting for this product was sponsored by a private (anonymous) donor who uses this product as a supplement with their children. They asked us to test the product (and to publish the results) as they are trying to limit toxicant exposure for their children.
That’s the info I have at the moment.
More shortly.
Perhaps the purchase information will shed some light on the batch details for you – although I should have the batch info available in about 24-48 hours.
Note: I am 8 hours ahead of Arizona time-wise, so asynchronous communication is required as I am normally sleeping when you are writing these comments.
I would appreciate a response from you with the details of your testing — specifically, what level of Arsenic did you find (measured in parts per billion)?
Tamara
Hi Tamara,
In a follow-up comment which you’ve elected not to publish on your website, I asked that you please use the email I used when posting my last comments and is recorded on your website to reach out to be to get to the truth of the testing results. As of 2:22 PM, Az Time, on 2/6/2025 you have yet to contact me.
Our Operations Director called you on the phone number you listed as belonging to you on the SimpleLabs test that you published on the web page. You did not answer, she left a voice mail with her contact information, asking for you to return the call so that we can get the lot number of the product you did the single test on (as we plan to test that same lot with multiple labs and prove your number is in error).
Since it appears you do not wish to cooperate in a fact finding investigation, nor publish the lot number of the product tested on your web page or give it to us despite our multiple requests, I reached out to Simple Labs directly on 2/5/2025 to ask about the accuracy of the test that you used and published. I talked with Kelly via live chat and have a record of the entire conversation and SimpleLabs position on their testing. Of note:
02:13 PM | roger: I notice in the Analysis Details, it says that the Method Detection Limit, or MDL are “approximations only.” And I’m curious what an approximation means. Like, is an approximation a wide range of possibilities or ?
02:15 PM | roger: Because in the next bullet point, it says, “If you need to guarantee a specific method or MDL, please contact us.” To me that is suggesting that the test result is an approximated range but if you are contacted in advance for a specific metal, then a different test or method would be used to get an exact result?
02:16 PM | Kelly from SimpleLab: Correct — MDLs can range based on a variety of factors. The lab team will do its best to meet those listed MDLs but as you can imagine, there are factors like batch, instruments and samples that can impact the MDL and RL
Later in the conversation:
02:23 PM | Kelly from SimpleLab: RMDL can also be referred to as “LOD” (limit of detection).
The MDL is the lowest concentration of a given analyte for which the laboratory is confident in what it is detecting (ie. how low the instruments can measure down to with confidence).
In other words, it is the sensitivity of the test for a given analyte.
02:23 PM | Kelly from SimpleLab: *MDL
02:23 PM | Kelly from SimpleLab: And then when it comes to RLs– that is a reporting limit
02:23 PM | Kelly from SimpleLab: So it has nothing to do with accuracy but rather it is all about sensitivity
02:24 PM | roger: Oh, okay. But in my example, I’ve got two labs saying my stuff is safe and a blogger whose test says it is not. How do I go about reconciling the results?
02:24 PM | Kelly from SimpleLab: That is tougher — the best thing to do is run more samples. Let me get you information on the range of differences between food samples/supplement samples
02:24 PM | Kelly from SimpleLab: Give me a second
02:35 PM | roger: Okay. But you can see my confusion in how your test shows 44 and the other lab in two tests shows under 2 PPB
02:35 PM | roger: How many tests would one take
02:35 PM | Kelly from SimpleLab: I do see it — but its not a question of accuracy here — its a question of the difference from samples to samples
02:35 PM | Kelly from SimpleLab: Remember that most of the “error” is sampling “error”— namely, that the heterogeneous nature of food products is responsible for most variation in test results.
02:39 PM | roger: If you were me would would your next step be in trying to unravel this.
02:39 PM | Kelly from SimpleLab: I would likely submit a few more samples — AND — Id try to get an idea of what batch that sample was from, though it sounds like you might be hitting a dead end on that route.
02:41 PM | Kelly from SimpleLab: Also do keep in mind that the results are per kg and not per supplement — so just something to keep in mind when looking at tests across different reports. Make sure that those units match!
There you have it from Simple Lab themselves! You don’t have to take my word for it. Contact Kelley and ask the same questions and publish your own chat log.
Your one test (one sample) is not good enough with a “industry standard 30% margin of error rate.”
