Protein Shakes Prop65

[Tstevenson 0]

I wanted to order the ready to go Protein Shakes but notice the Prop65 warning. Can anyone tell me why the shakes require this. Bariatric Pal is the only place I found these to go shakes and they really work for me. But I don’t want to ingest or expose myself to carcinogens.

[liveaboard15 1,288]

That prop 65 is bull crap from California. I never ever pay attention to any of that or any other warnings coming out of that place. But what Protein Shakes are you talking about anyway? I have a bunch from bariatric pal. They are great. The little Protein Shots are intense in flavor

[I♡BypassedMyPhatAss♡ 798]

3 minutes ago, liveaboard15 said:

That prop 65 is bull crap from California. I never ever pay attention to any of that or any other warnings coming out of that place. But what Protein Shakes are you talking about anyway? I have a bunch from bariatric pal. They are great. The little Protein shots are intense in flavor

🤣

And I think they meant these shakes https://store.bariatricpal.com/products/bariatricpal-ready-shake-instant-15g-protein-drink-chocolate?variant=23178235585

[lizonaplane 1,603]

TL;DR: CA Prop 65 is out of control fear-mongering with a lack of understanding of science

So, CA requires things to be labeled if there is any chance at any dose that you could possibly have an increased risk of cancer... However, the dose makes the poison, and most of these studies are done on Sprague-Dawley rats, which are so inbred that EVERYTHING gives them cancer. I work in cancer research, and I have also had some of these rats as pets. They ALL get tumors.

Yes, you MIGHT theoretically have an increased risk of cancer (though probably not) if you ate about 100 shakes a day, but you would have massive intestinal problems first.

It's probably from the artificial sweeteners - the best research we have shows that even if you're drinking a case of diet soda a day, you are not at extra risk of cancer (please be aware: if you don't die of something else first, you WILL die of cancer because your body is always forming small cancers). Rats had to ingest something like the equivalent of 30 cans of diet soda's worth of artificial sweetener A DAY to show an increased risk of cancer, and as I mentioned above, it can be hard to tell because these rats all get cancer anyway.

[I♡BypassedMyPhatAss♡ 798]

18 minutes ago, lizonaplane said:

TL;DR: CA Prop 65 is out of control fear-mongering with a lack of understanding of science

So, CA requires things to be labeled if there is any chance at any dose that you could possibly have an increased risk of cancer... However, the dose makes the poison, and most of these studies are done on Sprague-Dawley rats, which are so inbred that EVERYTHING gives them cancer. I work in cancer research, and I have also had some of these rats as pets. They ALL get tumors.

Yes, you MIGHT theoretically have an increased risk of cancer (though probably not) if you ate about 100 shakes a day, but you would have massive intestinal problems first.

It's probably from the artificial sweeteners - the best research we have shows that even if you're drinking a case of diet soda a day, you are not at extra risk of cancer (please be aware: if you don't die of something else first, you WILL die of cancer because your body is always forming small cancers). Rats had to ingest something like the equivalent of 30 cans of diet soda's worth of artificial sweetener A DAY to show an increased risk of cancer, and as I mentioned above, it can be hard to tell because these rats all get cancer anyway.

This!! 👆 Yes! We all have free radicals floating around in our bodies, more so as we age, so yeah it's a matter of time or a matter of when our immune system fails us. I guess. Thanks for your scientific input @lizonaplane

[SleeverSk 615]

On 4/7/2022 at 11:43 PM, lizonaplane said:

TL;DR: CA Prop 65 is out of control fear-mongering with a lack of understanding of science

So, CA requires things to be labeled if there is any chance at any dose that you could possibly have an increased risk of cancer... However, the dose makes the poison, and most of these studies are done on Sprague-Dawley rats, which are so inbred that EVERYTHING gives them cancer. I work in cancer research, and I have also had some of these rats as pets. They ALL get tumors.

Yes, you MIGHT theoretically have an increased risk of cancer (though probably not) if you ate about 100 shakes a day, but you would have massive intestinal problems first.

It's probably from the artificial sweeteners - the best research we have shows that even if you're drinking a case of diet soda a day, you are not at extra risk of cancer (please be aware: if you don't die of something else first, you WILL die of cancer because your body is always forming small cancers). Rats had to ingest something like the equivalent of 30 cans of diet soda's worth of artificial sweetener A DAY to show an increased risk of cancer, and as I mentioned above, it can be hard to tell because these rats all get cancer anyway.

Wow that's really interesting and certainly raises questions in my mind.

