“Consumer Lab vs. Lead Safe Mama, LLC – Who should I believe?”
Published: December 8, 2025
A Note from Tamara Rubin
We get some version of this question fairly frequent. Below is an exchange from today (12/8/2025).
Note from a Lead Safe Mama community member:
Hi Tamara,Great work you are doing!!How can your lab testing and Consumer Labs have such different results.Please explain the reason.We are having a hard time believing anything these days.Thank you!!
To be among the first to see our lab reports when they are published, join us on Patreon. You can join for FREE or with a small monthly contribution in support of the Lead Safe Mama, LLC Community Collaborative Laboratory Testing Initiative. Patreon Link Here.
My response
Here’s what I wrote to someone else recently about Consumer Lab:
& a not-so-short post-script…
I would also like to add a P.S. specifically to the person who asked this question today:
- Lead Safe Mama, LLC is a small business with a focus on childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention and Consumer Goods Safety.
- We’re not asking you to believe anything.
- We’re sharing numbers with you, raw data and full original lab reports (or full XRF test results for consumer products like cookware).
- We’re giving you this information so you can use this as an opportunity to learn about the concerns and make informed decisions for your family.
- In most cases, we are not interpreting the data for you, we are leaving that up to you.
- Our focus is on children’s health. If a product is not safe for consumption by children and by pregnant women / women of childbearing age, it is not “safe by all standards”.
- While — at the request of our online community — we do share links to uncontaminated products when we identify them, our business model is not based on recommending alternative products. We specifically try to stay away from the culture of “safer swaps”.
- We have promised our community that we will never make a recommendation of a “safer choice” when there are no uncontaminated alternatives.
- We will never recommend a product that is contaminated at levels that are beyond what might be considered “safe by all standards”.
- Said another way: We only recommend products that are “safe by all standards” when it comes to heavy metals concerns.
- In each of our articles and comparative charts we are telling you that “X” (the lab test result, whatever it may be) is the level of contamination for this product.
- We always share the full original lab report for each product we have sent to a lab for independent, third-party testing.
- We invite you to learn about the issue (as it relates to each specific product), and our articles provide links to relevant scientific studies whenever possible.
- We recommend that you use this information to make a science-based informed decision.
- We ask that you also consider taking into account that there is no safe level of Lead exposure, — or Mercury exposure or Cadmium exposure — when you make decisions for your families.
- We remind you to consider the fact that the impact of heavy metals on a body over a lifetime is cumulative — when you make any decisions. 90% of the Lead you have ever been exposed to is still in your body (this is discussed in our documentary film, link here).
- We also suggest that you evaluate the options you are considering as a whole — not in isolation (taking into account the other products you use and consume on a regular basis — so you are making decisions from the most health protective position).
- If you want to avoid cancer, you may want to avoid products that have been confirmed to test positive for any amount of known carcinogens (like Lead, Arsenic and Cadmium).
- If you want to avoid memory decline and cognitive impairments, it may be a good idea to avoid products that test positive for any amount of known neurotoxicants (like Lead and Mercury).
- If you want avoid heart disease, it is probably a very good idea to avoid products that test positive for any amount of Lead (given the recent scientific studies linking trace, persistent, low-level, chronic Lead exposure to heart disease).
- If you want to detox, eat garlic (this is a recommendation wholly based in independent science – article link here).
- It’s not complicated.
- The supplement industry is not your friend.
- Brands are not entities to be trusted or that one should have loyalty to.
- Get as much of your nutrients from raw whole foods as possible.
Lead Safe Mama, LLC is engaged in environmental advocacy — we are first and foremost advocates for childhood Lead poisoning prevention and consumer goods safety — using science education and science communication as tools to achieve these objectives.
I don’t know what Consumer Lab considers themselves to be (first and foremost, in terms of their mission) — but it seems (based on feedback we have gotten from the Lead Safe Mama community) that their operational model inevitably leads to them recommending contaminated products, and justifying the toxicant-profiles of those products as “reasonable risks” (based on the “serving size” fallacy), contrary to the latest available accepted science in this area.