We’ve asked you to provide us with the lot number so we can run multiple tests on the batch you claim has a high arsenic rate, in addition to the two tests we’ve already run that show it is under 2 PPB and is safe. We have two tests and you have one.
Your own testing vendor says to get an accurate result YOU HAVE TO RUN MULTPILE TESTS on the same sample size. Not just one as you have done.
The burden of proof is now on you at this point. We still want to know the lot number so we can run more tests to ensure public safety, and you don’t want to disclose it up to this point.
Hopefully you’ll work with us in doing further testing if public safety is your true goal vs driving affiliate sales of competitor products that you recommend based on one test where a sampling error most likely occurred.
Please publish this post on comments to set the record straight, or remove this article if you are unwilling to do further testing to get to the truth.
Thank you for your consideration.
Roger,
What you are demonstrating in the chat exchange above is that you clearly do not understand the science behind laboratory testing.
We will get you the batch information as soon as we have it (as noted in my previous comment, I have put in a request to pull the batch info from storage — this normally takes us a couple of days.)
NOTE: in your exchange above you state that your test results shows “under 2 PPB” – I have never seen a lab test to levels “under 2 ppb” (under two parts per billion) as a low threshold of detection for Arsenic. My hypothesis is that you are misreading your internal lab reports and that your internal lab report actually states that your product came back with a low threshold of detection of 2 parts per million (not two parts per billion). Two parts per million is equal to 2,000 parts per billion.
If the above hypothesis is correct I expect that our test results actually match perfectly.
Your test result (in the above noted scenario) is possibly “less than 2 ppm” (not “less than 2 ppb)- and our test result is 44 ppb. As 2 ppm is 2,000 ppb – 44 ppb is (in fact) far less than 2 ppm (significantly less).
Please check your math and get back to me on that. Please confirm the low threshold of detection and unit of measure for your report (is it ppb? or is it ppm?)
Noting the eight hour time difference I would be happy to schedule a call but I don’t have any more availability this week (it is Friday morning here and by the time you get this message I expect it will be Friday evening where you are).
Some key points:
– I have no interest in “driving affiliate sales of competitor products”
– We have found NO colostrum products that have tested non-detect for toxicants so there are no products of this type that we would put on our safer choices list.
– I personally think cow colostrum is for baby cows and was repulsed by the idea that it is being sold as a supplement for humans – but I leave my personal opinions (along those lines) out of the testing and reporting we do here with Lead Safe Mama, LLC).
– The work of Lead Safe Mama, LLC is a community collaborative initiative: we test products that are nominated by our community and the testing is paid for by our community.
– We share the direct science (in this case lab reports) with the community so they can make informed decisions for their families.
– Lead Safe Mama, LLC is not a “blogger” – we are a unique, woman-owned, small business with a community collaborative business model and a focus on consumer goods safety and childhood Lead poisoning prevention.
– We have partnered with other agencies – including Consumer Reports Magazine.
– When Consumer Reports has followed up on some of our testing their findings have matched ours within a margin of error (using different labs to test the same products).
– The very nature of our work is that we are publishing the lab report for one sample – as a “glimpse” into potential concerns with a product or product class. Hopefully this gives companies like you (as well as consumers) information to make changes in the future.
– It is not illegal for a product like yours to test positive for 44 ppb Arsenic, but it is important that consumers have the information to make informed decisions for their families.
Tamara
I look forward to hearing back from you about your unit of measure for your low threshold of detection.
I’m the marketing Guy. Which is why I had our Operations Director reach out to you, who has all access to Quality Control, testing and everything else. You’ve now been alerted to our Operations person having left a voicemail and her call back number. You can also call our public number, 928-202-4031 and ask to talk with our Operations Director if you can’t find the message on your phone. We eagerly await your call. Please publish this comment as well. Thanks
Phone calls are difficult for me because of the 8 or 9 hour time difference.
Communicating in writing is best. It is rare that I take scheduled phone appointments.
I am not available to schedule a call until late next week (it is already late on Friday evening here).
Please do share what your Arsenic testing threshold is. Is it 2 parts per MILLION (ppm) or is it 2 parts per BILLION (ppb). The answer to that question will likely solve your mystery. As a “less than 2 ppm” reading could be anything up to 1,999 ppb – and 44 ppb is well within the definition of “less than 2 ppm”.
Tamara