The Hidden Ripple Effects of SNAP Pauses and Prop 65 Labels

Misunderstandings about risk and exposure affect us all. Welcome to Wellness Debrief 003.

If you find value in this work, consider subscribing or upgrading to a paid subscription to support more of it. Your support helps keep this going and makes a real difference. Thank you for being here.

I’m sorry for missing the last debrief. I was sick!

This week’s Wellness Debrief focuses on Consumer Reports’ analysis of lead in protein powders and a breakdown of how a pause in SNAP benefits due to the government shutdown would affect everyone—even people who aren’t getting food stamps every month.

Let’s get into it.

As the Government Shutdown Drags On, Millions of People May Lose Their SNAP Benefits

Over 42 million people in 22 million households receive SNAP benefits each month, with the average benefit totaling roughly $350 per household. Thanks to the government shutdown, people living in at least half of the states in the U.S. might be unable to eat in November due to states not paying out the benefit. There is a lot of good writing out there about the facts of the matter—I’d recommend this piece from my former HuffPost colleague Arthur Delaney—so I want to talk about why everyone should care.

To be clear, you should care because you should believe that having access to food is a human right. But if that doesn’t sway you, let’s run a hypothetical and show how this affects you, too.

It’s November 3, and Jill, her husband, and their two children receive $290 in food stamps every month. But this month, they didn’t. She usually buys food for the family at a small local grocery store in a rural part of Louisiana, one of the states that paused benefits. Her small town has limited grocery options, and she relies 100 percent on a local store—as do hundreds of others.

Jill and her husband are incredibly stressed out about this. As a result, they’re constantly sniping at each other, heightening the stress everyone feels at home. Due to being underfed, Jill’s two kids—who are still developing and rely on nutrients to do so—are hungry and less focused at school, which makes participating meaningfully in class difficult, and this affects their grades.

To get something in the pantry, Jill’s husband treks out to a local food bank. Since food banks are sparse in rural areas, he has to drive an hour to the closest one, dipping into the family’s limited cash on hand, of which they are trying to reserve as much as possible for food. When he arrives at the food pantry, he has to wait in line for 90 minutes and receives only a few items since the SNAP pause has placed a higher demand on already struggling food pantries. This also means he’s missed half a day of work at his low-wage job, where he does not receive paid time off.¹

Back in town, the small grocer Jill and others frequent is losing money since, in this community, like many others, SNAP dollars constitute a meaningful portion of grocery sales. The store can’t keep its shelves fully stocked, and the owner is considering reducing hours or laying off employees, a decision that would further increase the area’s poverty rate. The owner knows this, and it’s a tough call considering that she and her family have lived in this town their entire lives. They know Jill, and the hundreds like her, and they sympathize with her—they just don’t think they’ll be able to take the financial hit.

Local farmers and suppliers who rely on regular SNAP-driven purchases also see lower sales, which deepens the ripple through the local economy. Even residents who do not receive SNAP benefits feel the effects. This is mainly because the grocery store owner decided to increase prices to cover the reduced sales volume and keep her team employed. Fewer products are available on her shelves. Despite this one woman being willing to bump prices and take any further economic hit from it, other local retail and food supply jobs may become less secure.

Meanwhile, Jill’s family continues to experience the stress and uncertainty of not knowing when their next full meal will come. The emotional toll of food insecurity compounds the physical effects of undernutrition. Over time, these repeated disruptions will affect the children’s long-term health and academic performance. It will increase reliance on other social services that are also under strain. All of this will leave those children underprepared to enter society as adults.

A pause in SNAP benefits doesn’t just affect recipients. It cascades through the community.

The Protein Powder Wars

Earlier this week, Consumer Reports dropped a report claiming that 23 protein powders from leading brands contain concerning amounts of lead. The response was a resounding “what the fuck??” TikToks and Instagram posts were made informing the public that their protein powder could be poisoning them.

From the report:

“It’s concerning that these results are even worse than the last time we tested,” said Tunde Akinleye, the CR food safety researcher who led the testing project. This time, in addition to the average level of lead being higher than what we found 15 years ago, there were also fewer products with undetectable amounts of it. The outliers also packed a heavier punch. Naked Nutrition’s Vegan Mass Gainer powder, the product with the highest lead levels, had nearly twice as much lead per serving as the worst product we analyzed in 2010.