Not at all to be ageist here, however It is often the case that older medical professionals** are not always up to date on the most current scientific data regarding environmental toxicity concerns, and specifically the impacts of heavy metal toxicants on human health. In fact it is quite rare that older medical professionals ever are up to date on the latest scientific findings, which is one reason State Health Departments, Hospitals, and Universities hire me to teach continuing education classes (on the current science related to heavy metals toxicity) to doctors, nurses, educators and others in related fields. For greater insight on the concern from the top scientists themselves, please watch my film — that is the film’s purpose, to educate people in this matter, including healthcare professionals!
** Consumer Lab’s Dr. Tod graduated from medical school in 1987 apparently – so that would make him about 60 years old. This would date his original medical education at nearly 40 years old, so not an educational foundation that is at all current when it comes to environmental toxicity concerns. The primary difference in the latest medical science (from that of 40 years ago) is that levels of toxicants so low that they were previously thought to not cause any harm, have since been identified and demonstrated to be sources of measurable medical harm (including negative impacts on fertility and birth outcomes, increased risks of heart disease, cognitive function, cancer risks and more). As one example, Dr. Rabito (of Tulane) identified negative birth outcomes and fertility risks with Blood Lead Levels (BLLs) as low as 0.43 micrograms of Lead per deciliter of blood, with measurable increases in negative outcomes with increments as low as 0.1 microgram per deciliter (belying the old adage that the “dose makes the poison). More on Dr. Rabito’s work here.
And finally…
Consumer Lab makes money from a subscription base and appears to keep most of their data behind a paywall.
- All of Lead Safe Mama, LLC’s information is freely available to the public, not behind a paywall of any kind.
- Consumer Lab promotes that they have been in business for 26 years and that they have done testing and “reviews” of over 1,400 products.
- Lead Safe Mama, LLC has tested tens of thousands of products since we began product testing in 2009. We began our independent, third-party, laboratory testing of products less than 2 years ago (in March of 2024) and have already tested more than 700 products in that time-frame — with about 600 lab reports published to date and about 100 lab reports pending.
- Prior to March of 2024 (and starting in 2009) we primarily used XRF technology to test durable consumer goods (not consumables) — like dishes, pots & pans, etc.
- There are over 4,500 articles here on this website, most with test results for consumer goods — all freely available & not behind a paywall (& most without any advertisements).
- All of the testing and reporting we do through the Lead Safe Mama, LLC Community Collaborative Laboratory Testing Initiative is directed by (and funded by) the greater online Lead Safe Mama Community — this is a “for you”, “by you”, and “for the public good” initiative with a focus on Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention and Consumer Goods Safety.
- We had nearly 2.3 million unique individual readers in our community (from around the world) in 2024 alone (and expect to close out 2025 with a similar number of readers).
We’re not asking you to believe anything.
We are simply trying to teach you about the science, to give you tools to make safer choices for your families, and to let the numbers and the settled science speak for themselves.
Never Miss an Important Article Again!
Join our Email List
Love this. You couldn’t have said it better
Thank you. Been working on this all day, so I really appreciate the feedback!
T
You are a rock star Tamara! Thank you for all your time and effort! You are making a real difference in this world!
Lots of love to you and your family, Corey.
Excellent article, Tamara. I have been a subscriber to Consumer Lab for about 8 years and I may not renew. So often, I now dismiss their reviews because of what I continue to learn from your reports. Keep up the good work!
Thank you!
Thank you so much for the work you do and all the time it takes
Me too! I’m really disappointed in Dr. Todd
Thank you. And I so appreciate your transparency, which says a lot about trustworthiness, too. I’ve seen Dr. Tod Cooperman state that using ppb (parts per billion) is “misleading”. Could you please speak to that, so I might better understand why you use ppb, and specifically, why he may have made that broad statement?
