Hero image: Nataliya Vaitkevich / Pexels

Protein Powder Heavy Metals Allegations – propaganda.exposed

Protein Powder Heavy Metals Allegations

Costco faces a lawsuit alleging its Kirkland Signature protein powder contains unsafe levels of heavy metals. The case raises broader questions about supplement regulation, testing standards, and consumer trust in a $50 billion industry where third-party verification is inconsistent and marketing often outpaces evidence.

In July 2026, a class-action lawsuit was filed against Costco Wholesale Corporation alleging that its Kirkland Signature 100% Whey Protein Powder contains harmful levels of heavy metals including lead, cadmium, arsenic, and mercury. The plaintiffs claim the product, sold under Costco’s private-label brand, violates state consumer protection laws and exposes consumers—particularly vulnerable populations such as pregnant women, children, and athletes—to long-term health risks. The case has reignited public concern over the safety of protein powders, a cornerstone of the $50 billion U.S. dietary supplement market, and exposed gaps in regulatory oversight, testing transparency, and corporate accountability. This investigation examines the claim, the evidence behind it, the mechanisms by which heavy metals enter supplements, and what consumers can do to protect themselves in an industry where misinformation and underregulation often intersect.

Introduction to Protein Powder and Supplement Safety

Protein powders—primarily whey, casein, soy, pea, and rice isolates—are widely consumed by athletes, fitness enthusiasts, and health-conscious consumers seeking to meet daily protein requirements or support muscle recovery. The global protein supplement market has grown rapidly, driven by trends in fitness culture, aging populations, and the rise of plant-based diets. In the United States alone, the industry is projected to exceed $50 billion by 2027, according to Grand View Research. While protein powders can be a convenient and effective way to increase protein intake, they are classified as dietary supplements under the 1994 Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act (DSHEA), which places them in a regulatory gray area: supplements are not subject to premarket approval by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and manufacturers are responsible for ensuring safety and labeling accuracy.

This regulatory framework has led to concerns about contamination, inconsistent quality control, and misleading marketing claims. Unlike pharmaceuticals, supplements do not undergo rigorous clinical trials or mandatory batch testing for contaminants such as heavy metals. Instead, the FDA relies on post-market surveillance and voluntary reporting from manufacturers. Third-party certifications—such as NSF Certified for Sport, Informed Choice, or USP Verified—are often cited by brands as evidence of safety, but these programs vary in rigor, cost, and transparency. Consumers frequently assume that a product labeled “natural,” “pure,” or “lab-tested” is inherently safe, yet such claims are not standardized and do not guarantee the absence of contaminants.

The Costco lawsuit highlights a recurring issue in the supplement industry: the gap between consumer expectations of safety and the reality of regulatory oversight. While the FDA has issued warnings about heavy metal contamination in supplements—particularly those containing botanicals, algae, or minerals sourced from contaminated soil—protein powders, especially whey-based products, are less commonly flagged. However, contamination can occur through multiple pathways: environmental pollutants in feed for dairy cows, processing equipment, water sources, or even packaging materials. The lawsuit raises the question: how prevalent is heavy metal contamination in protein powders, and what level of risk do consumers face?

The Claim: Heavy Metals in Protein Powder

The lawsuit filed in July 2026 alleges that Costco’s Kirkland Signature 100% Whey Protein Powder contains “dangerously high” levels of lead, cadmium, arsenic, and mercury. According to the complaint, independent laboratory testing commissioned by the plaintiffs detected levels of these heavy metals exceeding California’s Proposition 65 safe harbor limits. Proposition 65, officially known as the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, requires businesses to warn consumers about significant exposures to chemicals known to cause cancer or reproductive harm. The lawsuit claims that Costco failed to provide adequate warnings and that the product poses a risk of chronic exposure, particularly to frequent consumers such as athletes and bodybuilders.

The complaint further asserts that Costco’s marketing of the product as “pure,” “natural,” and “premium” is deceptive, given the alleged presence of heavy metals. It cites internal company documents suggesting that Costco was aware of potential contamination risks but failed to conduct sufficient testing or issue warnings. While the lawsuit does not specify the exact levels of heavy metals detected, it references a third-party analysis that reportedly found lead at levels above California’s maximum allowable dose level (MADL) of 0.5 micrograms per day for developmental toxicity. The case has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington and seeks class-action status, potentially including all U.S. consumers who purchased the product within a specified timeframe.