[Tstevenson 0]

Your probably right about this. My concern is that carcinogens are in just about everything. Our environment is quite polluted. It comes down to minimizing the toxins that goes into your body. Some things we have no control over. Other things like our food we can make better choices. For me it’s just about reducing so I like to know what’s going in my body. Lately so many of the food choices have the Prop65, ie.,Vitamin Shoppe. Recently I found out Trader Joe’s spices have carcinogens. One of my favorite grocers and I do buy there seasonings. I don’t want to become fanatical. But at times I find that I’m quite concern about these matters.

[lizonaplane 1,603]

On 4/25/2022 at 8:20 PM, Tstevenson said:

Your probably right about this. My concern is that carcinogens are in just about everything. Our environment is quite polluted. It comes down to minimizing the toxins that goes into your body. Some things we have no control over. Other things like our food we can make better choices. For me it’s just about reducing so I like to know what’s going in my body. Lately so many of the food choices have the Prop65, ie.,Vitamin Shoppe. Recently I found out Trader Joe’s spices have carcinogens. One of my favorite grocers and I do buy there seasonings. I don’t want to become fanatical. But at times I find that I’m quite concern about these matters.

But the truth is these things are not carcinogens in the amount that you eat. For example, apples have formaldehyde in them, which is a poison, but the amount that you eat in an apple is totally harmless. It's the dose that makes something a poison. Prop65 is just fearmongering based on bad science. It's not like smoking which clearly causes cancer. These "prop65" warnings are based on incredibly flimsy evidence and don't take into account that you are not eating 5 bottles of the seasoning mix for each meal. Water can kill you, if you drink enough, but no one would think of it as a poison.

[justinmatson 0]

I have a similar concern. I'm not worried about trace amounts of carcinogens, but the Prop 65 warning that appears on the checkout page on Unjury mentions exposure to lead, which is something else entirely. From what I understand no amount of lead is safe for consumption. I'm not clear how they determine these risks...does the company just add a blanket warning to avoid lawsuits, or do they have actual reason to believe there is lead in their products? It's weird to put that pressure on the customer. I don't want to be a paranoid alarmist, but it's like, why would I buy a food if the grocer is telling me it's poisonous? I wish they explained better or just did whatever they need to do to assure to avoid the risk. I saw this warning after adding whey Protein powders to my cart and going to checkout. I guess I'll just avoid that brand?

[NickelChip 163]

1 hour ago, justinmatson said:

I have a similar concern. I'm not worried about trace amounts of carcinogens, but the Prop 65 warning that appears on the checkout page on Unjury mentions exposure to lead, which is something else entirely. From what I understand no amount of lead is safe for consumption. I'm not clear how they determine these risks...does the company just add a blanket warning to avoid lawsuits, or do they have actual reason to believe there is lead in their products? It's weird to put that pressure on the customer. I don't want to be a paranoid alarmist, but it's like, why would I buy a food if the grocer is telling me it's poisonous? I wish they explained better or just did whatever they need to do to assure to avoid the risk. I saw this warning after adding whey Protein powders to my cart and going to checkout. I guess I'll just avoid that brand?

I can't speak to the Unjury brand Protein Powder specifically, (maybe email the company to explain the warning if you're concerned), but I did find this study of Protein powders and heavy metal, which concluded: "The data in the current study suggest that heavy metal exposure via protein powder supplement ingestion does not pose an increased non-carcinogenic risk to human health. Further, no carcinogenic risk was expected from As via ingestion of protein powder supplements. This study demonstrates that health risks of heavy metals in protein powder supplements should be conducted within the context of relevant background exposures and established health based standards instead of the presence of hazardous substances alone."

Regarding Prop 65, I stayed at a lovely inn in the central coast of CA a while back. There was an antique fireplace in the lobby that had these beautiful glassy-looking tiles around the hearth . There was a framed sign warning that the glaze on the tiles contained lead, with the Prop 65 warning language about the state of CA knowing it caused cancer. I can only assume this was to stop me from prying off a tile, grinding it into powder, and snorting it, because how else would it be a risk? But the inn did not wish to get sued. I also had a friend who spent $1000 on a special ground quartz to fill her kid's sandbox because bags of regular playground sand have a Prop 65 warning on them. I tried to explain that it's because sand in a sand blaster on a job site can cause lung cancer if you don't wear protective gear such as a particulate respirator, but she was convinced sitting in the sand would cause her child to get a tumor.

So, take Prop 65 warnings with a grain of salt (which is probably known in the state of CA to cause cancer).