I’m sure many of you have seen news reports on Consumer Reports’ (CR) expose on protein drinks.

I will have more to write on this particular topic in the next few days.  In the meantime, I was interested to see this statement by the not-for-profit, independent certification company, NSF International, disputing the numbers CR reported for Muscle Milk.

 NSF International cannot comment on the test results reported in the July 2010, Consumer Reports article on protein drinks. It omits critical information about the laboratory that performed the test and its accreditation qualifications. ISO 17025 accreditation is critical for any laboratory testing for heavy metals in dietary supplements and nutritional products. The article also omits the test methods used, analytical preparation, sample size, the basis of their risk assessment, detection limits, quality control data and instrumentation used for this report.

When I read the article, this was something I picked up on right away.  While I expect CR used standard methods, it’s still pretty lazy journalism to make accusations, in the absence of reporting precisely how the data was obtained.  At any rate, the statement concludes:

…NSF’s test results do not reflect the concentrations stated in the Consumer Reports article.

This isn’t a definitive, clean bill of health either – ultimately, we know very little about the lots tested or the dates… or what differences there may have been in the analyses performed. But – at the very least – it does indicate there may be grounds for doubting CR’s laboratory findings. Given that the CR article was basically a “hit piece” on protein supps in general, I’m a little hesitant to join the dogpile on Cytosport (or EAS) in the absence of better information on CR’s methodology.

Share