Simply put, the toxicity of ingested items is ALWAYS measured in parts per billion. This is the standard in the scientific, medical and regulatory communities. The only entities using parts per million (in general) are corporations /manufacturers wanting to hide the relative toxicity of their products.
Examples:
1 ppb – The American Academy of Pediatrics has set 1 ppb as the limit of Lead in water that children may consume. Specifically levels of Lead at or above 1 ppb in water are considered by the AAP to be too high.
5 ppb – The Baby Food Safety Act of 2021 proposed Action Levels of 5 ppb for Lead and Cadmium in foods that might be consumed by children. This was set as an ACTION LEVEL, which is a level that is consider TOO HIGH and requiring action.
5 ppb is the current federal limit for Lead in bottled water.
10 ppb – The current Federal Guidance (recommended action level, level that foods should fall below) for Lead in food intended for consumption by children (exempting cereal).
15 ppb is the current federal limit for Lead in tap water.
20 ppb – The current Federal Guidance for foods intended for consumption by children that is cereal. These levels are “voluntary action levels”, not regulated levels. https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents/guidance-industry-action-levels-lead-processed-food-intended-babies-and-young-children
20 ppb is the EU limit for Legumes (for adults and children)
The current federal program is the “closer to zero” program, which acknowledges that even these levels are too high.
Here’s that link: https://www.fda.gov/food/environmental-contaminants-food/closer-zero-reducing-childhood-exposure-contaminants-foods
50 ppb is the EU limit for Garlic
100 ppb is the EU Limit for Cadmium in Milk Chocolate:
https://food.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2019-03/cs_contaminants_catalogue_cadmium_chocolate_en.pdf
100 ppb is the EU limit for Lead in Fruit as of 2022
300 ppb is the EU limit for Cadmium in chocolate that is between 30 and 50% Cocoa mass
600 ppb is the EU limit for Cadmium in Cocoa Powder
These EU regulatory limits for chocolate and cocoa products are not health-protective, they are a compromise with industry to allow the industry to continue selling contaminated products. There’s more information about that in my film.
This is not a disputed fact. Ingested toxicity of heavy metals is measured in parts per billion. That Consumer Lab is even arguing that point clearly demonstrates that they are not familiar with the current science on the issue. Their founder’s education on the subject is 40 years old, and even if he has done some continuing education on this point — he is not up on the latest science.
Regardless of the unit of measurement — it is important to reiterate that there is no safe level of Lead exposure for human beings. This is settled fact. So if Lead is being measured in parts per billion, and if the level is above ZERO parts per billion, that is – by default – too much Lead.
Since most labs only test down to a limit of 5 parts per billion, we use that number as an accessible and achievable number. All of the foods and supplements on our lab tested safer choices list came in with “less than 5 ppb Lead” – this list demonstrates that these single digit parts per billion limits are not only reasonable guidance, but also achievable across many different industries.
Here’s our lab-tested safer choices list, which currently includes 103 products. These products are not shared to say “eat only this” or “use only this” — these products are to shared to demonstrate that industry can do better and we can expect safer foods and supplements and we have a right to demand safer products.
Here’s the link to our lab tested safer choices list:
https://tamararubin.com/safer-choices/
Here’s the link to our landing page which includes links to almost all of our published lab reports to date. This is a good page to bookmark, we update it with new lab reports frequently:
https://tamararubin.com/lab-reports/
I think really – the only reason he could justify defending heavy metals content as measured in parts per million is because Consumer Lab is somehow profiting off the sale of the supplements they recommend. Do they have an affiliate income notice on their website? Do they sell products directly? There’s no reason to justify ppm readings unless your bottom line is benefitted from it.