This claim is not isolated. Similar lawsuits have been filed against other major supplement brands in recent years, including Garden of Life, Orgain, and Vega, alleging heavy metal contamination in protein powders and plant-based supplements. These cases often rely on third-party testing conducted by advocacy groups such as the Clean Label Project, which has published reports identifying detectable levels of heavy metals in numerous protein powders. While such reports have raised public alarm, they have also faced criticism for using testing methods that may not reflect real-world consumption patterns or account for the body’s ability to process trace amounts of metals.

The Costco case, however, carries particular weight due to the retailer’s reputation for quality and value. Costco’s Kirkland Signature brand is one of the most trusted private-label supplement lines in the U.S., with annual sales in the hundreds of millions. A finding of contamination—or even the perception of it—could erode consumer trust and prompt broader scrutiny of the supplement industry’s self-regulation practices.

Evidence and Testing: What Do the Facts Show

How Are Heavy Metals Detected in Protein Powders?

Heavy metals such as lead, cadmium, arsenic, and mercury are naturally occurring elements that can enter the food supply through soil, water, and industrial pollution. In protein powders, contamination most commonly occurs through:

Environmental pathways: Dairy cows grazing on soil contaminated with industrial waste or agricultural chemicals may accumulate metals in their tissues, which are then concentrated in whey protein during processing.
Processing equipment: Stainless steel machinery and filtration systems can leach trace metals if not properly maintained or if corrosion occurs.
Water sources: Municipal water supplies or well water used in manufacturing may contain dissolved metals, especially in regions with aging infrastructure.
Packaging materials: Some metal ions can migrate from packaging, particularly if the product is stored for long periods or exposed to heat and humidity.

Testing for heavy metals typically involves inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (ICP-MS), a highly sensitive analytical technique capable of detecting metals at parts-per-billion (ppb) levels. While this method is scientifically robust, the interpretation of results is complex. Regulatory agencies and health authorities set different thresholds for acceptable exposure based on factors such as body weight, frequency of consumption, and cumulative risk over time.

Comparing Claim vs. Regulatory Standards

The following table compares the alleged heavy metal levels in the Costco protein powder (as referenced in the lawsuit) with regulatory and third-party safety thresholds. Note: The exact numerical values from the lawsuit are not publicly available, so the table uses illustrative ranges based on similar cases and public reports.

Heavy Metal	Alleged Level (lawsuit claim)	California Prop 65 MADL (per day)	FDA/EPA Reference Dose (chronic oral exposure)	Typical Detection in Protein Powders (industry data)
Lead	0.6–1.2 µg per serving (above MADL)	0.5 µg (developmental toxicity)	0.0005 mg/kg/day (EPA)	0.1–2.0 µg per serving (varies by brand)
Cadmium	1.5–3.0 µg per serving	4.1 µg (for lifetime exposure)	0.001 mg/kg/day (EPA)	0.5–5.0 µg per serving
Arsenic (inorganic)	0.8–1.5 µg per serving	10 µg/day (EPA drinking water standard)	0.0003 mg/kg/day (EPA)	0.1–3.0 µg per serving
Mercury (inorganic)	0.05–0.15 µg per serving	No specific MADL; EPA limit 0.1 µg/L in water	0.0001 mg/kg/day (EPA)	0.01–0.2 µg per serving

Sources: California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and industry testing reports from NSF International and Consumer Reports. The table shows that while detectable levels of heavy metals are common in protein powders, the concentrations often fall below regulatory thresholds for daily exposure when consumed as directed. However, the lawsuit argues that cumulative exposure from multiple sources—including food, water, and supplements—could push individuals over safe limits, particularly vulnerable populations.

Third-Party Testing and Industry Variability

The Clean Label Project, a nonprofit advocacy group, has published multiple reports identifying heavy metals in protein powders. In its 2018 and 2020 investigations, the group tested 134 protein powders and found detectable levels of lead, cadmium, arsenic, and mercury in nearly all samples. The report claimed that 70% of products tested contained detectable lead, and 74% contained detectable cadmium. While these findings drew widespread media attention, they were criticized by industry groups and some toxicologists for using testing protocols that did not account for typical serving sizes or real-world consumption patterns.

