Dunno if it’s possible to stick a “conclusion” note to the start of this long discussion, but here’s my attempt to summarise the tests on Huel’s official food safety page. I am not an expert, so read 'em yourself if you care.
“Chemicals”:
Six ingredients (oats, pea protein, brown rice protein, flaxseed, coconut MCTs and sunflower oil powder) were tested for chemical residues in 2015. The tests were for many hundreds of residues, and in some cases also covered genetic modification markers and metals. The only residue detected above the detection limit (smallest measurement they could make) was of Chlormequat, which was found at 0.04mg/kg in the oats. This is very low: 0.44% of the European MRL (maximum residue limit) of 9mg/kg. The pea protein test also identified levels of aluminium and cadmium typical for cereals (and well below EFSA (European Food Safety Authority) limits). Chlormequat isn't a pesticide by the way: it thickens plant stems, making them easier to harvest.
Heavy metals:
Complete Huel was tested for heavy metals twice in late 2016. I've averaged the results and then translated from the μg/kg measurements to actual daily intake assuming a 100% Huel diet at 2000 calories — 500g — per day. Along with those figures I include the typical daily intake of these metals for an 85kg adult, based on EFSA estimates (which are usually expressed in μg per kilo of bodyweight per day):
Arsenic: 7.1μg/day (11–48μg/day typical)
Cadmium: 36.9μg/day (98–666μg/day typical)
Lead: 9.2μg/day (31–105μg/day typical)
Mercury: below detection limit.
… so the indications are that an all-Huel diet may well be markedly lower in many of these undesirables than a conventional diet. Interesting.
[EDIT: California’s cadmium limits are quite a bit lower than Europe’s, and the reproductive risk for pregnant women figures are all substantially lower again, but if the above numbers are typical exposure I’ve no idea what value lower official safe numbers have. Would be interesting to hear from a professional on that front. I think part of this derives from safe levels often being defined in terms of observed exposure, which numbers will vary according to local diet. For example I understand that the UK’s safe radiation exposure levels were for quite some time determined by observed exposure of Welsh eaters of seaweed-based laverbread.]
Like many I’m sure, I believe China still has some catching up to do, with regards to regularly adhering to production standards in a numbers of industries.
I have no doubt they’ll get there as both Chinese and International buyers push them to.
Also recognise that uk/eu/us have their own problems, but my feeling is there’s a difference of degree, for no doubt multiple reasons.
The nub for me is that whilst I may take a risk with an eBay special, my diet is in a very different risk category.
Id welcome other thoughts including the Huel team.
I believe I covered your concerns here. You’re judging the quality of a product purely on unwarranted negative perceptions based on what you’ve heard about ingredients from a country, not on Huel’s quality procedures.
Link is for the UK site which I expect is why it isn’t working for you. Just toggle the flag top right to the UK to view it. However if you are in the USA then we don’t have the same article, but are working on it.
I have experience in an unrelated industry and based on that I believe the risks associated with sourcing food and other products from China are greater.
Whether Huels quality procedures are sufficient to offset the risk I perceive, I have no way of knowing.
Of course one way of measuring how much weight i give to the risk, is that I’ve just placed my next order