You know the Upton Sinclair quote: “It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”
You would think that with more than $7,000,000 in membership earnings annually ($69.00/year X more than 100,000 paid members), they could afford the continuing education for their team so they would not be behind on current scientific thinking. It’s sad really – that they are so busy defending their junk science / bad interpretation of data.
Additionally – on a shoe string budget, funded by the community – in TWO YEARS we have tested and reported on nearly 700 items. How is it that with all the money they are raking in they have only tested and reported on 1,400 items in 26 years? This is incredibly suspicious to me (in terms of their motivation and intentions).
Do you know what all of their income streams are? Do they publish what their expenses are? What their team salaries are? Are they transparent about that with their membership at all?
If we keep going at the rate we have been going at (with no change), in 26 years we will have published at least 9,100 lab reports. Granted, we’re not making money really (I am two months behind in my mortgage and debt-financing my business while we continue to work to increase our revenue streams), but there’s got to be a reasonable happy medium somewhere. Making as much money as they are making and doing so little with it really seems problematic at best. If we had $7,000,000 a year we would be able to publish 14,000 lab reports a year (in theory!) We’d need to hire a lot more help to make that happen – but with our cost-per-report budget (including the lab testing and reporting), we could do that with the kind of resources they have.
Here’s our budget broken out per reported item: https://tamararubin.com/budget/
Sorry for going on! Thanks for asking a good question.
Tamara
Love this answer is so clear and explained perfectly. Your work changes peoples lives for the better. Thank you soo much for all you do
You are such a gift!! Fabulous article! Although it pains me the lengths you have to go to, in order to explain, clarify & educate too many that dismiss, deny or downplay the cold hard facts, I believe with my whole heart it is making a difference, you are reaching the deniers and the liars! . Thank you for all you do and the amount of precious time it takes.
Great article. Thank you for addressing this. ConsumerLab’s criticism that Lead Safe Mama’s standard “never made it into law” is frustrating and disappointing, especially when it implies that legal limits represent genuine consumer protection rather than thresholds shaped heavily by corporate interests
Several years ago, I signed up for my first ConsumerLab.com membership, fully expecting to finally see proper lab testing on the foods we actually buy here in Australia — you know, the stuff sitting on the shelves at Coles, Woolies, Aldi, IGA, Harris Farm… the real world. I dove into their database thinking I’d hit the jackpot, visions of lab results dancing in my head. I imagined graphs, charts, colour-coded vitamin scores, the whole shebang. Instead, I immediately realised I’d basically paid for a guided tour of a country I don’t live in. I found about as much useful info as a Vegemite sandwich at an American BBQ. Nothing. Zip. Not a sausage. Absolutely nothing an Aussie would ever actually eat.
So I moved to Plan B: iHerb. At least they stock a massive range of American products and ship them down here with free postage if you hit the minimum. But even then — even with thousands of items — ConsumerLab had tested roughly… three things. Maybe four if you squint. I could practically hear the tumbleweed rolling across their lab reports.
I remember staring at my membership thinking, “Mate… what exactly am I paying for? I’ve just spent premium money to learn about vitamins that only exist in Ohio. Or maybe Kentucky.” Here I am, reading test results for products that will never touch an Aussie supermarket shelf unless they fall out of the freaking sky during a solar eclipse… while riding a pink unicorn wearing a top hat.
By the time my yearly membership expired, I didn’t even blink. It was a clean, confident, “Take a hike, mate — if you expect me to pay top dollar to be a tourist in a vitamin theme park I’ll never enter.” What’s the point in renewing when ConsumerLab only tests American-made products, for American consumers, inside their proudly over-patriotic, lovey-dovey America-America-America bubble? Pfft.
Thank you for commenting! Hopefully you have seen we have tested things from around the world. We are just about to publish results for four salts sent to us from New Zealand – perhaps some of those are familiar to you. The New Zealand batch (which includes more than ten items, I’ll have to check) includes several items one can find in Australia too.