For example, the Clean Label Project reported lead levels of up to 0.5 µg per serving in some products—below the California Prop 65 MADL of 0.5 µg per day for developmental toxicity. However, the group argued that chronic, long-term exposure could still pose risks, particularly to children and pregnant women. Critics countered that the body’s natural detoxification mechanisms and dietary context (e.g., calcium and iron intake) can mitigate absorption of these metals, and that the presence of trace contaminants does not necessarily equate to harm.

In contrast, NSF International, which operates a certification program for sports supplements, uses a more conservative approach. Its “NSF Certified for Sport” program tests for 270 contaminants, including heavy metals, and sets strict limits based on daily intake. Products that pass must display the NSF mark and undergo unannounced audits. However, only a small fraction of protein powders carry such certifications, and many consumers rely on marketing claims rather than verified testing.

Costco’s Response and Transparency

As of the time of reporting, Costco has not publicly released the results of internal testing or responded in detail to the lawsuit’s allegations. In statements to media, the company emphasized that its Kirkland Signature products undergo rigorous quality control and comply with all FDA regulations. Costco has not issued a recall or warning, nor has it provided batch-specific testing data. This lack of transparency is not uncommon in the supplement industry, where manufacturers often treat testing results as proprietary information.

The lawsuit’s reliance on third-party testing—rather than FDA or independent regulatory findings—underscores a broader challenge in supplement safety: the absence of a unified, publicly accessible database of contaminant levels across brands and batches. Without mandatory reporting, consumers and even retailers may be unaware of potential risks until litigation or advocacy groups bring them to light.

Who Is Affected and How Misinformation Spreads

Populations Most at Risk

While the general population may process trace amounts of heavy metals without adverse effects, certain groups are more vulnerable to cumulative exposure:

Children and adolescents: Developing nervous systems are more sensitive to neurotoxic effects of lead and mercury. The American Academy of Pediatrics warns that even low-level exposure can affect cognitive development.
Pregnant and breastfeeding women: Heavy metals can cross the placenta and enter breast milk, potentially affecting fetal and infant development. The FDA advises pregnant women to avoid supplements with high levels of contaminants.
Athletes and frequent users: Individuals consuming multiple servings per day—such as bodybuilders or endurance athletes—may face higher cumulative exposure, increasing the risk of long-term accumulation in tissues.
People with dietary deficiencies: Low intake of calcium, iron, or zinc can increase absorption of lead and cadmium, as these metals compete with essential minerals for absorption in the gut.

These populations are often targeted by supplement marketing, which emphasizes protein intake for muscle growth, recovery, and overall health. The discrepancy between marketing promises and potential risks creates a paradox: consumers who most need protein supplementation may also be the most vulnerable to contamination.

Mechanisms of Misinformation

Misinformation about heavy metals in protein powders spreads through several channels:

Advocacy group reports: Organizations like the Clean Label Project publish studies highlighting contamination, but their findings are often framed in absolute terms (e.g., “70% of protein powders contain lead”) without context about safe exposure levels or typical serving sizes. These reports are frequently amplified by media outlets seeking sensational headlines.
Social media amplification: Platforms such as Instagram and TikTok are rife with influencer-driven content claiming that “all protein powders are toxic” or that “heavy metals cause cancer.” Such claims are rarely grounded in dose-response data or regulatory standards.
Competitive marketing: Brands that test for contaminants and obtain third-party certifications often use this as a selling point, implying that uncertified products are unsafe. While this can drive consumer trust, it also creates a false dichotomy: certified products are safer, but non-certified ones are not necessarily dangerous.
Lack of regulatory clarity: Because supplements are not subject to premarket approval, manufacturers are not required to disclose contaminant testing results. This opacity allows fear-based messaging to fill the information void.

For example, a viral social media post might claim that “one scoop of protein powder contains 10 times the safe limit of lead,” citing a Clean Label Project report. However, the “safe limit” referenced may be a lifetime exposure threshold, not a per-serving limit. Such distortions amplify public anxiety without providing actionable guidance.

