Amazon[amazon.com] has 69.9-Oz Vega Performance Protein + Recovery (Chocolate, 45 Servings) for $82.93 - $16.54 - 25% when you 'clip' coupons on product page - 5% when you check out via Subscribe & Save = $41.51. Shipping is free.
This collaborative space allows users to contribute additional information, tips, and insights to enhance the original deal post. Feel free to share your knowledge and help fellow shoppers make informed decisions.
Amazon[amazon.com] has 69.9-Oz Vega Performance Protein + Recovery (Chocolate, 45 Servings) for $82.93 - $16.54 - 25% when you 'clip' coupons on product page - 5% when you check out via Subscribe & Save = $41.51. Shipping is free.
Model: Vega Sport Premium Protein Powder, Chocolate, Vegan, 30g Plant Based Protein, 5g BCAAs, Low Carb, Keto, Dairy Free, Gluten Free, Non GMO, Pea Protein for Women and Men, 4.36 Pounds (45 Servings)
Deal History
Deal History includes data from multiple reputable stores, such as Best Buy, Target, and Walmart. The lowest price among stores for a given day is selected as the "Sale Price".
Sale Price does not include sale prices at Amazon unless a deal was posted by a community member.
Our community has rated this post as helpful. If you agree, why not thank athousandeyesandone
Consumer Reports recently found a good deal of lead in Vega protein powder. They recommend having no more than 3.75 servings each week officially but other brands much cleaner.
Following the report, Vega told CR they changed sourcing of their peas to North America.
I suspect this is them clearing out existing inventory.
Consumer Reports recently found a good deal of lead in Vega protein powder. They recommend having no more than 3.75 servings each week officially but other brands much cleaner.
Following the report, Vega told CR they changed sourcing of their peas to North America.
I suspect this is them clearing out existing inventory.
Consumer Report's (completely arbitrary) "level of concern" for lead is 0.5 µg/day.
For reference, the FDA's adult limit is 8.8 µg/day.
CR's limit is based on California's prop 65, which is the source of all the (hilarious) cancer warnings on products "known to the state of California to cause cancer". We've all seen it. Prop 65 is almost universally ignored because its cutoffs are so ridiculous that just about anything qualifies as a carcinogen.
To put things into perspective, based on the FDA's records of lead levels in carrots used for baby food, you would only need about half a carrot to reach CR's "level of concern" for lead in one day.
Ideally we should have no lead in any food, but we also have to be realistic, and CR is purely fear-mongering (probably to manipulate stock prices). To stay below their "level of concern" for lead, you'd have to eat nothing and drink the purest water available.
Consumer Report's (completely arbitrary) "level of concern" for lead is 0.5 µg/day.
For reference, the FDA's adult limit is 8.8 µg/day.
CR's limit is based on California's prop 65, which is the source of all the (hilarious) cancer warnings on products "known to the state of California to cause cancer". We've all seen it. Prop 65 is almost universally ignored because its cutoffs are so ridiculous that just about anything qualifies as a carcinogen.
To put things into perspective, based on the FDA's records of lead levels in carrots used for baby food, you would only need about half a carrot to reach CR's "level of concern" for lead in one day.
Ideally we should have no lead in any food, but we also have to be realistic, and CR is purely fear-mongering (probably to manipulate stock prices). To stay below their "level of concern" for lead, you'd have to eat nothing and drink the purest water available.
Several comparable products have significantly less lead than this product as per the article. Why would consumers willingly opt to consume more lead when far cleaner options exist, some of which have no levels of lead detectable?
Consumer Reports recently found a good deal of lead in Vega protein powder. They recommend having no more than 3.75 servings each week officially but other brands much cleaner.
Following the report, Vega told CR they changed sourcing of their peas to North America.
I suspect this is them clearing out existing inventory.
I saw it on my local news too. I ordered the VEGA Essential protein from previous deal that was about $13 with tax for the 20 servings jug. Glad this one isn't on the list but they said that vegan options have more lead.
Several comparable products have significantly less lead than this product as per the article. Why would consumers willingly opt to consume more lead when far cleaner options exist, some of which have no levels of lead detectable?
It's literally animal protein vs plant protein. Plants have more lead than meat because they leech it from the soil. It's also a difference of eating 20 servings of powder per day to reach FDA limits vs 100 servings per day. You want to say it's "significantly less"? You'd be factually correct but functionally speaking nonsense, which is what CR's "level of concern" is.
And once again, if you are not willing to accept a microscopic amount of lead in food, period, don't ever eat vegetables again, root vegetables especially. 1/9 lb of potato would meet CR's "level of concern" for lead. Have fun going through life eating "far cleaner options", aka no options at all, if that's your concern.
It's literally animal protein vs plant protein. Plants have more lead than meat because they leech it from the soil. It's also a difference of eating 20 servings of powder per day to reach FDA limits vs 100 servings per day. You want to say it's "significantly less"? You'd be factually correct but functionally speaking nonsense, which is what CR's "level of concern" is.