So far we have tested products from New Zealand, Ireland, England, Italy, Australia, Austria, Canada, Brazil, Sweden, Switzerland, and France (and German products purchased in UK countries) – in addition to USA products too! There might be other countries represented but that’s what I can think off off the top of my head! Unfortunately our limitation is our funding. 🙁 (or lack thereof!)
Please keep us posted on the types of things you would like to see tested. Use the instructions linked via the Nominate button at the top of the page.
T
Excellent comment! As an American who has traveled out of country a fair bit, I appreciate your frustration and identity with your experience with Consumers Lab. Heck I used to recommend supplements to patients based on their testing! Yikes! Ditched that subscription several years ago as the price just kept rising, and for what?
I would travel and find wonderful products and foods in that country and be sad that American products felt and tasted quite inferior. In the 80’s and 90’s when I first went to Great Britain, I marveled at how I felt after a week or 2 there- thinner, more energy, etc. I later realized it was the FOOD! Ours was so full of chemicals, and that was a problem. My celiac daughter traveled to Australia and New Zealand and had a similar experience a few years ago. She had very few issues eating safely and reported feeling AMAZING overall while there, due to lack of chemical colorings and junky unnecessary chemicals. Be proud of your country!
Ditto from another Aussie.
I too used to read and trust CL reports until I started to check with companies whose products I use and ask them why they hadn’t submitted their products to CL to be tested. Once I began to hear – from a number of them – that they couldn’t afford the fees that CL charged in order to test their products, I quit subscribing to CL immediately.
Oooohhh! I wonder how much they earn from that income stream! This sounds very “conflict-of-interesty”. Do they disclose this to their membership? That companies pay them for testing their products?
t
This is disgusting that they do that. If this was common knowledge when consumers were signing up for a membership I think there would be different results.
You would do well to adopt a less scurrilous display name.
Yes! The first safe adult toothpaste Lead Safe Mama tested was Australian. I immediately bought it, and loved it, but the shipping cost and the time it took for it to get to America was crazy! The cost of shipping was about twice as much as the toothpaste.
Regarding Patreon, do they take a cut of whatever we give you per month via their platform? Just wondering if a more direct payment to you would serve you better.
Hi.Thank you. they do take a small amount. I think the cut off (where they start taking a percentage) is $3.00 or higher.
T
Uh oh, I’m donating exactly 3! I’ll change it to 2.99 🙂
Thank you!
Wow.
–
This article is so rife with misinformation, falsehoods, and blatant lies about ConsumerLab and toxicology that it is a disservice to consumers as well as defamatory.
–
[Note from Tamara: this is entirely untrue, this article has no misinformation, falsehoods, or lies and it is not at all defamatory]<
–
I am the founder and president of ConsumerLab and suggest that this article be corrected. For those interested in truth and science, here are some facts you should be aware of:
–
We never say that lead is safe. However, what makes a product a risk is the amount of a lead in a dose or serving. [Dr. Tod, it would appear that you did not actually read the article you are commenting on. We specifically state that the “dose makes the poison” concept is outdated when discussing Lead concerns — this is settled science now in 2025.] PPB (parts per billion), as well as PPM (parts per million), are both useful ways to describe the “concentration” of a toxicant in a product but must always be multiplied by the dose or serving to determine risk. That’s toxicology 101. It is the basis for the strictest limits on lead and other toxicants in the U.S. – the California Prop 65 warning levels, which are based on amounts per daily exposure and are limits that we often utilize in our reviews of products.