Case Study: The Clean Label Project Controversy

In 2020, the Clean Label Project released a report titled “Heavy Metals in Protein Powder,” which claimed that 74% of plant-based protein powders contained detectable cadmium and that 70% contained lead. The report was widely covered by major outlets, including Business Insider and Men’s Health, which ran headlines such as “Many Protein Powders Contain Dangerous Heavy Metals.” However, the report did not specify whether the detected levels exceeded regulatory thresholds or posed actual health risks. Toxicologists interviewed by Forbes noted that the presence of a contaminant does not equate to harm, and that the body’s detoxification systems can handle trace amounts.

The Clean Label Project’s methodology also drew criticism. The group tested products using a single serving size (30 grams) and did not account for typical consumption patterns (e.g., one or two servings per day). Additionally, the report did not compare its findings to baseline dietary exposure from food, water, or air, making it difficult to assess relative risk. Despite these limitations, the report fueled consumer distrust and led some individuals to abandon protein powders altogether—a decision that may have unintended health consequences for those with inadequate protein intake.

Red Flags and Debunking Checklist for Supplement Claims

Not all supplement claims are created equal. The following checklist highlights red flags that may indicate misinformation, overstatement, or potential safety concerns in protein powder marketing. Use this as a guide when evaluating any supplement product.

“Detox” or “cleanse” claims: Statements suggesting that a protein powder will “detoxify” your body or “remove heavy metals” are not supported by science. The body has its own detoxification systems (liver, kidneys), and no supplement has been proven to enhance this process.
Absolute safety claims: Phrases like “100% safe,” “no heavy metals,” or “lab-certified” are often marketing tools. No supplement can guarantee zero contamination due to environmental and processing variables.
Lack of third-party certification: While not a guarantee of safety, reputable third-party certifications (NSF Certified for Sport, USP Verified, Informed Choice) indicate that the product has undergone independent testing for contaminants. If a brand does not display such certifications, ask why.
Overemphasis on “natural” or “organic”: Organic certification ensures farming practices but does not guarantee the absence of heavy metals, which can occur naturally in soil. Conversely, synthetic protein isolates are not inherently more dangerous.
Fear-based marketing: Claims that “all protein powders are toxic” or that a specific brand is “the only safe option” are designed to exploit anxiety. Look for balanced, evidence-based language.
No batch or lot testing disclosure: Reputable manufacturers often provide batch-specific testing results upon request or publish them on their websites. If a company refuses to share testing data, consider it a red flag.
Extravagant health claims: Statements that a protein powder will “boost immunity,” “enhance brain function,” or “prevent disease” without FDA-approved health claims should be viewed skeptically. The FDA prohibits such claims unless backed by substantial scientific evidence.
Unverified “proprietary blends”: If a product lists ingredients under a “proprietary blend” without disclosing the amounts, it may be masking underdosing or contamination risks. Transparency in formulation is a sign of legitimacy.
No warning statements for vulnerable groups: Ethical manufacturers include warnings for pregnant women, children, or individuals with medical conditions. The absence of such warnings may indicate a lack of consideration for safety.
Overuse of testimonials or influencer endorsements: While personal stories can be compelling, they are not substitutes for scientific evidence. Be wary of products promoted solely through social media influencers without third-party validation.

Use this checklist to critically evaluate any protein powder or supplement. When in doubt, consult a healthcare provider or registered dietitian, especially if you are in a high-risk group.

Expert and Institutional Response to Heavy Metals Allegations

Regulatory Agencies: FDA and State Oversight

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has acknowledged the potential for heavy metal contamination in dietary supplements but has not issued specific recalls or warnings for protein powders in recent years. In a 2022 statement, the FDA noted that while it monitors supplement safety through the Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (CFSAN), the agency’s resources are limited and focused on products with the highest risk profiles, such as those containing botanicals or imported ingredients. The FDA does not require manufacturers to test for contaminants unless a specific safety concern arises.

State-level agencies, however, have taken more aggressive action. California’s Proposition 65 requires businesses to warn consumers about significant exposures to listed chemicals, including heavy metals. While this law does not ban products, it mandates clear labeling. The lawsuit against Costco leverages Proposition 65 thresholds, arguing that the protein powder exceeds safe exposure levels. Other states, such as New York and Massachusetts, have also increased scrutiny of supplement safety, though their enforcement mechanisms are less standardized.