CR’s analysis focuses on plant-based protein powders, which may contain more lead in tests since certain heavy metals are naturally present in soil, water, and air. Plants can absorb them through their roots and leaves, and once they’re in the plant tissue, they may persist through processing. But, the caveat is that the outlet is basing its health recommendations on the maximum allowable dose level set by California’s Prop 65—a 1986 law that sets wildly unattainable environmental standards.

From Vox:

California’s Prop 65, however, used a far higher 1,000X safety factor (1,000 times lower than minimal known unsafe levels) to arrive at 0.5 micrograms of lead per day as its reference level. This is an unachievable safety target, significantly below the lead you get from average daily food consumption, especially for people who eat more legumes, fruits, and vegetables, all of which grow in the soil and inherently pull in some amount of heavy metals.

As one clinical dietician I spoke with told me of the Prop 65 level: “You literally can’t eat food from the Earth if you want to achieve this.”

It’s important to know that Prop 65 limits are based on lifetime exposure assumptions and then applied to recommended daily exposure. CR tested a few protein powders certified by NSF International, a third-party that creates health and safety standards and evaluates products and facilities to ensure they meet them. NSF typically limits lead concentration to 1 milligram for protein powders and other supplements, depending on product type. This ensures products meet safe levels for chronic consumption. To further set up the comparison to Prop 65’s 0.5 micrograms per day, the FDA maintains that the acceptable daily intake for lead in adults is about 12.5 micrograms per day. (Keyword: Adults. It’s much lower for kids, and they shouldn’t consume protein powder anyway.)

Prop 65 is far more conservative than NSF or FDA standards, which speaks to its function of triggering warnings rather than indicating absolute harm. The NSF and FDA thresholds reflect practical limits for human consumption without expecting adverse effects, considering a regular diet and supplement use.

Before we get into my take on the real concern here, let’s step back and talk about Prop. 65, a 1986 law intended to inform consumers within California about chemical exposure in everyday products. The state keeps a list of more than 850 chemicals and mixtures that might be present in consumer products or foods, and can potentially cause harm to human health. It’s a valiant effort to help people understand what’s in the things they use and consume—and the law provoked companies to change their formulations for the better to avoid the label on their products. The result was less exposure to certain toxins, including heavy metals and forever chemicals like PFAS.

That sounds great, right? Well, most companies just put the label on their products because it’s cheaper than changing the manufacturing process. A 2016 working paper from Harvard researchers argues that the label’s ubiquity diminishes it: Why would people listen or worry about Prop 65 if the label put on cigarettes, a known carcinogen, is also present on potato chips? The labels tell you that a product contains a chemical known to cause cancer or reproductive harm, but they do not explain how much of the chemical is present or how its risk compares to other harmful substances.

Equating any level of risk with guaranteed harm leads to misunderstanding rather than informed choice.

Now, I’m not telling you not to be concerned about harmful toxins. I am saying that the Prop 65 label probably isn’t the best gauge for what can cause harm to human health. Still, I really think the beauty of this moment is that we can talk about the need for better regulation of supplements.

As I wrote for The Cut back in 2023 regarding green powders:

The Food and Drug Administration considers supplements to be food products, not drugs or biologics (like vaccines), making the regulation process much less rigorous and unstandardized — meaning the FDA isn’t required to verify what’s in the supplements. So as long as the claims on the label aren’t ridiculous, brands can say whatever they want. No research or science is required, leaving the consumer with some legwork when deciding on a product. When searching for a brand, stick to ones with well-researched ingredients that you feel comfortable taking, which might mean choosing a more expensive product. (Remember that fresh, frozen, or canned vegetables are significantly more affordable.)

And, despite the CR analysis, I would still go off NSF or USP certifications and think twice about products that don’t follow those guidelines.

The Potent Promises (and Perils) of Modern Marijuana (National Geographic)

Pilates has an elitist reputation. But it didn’t start out that way. (The Washington Post)

Which Anti-Inflammatory Supplements Actually Work? (Scientific American)

This hormone condition affects millions of women but is often misdiagnosed (The Washington Post)

1. You might think I’m dragging it with no PTO, but that isn’t a federally mandated worker benefit. So employers do not have to provide it.