–
But [Tamara Rubin], who I believe has no scientific credentials [Nice dig, Tod — very big of you!], misses this point by looking only at concentration (in PPB). For example, the risk posed by a small concentration of lead in a pea-sized (1/4 gram) amount of toothpaste is likely negligible (and not “Actionable,” as claimed by Lead Safe Mama, LLC, under any real law or regulation) [This statement by Tod is false, we never say this – we never say low level exposure is “Actionable”, we discuss the “Action Levels” as proposed in 2021, which is a very specific distinction. I find it amusing that he has put “Actionable” in quotes] and very different from the significant risk posed by the same concentration of lead in a 15-gram serving of baby food, or 30 grams of protein powder. Yet, to Lead Safe Mama, LCC, there is no distinction. [Doctor Tod’s statement here is false. If any amount of Lead is toxic to the human body, and if there is therefore no safe level of Lead exposure, the amount of Lead exposure is irrelevant. It is all harmful — especially since it accumulates in your body over a lifetime and the concern is therefore for aggregate lifetime exposure – of which each exposure is a contributing factor. He appears to be willingly ignoring these settled points of science in his statements here as well as in his evaluation of products]
–
Regulations that use concentration alone do so only when referring to a specific type of food or beverage, because the daily intake is already factored in, such as the EPA limit on lead in water. Concentration is also appropriate when measuring toxicants that have already made their way into our body, such as in blood.
–
I studied medicine and have an MD [Good for you Tod, you should know then that all federal agencies agree that there is no safe level of Lead exposure for human beings].
–
Our head of research has a PhD in pharmacology and toxicology. [He should know this too, then.]
–
To assume that we do not understand toxicology and have not kept up with the science since obtaining these degrees is ridiculous [You are making it clear with your comment here that you do not understand the current science on Lead].
–
Anyone who reads our newsletter and reports knows that we analyze and write about the latest scientific and clinical developments, recall, and warnings regarding the safety and effectiveness of supplements and foods multiple times each week, and we have been doing that for 26 years. That doesn’t make us outdated, but well informed. [But TOD! Above you just stated that the concern for Lead is DOSE related, this actually makes your information outdated and clearly confirms our assertion that you are misinformed — that your perspective is specifically not informed by the latest science. LEAD is not a “DOSE MAKES THE POISON” scenario. There is NO SAFE LEVEL of LEAD EXPOSURE. To state otherwise is to reinforce the fact that you are misinformed.]
–
ConsumerLab’s only mission is to help our members – who are predominantly consumers and healthcare professionals. We do not make money from the sale of products that we review – contrary to [Tamara Rubin]’s speculation. [But you do make money by charging the company to review the product, is that correct? That’s what one person commented below.]
–
[Tamara Rubin] has never directly reached out to us, despite claiming to have done so. [Not true, see comment below]
–
As we have written before on our site when discussing Lead Safe Mama, LLC, we are glad that there are additional groups testing and reporting on what is in products, but results should be reported responsibly. That means giving readers a clear idea of the risk posed by a product. We also think it is important to look at other substances in products, not just heavy metals, such as whether a multivitamin, protein powder, fish oil, or probiotic contains its claimed ingredients, whether a fish oil or olive oil is rancid, how much gluten is in a “gluten-free” product, how much coumarin (a toxin) is in cinnamon, and whether tablets disintegrate properly. That is a lot harder and more expensive than only checking for heavy metals, but it is what we do. [Yeah, our organizations have different functions and priorities — that’s clear. Our work is about Lead poisoning prevention, and your work clearly is not. In our opinion, if a supplement or allegedly health beneficial product tests positive for Lead, Cadmium, and/or Mercury — there’s really no reason to evaluate it for other properties and considerations, the evaluation should stop there and the product should not be recommended.]
Tod,
–
My name is Tamara Rubin. My name is not Lead Safe Mama. My business is Lead Safe Mama, LLC (a woman-owned small business for childhood Lead poisoning prevention and consumer goods safety) – I am making these minor corrections to your comment above, and otherwise leaving your comment as written (but with inserting some interjections and commentary / corrections).
–
There is nothing defamatory about this piece. It is an attempt to answer persistent questions from our community in response to the persistent misinformation about Lead shared by Consumer Lab.
–
Your comments above also clearly indicate you are not reading our articles, which present the context for the test results we share.