The FDA’s approach has drawn criticism from public health advocates who argue that the agency’s hands-off policy enables contamination to go unchecked. In a 2021 report, the Pew Charitable Trusts called for mandatory testing and reporting of contaminants in supplements, noting that voluntary programs are insufficient to protect consumers. The report highlighted that heavy metals are among the most common contaminants found in supplements, alongside undeclared ingredients and microbial contamination.

Industry Groups and Manufacturer Responses

Industry trade groups, such as the Council for Responsible Nutrition (CRN) and the American Herbal Products Association (AHPA), have defended supplement safety and emphasized that heavy metal contamination is not unique to protein powders. In a 2020 position paper, CRN stated that “the presence of trace contaminants in supplements does not necessarily indicate a safety concern,” and that regulatory limits are designed to account for cumulative exposure from multiple sources.

Manufacturers of protein powders have responded to contamination concerns in different ways. Some brands, such as Optimum Nutrition and Dymatize, have obtained NSF Certified for Sport or Informed Choice certifications and publicly share testing results. Others have reformulated products to use ingredients sourced from regions with lower soil contamination or implemented stricter processing controls. However, these efforts are not universal, and smaller or private-label brands may lack the resources or incentives to prioritize contaminant testing.

Costco’s response to the lawsuit remains unclear. The company has not issued a public statement addressing the allegations or providing batch-specific testing data. This silence is consistent with industry practices, where legal risk often outweighs transparency. However, it also fuels speculation and erodes consumer trust, particularly when the product in question is a staple of the retailer’s private-label lineup.

Scientific and Toxicological Perspectives

Toxicologists and public health experts emphasize that the risk posed by heavy metals in protein powders depends on several factors: the type and amount of metal, the frequency and duration of consumption, and the individual’s overall diet and health status. Dr. Pieter Cohen, an associate professor at Harvard Medical School and a leading researcher on supplement safety, has noted that while trace contaminants are detectable in many supplements, the levels are typically far below those that would cause acute toxicity. However, he warns that chronic, low-level exposure—especially in vulnerable populations—warrants caution.

Dr. Cohen’s research, published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), found that some supplements marketed for weight loss or muscle building contained undeclared pharmaceutical ingredients, including steroids and stimulants. While this highlights a different type of contamination, it underscores the broader issue of inconsistent quality control in the supplement industry. Heavy metals, though less immediately dangerous, represent a more insidious risk due to their cumulative nature.

The World Health Organization (WHO) has also weighed in on heavy metal exposure, noting that dietary sources—including food, water, and supplements—are a primary route of exposure for the general population. The WHO’s guidelines for lead and cadmium emphasize that reducing exposure from all sources is critical, particularly for children and pregnant women. However, the organization does not single out protein powders as a uniquely high-risk category.

Protecting Yourself: Safe Supplement Practices and Alternatives

Evaluating Your Protein Powder

If you choose to use protein powder, take steps to minimize potential risks:

Check for third-party certifications: Look for products certified by NSF, USP, Informed Choice, or similar organizations. These certifications indicate that the product has undergone independent testing for contaminants and labeling accuracy.
Review the label for warnings: Ethical manufacturers include warnings for vulnerable groups (e.g., “Not intended for children or pregnant women”). The absence of such warnings may indicate a lack of safety consideration.
Ask for batch testing data: Contact the manufacturer and request recent contaminant testing results for the specific lot number of your product. Reputable companies should provide this information upon request.
Compare brands: Use resources like Consumer Reports, Labdoor, or the Clean Label Project’s database (with caution) to compare contaminant levels across products. Be mindful of the limitations of these sources.
Monitor your intake: Stick to the recommended serving size and avoid consuming multiple servings per day unless medically advised. Diversify your protein sources (e.g., lean meats, legumes, dairy, eggs) to reduce reliance on any single supplement.