And once again, if you are not willing to accept a microscopic amount of lead in food, period, don't ever eat vegetables again, root vegetables especially. 1/9 lb of potato would meet CR's "level of concern" for lead. Have fun going through life eating "far cleaner options", aka no options at all, if that's your concern.
It's not as binary as animal v plant, did you read the article? Owyn for example is 100% plant-based.Vega switched their pea sourcing to North America to reduce lead content after this report came out. In this case, they blame the process of extracting protein from peas for adding excess lead. Vegan protein isn't doomed to be laden with lead when the manufacturers have proper oversight.
Anyway it's not that we can't accept any trace amounts of lead in our food, it's that we require transparency and will always choose foods that have less lead. Your impression that we should trust the FDA's levels over California or CR doesn't hold water with many -- the FDA allows all sorts of poisonous, harmful foods into our food supply including known carcinogens other countries ban.
1
1
Like
Helpful
Funny
Not helpful
Sign up for a Slickdeals account to remove this ad.
It's not as binary as animal v plant, did you read the article? Owyn for example is 100% plant-based.Vega switched their pea sourcing to North America to reduce lead content after this report came out. In this case, they blame the process of extracting protein from peas for adding excess lead. Vegan protein isn't doomed to be laden with lead when the manufacturers have proper oversight.
Anyway it's not that we can't accept any trace amounts of lead in our food, it's that we require transparency and will always choose foods that have less lead. Your impression that we should trust the FDA's levels over California or CR doesn't hold water with many -- the FDA allows all sorts of poisonous, harmful foods into our food supply including known carcinogens other countries ban.
I agree on the transparency front, but posting "science" without context is simply bad science. Realistically, how many people, after reading the article, will think that protein powder is lead-laden poison to be avoided, without even knowing that a regular medium russet has 4x the lead of one serving of the protein powder? Context is everything, and the article has specifically gone out of its way to posture as a source of new knowledge WITHOUT including said context, which is relevant to just about anyone who would be interested in reading said article. If one wants to cut lead from one's diet, root vegetables should be the first to go, followed by most other vegetables.
Also Prop 65 is ridiculous in its restrictiveness. Why aren't vegetables labeled as carcinogenic? Most of them contribute far more to the lead intake of the populace than protein powder.
Again, I don't mind transparency. I mind tabloid-style reporting of science to fearmonger. The lengthy CR article clearly is trying to "educate" the consumer with all the relevant facts possible and appear unbiased, EXCEPT how much lead people actually eat from other foods in their daily diet. There is absolutely zero reason for them to NOT include such a thing, with how much they've written. It begs the question of whether transparency is actually their goal, or something more sinister.
I agree on the transparency front, but posting "science" without context is simply bad science. Realistically, how many people, after reading the article, will think that protein powder is lead-laden poison to be avoided, without even knowing that a regular medium russet has 4x the lead of one serving of the protein powder? Context is everything, and the article has specifically gone out of its way to posture as a source of new knowledge WITHOUT including said context, which is relevant to just about anyone who would be interested in reading said article. If one wants to cut lead from one's diet, root vegetables should be the first to go, followed by most other vegetables.
Also Prop 65 is ridiculous in its restrictiveness. Why aren't vegetables labeled as carcinogenic? Most of them contribute far more to the lead intake of the populace than protein powder.
Again, I don't mind transparency. I mind tabloid-style reporting of science to fearmonger. The lengthy CR article clearly is trying to "educate" the consumer with all the relevant facts possible and appear unbiased, EXCEPT how much lead people actually eat from other foods in their daily diet. There is absolutely zero reason for them to NOT include such a thing, with how much they've written. It begs the question of whether transparency is actually their goal, or something more sinister.
You make a fair point.. there's zero context, and it's likely a strategic move on their part to drive exposure. Even if unintentional, it's irresponsible.
I agree on the transparency front, but posting "science" without context is simply bad science. Realistically, how many people, after reading the article, will think that protein powder is lead-laden poison to be avoided, without even knowing that a regular medium russet has 4x the lead of one serving of the protein powder? Context is everything, and the article has specifically gone out of its way to posture as a source of new knowledge WITHOUT including said context, which is relevant to just about anyone who would be interested in reading said article. If one wants to cut lead from one's diet, root vegetables should be the first to go, followed by most other vegetables.
Also Prop 65 is ridiculous in its restrictiveness. Why aren't vegetables labeled as carcinogenic? Most of them contribute far more to the lead intake of the populace than protein powder.
Again, I don't mind transparency. I mind tabloid-style reporting of science to fearmonger. The lengthy CR article clearly is trying to "educate" the consumer with all the relevant facts possible and appear unbiased, EXCEPT how much lead people actually eat from other foods in their daily diet. There is absolutely zero reason for them to NOT include such a thing, with how much they've written. It begs the question of whether transparency is actually their goal, or something more sinister.
Leave a Comment
12 Comments
Sign up for a Slickdeals account to remove this ad.
Our community has rated this post as helpful. If you agree, why not thank athousandeyesandone
Following the report, Vega told CR they changed sourcing of their peas to North America.