–
Our articles are not behind a paywall (as yours are), so for you to comment on them without bothering to actually read them (or without actually reading the context text on each of the graphics) seems a bit irresponsible. The text on each of our graphics (our sharable social media graphic) explains the context for our work.
–
But here you are. commenting – entirely demonstrating my point: With Lead the “dose makes the poison” narrative does not apply, and you don’t seem to understand that.
–
If you think the “dose makes the poison” scenario is relevant to Lead, you are entirely misinformed and not up on the current science related to Lead exposure. That’s quite clear.
–
You are justifying and defending the presence of Lead in products you recommend.
–
Note: We have had several exchanges on social media (on my page), however perhaps that was someone else with your organization making comments on your behalf? Or perhaps it was you and you do not recall? My cell phone is here. Feel free to text and set up a time to call. You have obviously written about the work of Lead Safe Mama, LLC without first discussing it with us or asking us any questions (and clearly without understanding the context for our work), many of your members have shared about this with us.
–
I have never read your newsletters and I am not a subscriber to your service, however the countless people who are reading those resources are left very confused. They wonder why you recommend Lead-contaminated products when all federal agencies agree that there is no safe level of Lead exposure for human beings and when it is a known fact that the impact of Lead exposure over a lifetime is cumulative. This is the persistent question we get from your members “why is Consumer Lab recommending contaminated products” — so your message is not landing clearly with your audience.
–
Is the other comment here in this comment section correct? That you charge a significant amount to companies for their products to be reviewed and included in your database of products? How much do you charge them? What does that cost include? Is it annual or one time? This seems like a fundamental conflict of interest.
–
How is it you have only tested and reported on 1,400 items in 26 years with membership income of approximately $7,000,000 a year?
–
Our work is about childhood Lead poisoning prevention – so that’s what we do, we look at heavy metals contamination. It is not our job, nor our responsibility to address other considerations. Separately — in our educated opinion — if a supplement or product tests positive for any amount of Lead, whether or not it has any purported nutritional or health-beneficial properties is irrelevant. You do you boo, but maybe be a bit more clear in disclosing the heavy metals content of the products you review.
–
Again – I highly recommend you take the time to watch the documentary film that I directed and produced. When I do continuing educaiton presentations for doctors a screening of film is generally included in those presentations.
–
T
Tod – I always see it as a red flag when someone says something like, ‘trust me, I’m a Dr and you’re not.’ You seem to prove this by not letting people see the actual ppb numbers to decide for themselves if they want to use a product or not. At least that is my understanding. I had no familiarity with your company before this, so just from the back and forth here, using your own words, you seem non-transparent, condescending, not factual and, as such, terribly untrustworthy.
TY!
I support your work. I know you don’t like Elon Musk, but post on X and you will get a lot more views, likes and feedback. FB still using the corrupt Biden regime censoring algorithm.
Thank you Tamara, for your hard work and transparency.
Excellent response, Tamara. Thank you for grinding it out!
In regards to the cinnamon chart, may I suggest you add a sunburst to indicate that the 365 brand 2024 report is “1 of 2” for the brand. Because the 2024 and 2025 reports for 365 organic ground cinnamon are a few columns apart I deduced that Whole Foods’ brand was “cleaner” than others because I did not initially see the second chart.
I cannot discern the weights of cinnamon products-can we deduce that ground cinnamon is more contaminated? (If so, would you hypothesize it is due to grinding process?)
I’m glad you are calling Consumer Labs out, Tamara. I looked into their work a few years ago when I was researching foods that were contaminated by heavy metals and trying to figure out what is safe to eat. They wasted a bunch of my time trying to get information only to discover that everything is behind a paywall. Any company that has critically important information about toxic food and won’t let people have that information unless they pay DOES NOT CARE ABOUT PEOPLE.
I can’t thank you enough for what you are doing! you are a true humanitarian and deserve a Nobel Peace Prize. Stay strong and keep on keepin’ on with the testing. The last year or two of testing on food products is landmark legendary epic work that no one else in this whole world was willing to undertake until you started. Bless you.