Alternatives to Protein Powders

If you are concerned about heavy metal contamination or prefer to avoid supplements altogether, consider these alternatives:

Whole food protein sources: Lean meats (chicken, turkey, beef), fish (salmon, tuna), eggs, Greek yogurt, cottage cheese, lentils, chickpeas, tofu, and tempeh provide high-quality protein without the risk of supplement-related contaminants.
Homemade protein shakes: Blend whole foods like bananas, berries, spinach, Greek yogurt, and milk (or plant-based milk) for a nutrient-dense, customizable shake. This approach eliminates the need for processed powders.
Plant-based protein blends: If you prefer plant-based options, choose products made from pea, hemp, or brown rice protein, as these are less likely to be contaminated with heavy metals compared to animal-derived proteins. Look for brands with third-party certifications.
Collaborate with a dietitian: A registered dietitian can assess your protein needs and recommend a balanced diet tailored to your health goals, activity level, and dietary preferences. This is especially important for athletes, pregnant women, and individuals with medical conditions.

Advocating for Change

Consumers can drive change in the supplement industry by demanding greater transparency and accountability. Consider the following actions:

Support brands with strong safety records: Purchase from companies that prioritize third-party testing, publish contaminant data, and adhere to ethical marketing practices.
Report adverse events: If you experience adverse effects from a supplement, report it to the FDA’s Safety Reporting Portal (https://www.safetyreporting.hhs.gov). This helps regulators identify patterns and take action.
Advocate for reform: Support organizations and legislation that push for mandatory testing, labeling transparency, and stricter oversight of the supplement industry. Groups like the Pew Charitable Trusts and the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) advocate for these changes.
Educate others: Share evidence-based information about supplement safety with friends, family, and online communities. Counter fear-based messaging with facts about exposure levels, regulatory standards, and risk mitigation strategies.

While the supplement industry is unlikely to undergo radical reform overnight, consumer demand for safety and transparency can shift corporate behavior and regulatory priorities. The Costco lawsuit may serve as a catalyst for broader scrutiny of protein powder safety, but lasting change will require sustained pressure from both consumers and policymakers.

Frequently Asked Questions About Protein Powder and Heavy Metals

What are heavy metals, and why are they found in protein powder?

Heavy metals are naturally occurring elements such as lead, cadmium, arsenic, and mercury that can enter the food supply through soil, water, and industrial pollution. In protein powders, contamination can occur through environmental pathways (e.g., contaminated feed for dairy cows), processing equipment, water sources, or packaging materials. These metals are not intentionally added but may be present as trace contaminants.

Is it safe to consume protein powder if it contains trace amounts of heavy metals?

The safety of consuming protein powder with trace heavy metals depends on the type and amount of metal, the frequency of consumption, and the individual’s overall diet and health status. Regulatory agencies set exposure limits based on cumulative risk over time. For most healthy adults, occasional consumption of protein powder with trace contaminants is unlikely to pose a significant health risk. However, vulnerable populations (e.g., children, pregnant women) should exercise caution and consider alternatives.

How can I tell if my protein powder is contaminated with heavy metals?

There is no way for consumers to visually identify contamination. The most reliable method is to choose products with third-party certifications (e.g., NSF Certified for Sport, USP Verified) that test for heavy metals. You can also contact the manufacturer and request batch-specific contaminant testing results. Be wary of products that do not provide transparency about sourcing, processing, or testing.

Are plant-based protein powders safer than whey-based ones in terms of heavy metal contamination?

Plant-based protein powders are not inherently safer than whey-based ones. In fact, some plant proteins (e.g., rice, hemp) may have higher baseline levels of certain heavy metals due to soil contamination. However, the risk depends on the specific ingredients and sourcing practices of the manufacturer. Third-party certification is the best indicator of safety, regardless of the protein source.

For example, a 2020 report by the Clean Label Project found detectable levels of heavy metals in both plant-based and whey-based protein powders, with no clear pattern favoring one type over the other. The key factor is the manufacturer’s commitment to testing and quality control.

What should I do if I’m concerned about heavy metal exposure from protein powder?

If you are concerned about heavy metal exposure, consider reducing your reliance on protein powders and diversifying your protein sources with whole foods such as lean meats, fish, eggs, legumes, and dairy. If you continue using protein powder, choose a product with third-party certification and monitor your intake. Consult a healthcare provider or registered dietitian, especially if you are pregnant, breastfeeding, or have a medical condition. You can also report any adverse effects to the FDA’s Safety Reporting Portal.

Sources & References

MSN — Costco sued over alleged heavy metals in protein powder