I suspect this is them clearing out existing inventory.
https://www.consumerrep
Following the report, Vega told CR they changed sourcing of their peas to North America.
I suspect this is them clearing out existing inventory.
https://www.consumerrep
For reference, the FDA's adult limit is 8.8 µg/day.
CR's limit is based on California's prop 65, which is the source of all the (hilarious) cancer warnings on products "known to the state of California to cause cancer". We've all seen it. Prop 65 is almost universally ignored because its cutoffs are so ridiculous that just about anything qualifies as a carcinogen.
To put things into perspective, based on the FDA's records of lead levels in carrots used for baby food, you would only need about half a carrot to reach CR's "level of concern" for lead in one day.
Ideally we should have no lead in any food, but we also have to be realistic, and CR is purely fear-mongering (probably to manipulate stock prices). To stay below their "level of concern" for lead, you'd have to eat nothing and drink the purest water available.
For reference, the FDA's adult limit is 8.8 µg/day.
CR's limit is based on California's prop 65, which is the source of all the (hilarious) cancer warnings on products "known to the state of California to cause cancer". We've all seen it. Prop 65 is almost universally ignored because its cutoffs are so ridiculous that just about anything qualifies as a carcinogen.
To put things into perspective, based on the FDA's records of lead levels in carrots used for baby food, you would only need about half a carrot to reach CR's "level of concern" for lead in one day.
Ideally we should have no lead in any food, but we also have to be realistic, and CR is purely fear-mongering (probably to manipulate stock prices). To stay below their "level of concern" for lead, you'd have to eat nothing and drink the purest water available.
Following the report, Vega told CR they changed sourcing of their peas to North America.
I suspect this is them clearing out existing inventory.
https://www.consumerrep
And once again, if you are not willing to accept a microscopic amount of lead in food, period, don't ever eat vegetables again, root vegetables especially. 1/9 lb of potato would meet CR's "level of concern" for lead. Have fun going through life eating "far cleaner options", aka no options at all, if that's your concern.
And once again, if you are not willing to accept a microscopic amount of lead in food, period, don't ever eat vegetables again, root vegetables especially. 1/9 lb of potato would meet CR's "level of concern" for lead. Have fun going through life eating "far cleaner options", aka no options at all, if that's your concern.
Anyway it's not that we can't accept any trace amounts of lead in our food, it's that we require transparency and will always choose foods that have less lead. Your impression that we should trust the FDA's levels over California or CR doesn't hold water with many -- the FDA allows all sorts of poisonous, harmful foods into our food supply including known carcinogens other countries ban.
Sign up for a Slickdeals account to remove this ad.
Items:
$82.99
Shipping & handling:
$0.00
Your Coupon Savings:
-$20.75
Subscribe & Save:
-$12.45
Estimated tax to be collected:
$0.00
Total:
$49.79
I do get e better price of $45 on PB flavor...
Items:
$74.66
Shipping & handling:
$0.00
Your Coupon Savings:
-$18.67
Subscribe & Save:
-$11.20
Estimated tax to be collected:
$0.00
Total:
$44.79
Anyway it's not that we can't accept any trace amounts of lead in our food, it's that we require transparency and will always choose foods that have less lead. Your impression that we should trust the FDA's levels over California or CR doesn't hold water with many -- the FDA allows all sorts of poisonous, harmful foods into our food supply including known carcinogens other countries ban.
Also Prop 65 is ridiculous in its restrictiveness. Why aren't vegetables labeled as carcinogenic? Most of them contribute far more to the lead intake of the populace than protein powder.
Again, I don't mind transparency. I mind tabloid-style reporting of science to fearmonger. The lengthy CR article clearly is trying to "educate" the consumer with all the relevant facts possible and appear unbiased, EXCEPT how much lead people actually eat from other foods in their daily diet. There is absolutely zero reason for them to NOT include such a thing, with how much they've written. It begs the question of whether transparency is actually their goal, or something more sinister.
Also Prop 65 is ridiculous in its restrictiveness. Why aren't vegetables labeled as carcinogenic? Most of them contribute far more to the lead intake of the populace than protein powder.
Again, I don't mind transparency. I mind tabloid-style reporting of science to fearmonger. The lengthy CR article clearly is trying to "educate" the consumer with all the relevant facts possible and appear unbiased, EXCEPT how much lead people actually eat from other foods in their daily diet. There is absolutely zero reason for them to NOT include such a thing, with how much they've written. It begs the question of whether transparency is actually their goal, or something more sinister.
Also Prop 65 is ridiculous in its restrictiveness. Why aren't vegetables labeled as carcinogenic? Most of them contribute far more to the lead intake of the populace than protein powder.
Again, I don't mind transparency. I mind tabloid-style reporting of science to fearmonger. The lengthy CR article clearly is trying to "educate" the consumer with all the relevant facts possible and appear unbiased, EXCEPT how much lead people actually eat from other foods in their daily diet. There is absolutely zero reason for them to NOT include such a thing, with how much they've written. It begs the question of whether transparency is actually their goal, or something more sinister.
Leave a Comment