Asking again so it doesn’t get lost: what is the range of cadmium across all your testing? You’ve released the range of lead but I haven’t seen cadmium (I may have missed it).
@Hope_Huel can you reply?
Can anyone reply to the cadmium question?
I apologise for the delay in getting back to you on this.
Independent laboratory testing has shown that cadmium levels in Huel Black Edition average around 1.5 micrograms (µg) per serving
You can see the full explanation and test data on our website here:
I asked for the range. You released the range for lead across all the reports, what is the range for cadmium?
Asking again so it doesn’t get lost: what is the RANGE of cadmium across all your testing? You’ve released the range of lead but I haven’t seen cadmium (I may have missed it).
Anyone? @Mark_Huel @Hope_Huel ? Asking for the range in cadmium across the testing, you released the range for lead.
Unlike lead, our cadmium results have been consistent at around 1.5 µg per serving across all 17 independent tests.
In other words, there hasn’t been a measurable range in the same way as lead, the results for cadmium have shown very stable readings around that 1.5 µg mark, with no significant variation between batches.
How do you define a significant variation? It would be more helpful for you to just say the range even if it’s insignificant like a one time 1.6ug or something like that.
I hear you! We are looking to integrate a tool on site which will show the results for different compounds like heavy metals for each product that has been tested. Watch this space.
1 Like
Sorry, I was out of office last week. I think Mark confused the NSF report for our other independent testing, here. 1.5ug is the result from the NSF report specifically, not the other testing. We’re looking to integrate a tool on site which will show the results for different compounds like heavy metals for each product that has been tested, so watch out for this. I can’t give you any other details right now, as the team is currently working on collating and presenting this data.
1 Like
So you will be posting the range of cadmium across your testing?
No, the tool will just display the most recent test results (and the testing date) for each product and flavor Huel has tested. We will not be releasing backdated testing history, though I’ve passed along your feedback here.
That’s really, really disappointing and decays trust in your product. It makes it feel like you’re hiding things. Refusing to release testing results makes me wonder about the higher cadmium level found in the Consumer Reports article; if your own testing should require your product to carry the Proposition 65 warning for sales in California.
Thank you for your feedback. We’ve chosen to share just the most recent results, as these are the most reliable. This is a large step and much more than food companies typically do.
As previously mentioned, Proposition 65 is extremely cautious. The 0.5 µg per day threshold for lead (4.1 µg per day for cadmium) divides the observable effect level by 1,000. It’s not uncommon to see this warning in California on restaurants, foods, consumer goods, etc. It indicates that heavy metals are present but is not an assessment of risk. Good article on this here.
I’ve definitely passed along your disappointment and can confirm that we won’t be releasing backdated testing for the foreseeable future (though we do plan to publish the most up-to-date testing for our other products and flavors), so there’s not much more I can do for you here, unfortunately.
Can you tell me if packaging on Huel sold in California has the Proposition 65 warning label?
We have a Proposition 65 warning at the point of sale if you enter an address in California. At this point, as the exchange has become quite lengthy and this is a public forum, I’ll need to direct you to support@huel.com for further help!
Made an account since I usually just read but felt it important to say something: Having spent the last two years in pharmacy and now having my degree in biology, I’m truly scared by the misunderstandings of the general public in terms of science and how it operates when it comes to things like this. Yes, Prop 65 came from a good place, but the storm it caused leads to situations like this where it blows issues out of proportion. Yes, no lead in anything would be the ideal, but much like microplastics, we have them due to how our world has ended up. Limiting our exposure is key, while maintaining a realistic standard for that. Consumer Reports taking an unrealistic standard, and then amplifying that into what has turned now into fearmongering only leaves space for companies that are nowhere near as transparent as Huel has been. I definitely appreciate the release of the data that has been shared, but to other’s disdain, I also understand but ALSO appreciate Huel deciding against releasing previous data, as has been mentioned, to reduce misunderstanding due to lack of context for a lot of this data. I was initially concerned upon seeing the headlines too, but after seeing what has been shared, I feel MORE inclined to continue using Huel given the information shared, which instead for others drives them away since theyre not getting a poster child company just telling them that everything is fine and theres nothing to worry about. Nuance can be the killer for many in the general public as I have seen across my positions in science, although for me it certainly inspires confidence in Huel trusting that I can be well informed.
1 Like
Honestly, I don’t have much to say in response to this but thank you.
We want to correct as much misinformation as we possibly can and make sure that we are open and honest. We’re glad that you’ll continue to use Huel 
I have to agree that Prop 65 limits are ridiculously low. California had to put in exemptions for naturally occurring toxins in fruits and vegetables, otherwise carrots, potatoes, spinach, apples, lettuce, corn and a bunch of other produce would end up carrying warning labels.
I’m guessing the lead and arsenic are due to the levels found in a lot of rice, an ongoing problem.