Thank you for all your hard work. I belong to CL and also support you with a small monthly donation. I stopped buying products that I previously thought were safe because Consumer Lab said they were. Or perhaps safer choices. I agree with you. I hope Dr. Tod Will watch your video and respond to you.
[Dad]
If you watch a few YouTube videos on cinnamon harvesting, you’ll notice it’s not being done on clean surfaces or with clean hands, nor are precautions taken to avoid contamination. It reminded me of an article I read on cacao processing quite a while back which stated that after the beans had been picked they were spread out on roads – and I mean paved roads where people walk and vehicles travel – in order to dry. The author speculated that that could have been where a lot of the contaminants were picked up. I’m afraid that things grown in tropical/undeveloped countries aren’t subject to the same food-related regulations we are fast losing in the US, nor do they enjoy the benefit of the environmental regulations in place in the pre-Repugnican era.
I think it would be great for Dr. Tod and Tamara to collaborate on some testing initiatives. Dr. Tod is wrong about lead. Dr. Tod is right when mentioning that there are plenty of other tests that *should* be done. A simple heavy metals battery of tests is a great screening tool and could be used as a model certification program (phase 1, phase 2 certified, etc.).
I’ll just say that I’ve formerly worked in the dietary supplements testing industry and the average consumer would find it outright shocking how poor the manufacturing processes are, something that ConsumerLab appears to have current expertise in.
Dr. Tod has the opportunity to do a world of good and remove the paywall for certain categories of foods that are likely to be high impact. This information shouldn’t just be available to people who can afford to pay, (that’s truly a shameful model). There are other ways to make money, as we are seeing with Tamara’s early model.
Tamara – you need folks to help you build bridges, not walls. Attacking ConsumerLab might feel good in the moment, especially when their responses function to invalidate our lived experience (and the latest evidence)! Maybe we can give them a chance to show up here and fund some testing? Release some results? Opportunities abound.
Dr. Tod – You are sharing the conventional wisdom in toxicology, yes, but I hope you can consider that we might be operating in a flawed framework. Many of our standards, thresholds, and best practice are based on guesses, estimation, and what agencies find to be palatable to industry (and to protect certain domestic industries). Tamara’s work is 1) rekindling interest in this space; 2) coming from the right place morally and ethically; 3) asking the right questions; and 4) doing the good work of refuting the age-old excuse that industry has peddled for years – that it’s not possible to find “clean” raw materials. Tamara’s work has shown that it IS possible to find clean raw materials, and has the potential to open up many new certification opportunities for companies that want to produce clean products. Oh, and let Tamara be right about the heavy metals. Just take the L and move on.
Thanks for commenting. Sarah.
One thing to note is that we have made a commitment and a promise to NEVER do any kind of certification program (Like a Lead Safe Mama, LLC Approval or similar). All of the certification programs out there (to date, in the non-toxic space) are corrupt and responsible for promoting toxic products — and we will not have our work be part of that culture.
Also – to be clear, we are not attacking Consumer Labs. We wrote this to answer persistent questions repeatedly asked by our community — only after Consumer Lab has published several pieces attempting to discredit and diminish our work. We did our best to ignore their misinformation and ignorance for more than a year, but the volume of questions increased recently so we felt it was time to respond as we could not let the misinformation they share (about toxicant contamination of ingested products) persist unaddressed.
T
I really love your comment too. Thank you for writing such a thoughtful comment!
T
I just wanted to say Merry Christmas and thank you for your work! It’s so hard to be healthy in this society already and I feel like I’m constantly fighting the crowd with my kids. So much of how we receive food is out of our control which is so scary for many parents when we look further into the processes. I made a small donation and wish it was more with the Canadian dollar but you’re in my thoughts! Keep it up mama.
Thank you so much!