SB1033 requires manufacturers of bulk and packaged “protein products” sold or offered in California to test a representative sample of every lot for arsenic, cadmium, lead, and mercury beginning January 1, 2028. The bill prescribes laboratory accreditation and analytical-method standards, requires manufacturers and brand owners to provide results to the State Department of Public Health on request, and forces brand owners to publish lot-level results and core product information online for the product’s shelf life plus one month.
The law focuses on transparency rather than setting new numeric safety limits: it mandates testing, public disclosure, and on-package/online notice but does not create federal-style maximum contaminant thresholds. For compliance officers, product teams, and labs, SB1033 introduces defined technical criteria (ISO/IEC 17025:2017 accreditation, FDA-style ICP‑MS methods, proficiency testing) and immediate operational obligations that will affect sourcing, manufacturing, labeling, e-commerce listings, and vendor contracts.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill requires a representative-sample heavy‑metal test of each lot of bulk and packaged protein products for arsenic, cadmium, lead, and mercury, using accredited laboratories and methods at least as sensitive as the FDA’s ICP‑MS Elemental Analysis Manual. Brand owners must post lot-specific heavy‑metal levels and supplement facts on a public webpage for the product’s shelf life plus one month and include a short notice on the outermost package and online product pages.
Who It Affects
Manufacturers of bulk and packaged protein products (including contract manufacturers and brand owners), brand owners who sell directly to consumers or through retailers in California, analytical laboratories that perform heavy‑metal testing, and retailers/marketplaces that display product pages for California sales. The State Department of Public Health gains inspection and enforcement access to test results.
Why It Matters
SB1033 creates a state-level model for mandatory lot-level contaminant transparency in supplements and concentrated-protein foods, pairing technical accreditation rules with public disclosure obligations. It raises compliance costs and supply-chain scrutiny without establishing California-specific contaminant limits, which changes competitive and regulatory incentives for manufacturers and testing labs.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
SB1033 sets out a simple architecture: define the covered products, require lot-based heavy‑metal testing at qualified labs, make the results available to the department on request, and push the results into the public sphere via brand websites and product packaging/online pages. “Protein products” is defined broadly to capture powdered supplements, liquid protein beverages, and other concentrated protein foods; both the manufacturer and the brand owner have distinct duties under the bill. The compliance clock begins January 1, 2028, so contracts and testing arrangements need review well before that date.
The bill tightly specifies laboratory qualification and analytical method expectations. Laboratories must be ISO/IEC 17025:2017‑accredited for the relevant heavy‑metal testing and must use methods at least as sensitive and specific as the FDA’s ICP‑MS protocol in its Elemental Analysis Manual.
A proficiency demonstration is required: the lab must quantify each heavy metal to six micrograms per kilogram (μg/kg) or better and achieve a z‑score of ≤ ±2 in an independent proficiency test. If federal regulations conflict with these standards, the federal rule controls for the affected area.On disclosure, SB1033 puts the burden principally on brand owners of packaged protein products.
They must maintain a single webpage for each product that includes the lot‑level levels and names of each heavy metal tested, the product’s supplement facts panel, a short explanatory statement about trace heavy metals, and a hyperlink to the FDA’s relevant pages. The results must be accessible without requiring a UPC, lot number, or proof of purchase, and the posting must remain live for the product shelf life plus one month.
For retail sales, the outermost package must include a short notice directing consumers to the brand’s webpage; for online sales, the product details page must carry the same notice with a hyperlink.Enforcement is framed as a prohibition: starting January 1, 2028, no person may sell, manufacture, deliver, hold, or offer for sale in California a protein product that fails to comply with the chapter. Both manufacturers and brand owners must provide test results to an authorized agent of the Department of Public Health on request.
The bill does not set maximum allowable levels for the listed heavy metals—its lever is testing and transparency rather than establishing state numeric safety thresholds.
The Five Things You Need to Know
Effective date: the testing, laboratory, disclosure, packaging, and online-notice requirements all commence on January 1, 2028.
Laboratory standard: testing must be performed at laboratories accredited to ISO/IEC 17025:2017 and use analytical methods at least as sensitive and specific as the FDA’s ICP‑MS Elemental Analysis Manual.
Proficiency requirement: laboratories must demonstrate the ability to quantify each listed heavy metal to ≤ 6 μg/kg and achieve an independent proficiency-test z‑score of ≤ ±2.
Public posting and duration: brand owners must publish lot‑level heavy‑metal results plus the supplement facts panel on a single web page for each product and keep that page live for the product’s shelf life plus one month; the information must be available without requiring a UPC, lot number, or proof of purchase.
Sale prohibition and access: the bill bars selling or offering noncompliant protein products in California and requires both manufacturers and brand owners to provide test results to authorized department agents on request.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Definitions and scope
This section defines covered terms: ‘protein product’ (powders, liquid beverages, other concentrated‑protein foods), ‘brand owner’ (holder of the most prominent trademark), ‘manufacturer,’ ‘bulk’ and ‘packaged’ product, ‘lot,’ and ‘heavy metals’ (arsenic, cadmium, lead, mercury). The definition of ‘manufacturer’ explicitly includes brand owners that manufacture their own products and separations for contract manufacturing, which matters for assigning obligations and audit rights between brand and contract manufacturer.
Testing requirements and laboratory qualifications
Requires testing of a representative sample from each lot at a ‘proficient laboratory.’ The bill ties laboratory qualification to ISO/IEC 17025:2017 accreditation and requires an analytical method at least as sensitive and specific as the FDA’s ICP‑MS Elemental Analysis Manual. The statute sets a measurable proficiency bar—quantification to ≤ 6 μg/kg and a z‑score ≤ ±2 on independent proficiency testing—and allows manufacturers’ in‑house labs to qualify if they meet the same criteria. Where federal regulations conflict, federal rules control; otherwise California’s standards apply.
Department access to test results
Both the manufacturer and the brand owner must provide test results to an authorized agent of the Department of Public Health upon request under the cited inspection authorities. If a brand owner does not perform manufacturing, it may comply by providing the manufacturer’s test results. This creates a clear record-retention and chain‑of‑custody obligation: companies should be ready to locate lot records and transfer them to the department under existing inspection procedures.
Public disclosure, web posting, and labeling
Brand owners must publish, on a single web page, the name and measured level for each heavy metal by lot, the supplement facts panel, and a prescribed explanatory statement; include a link to FDA materials; and provide an obvious link from any product page. The posting must remain for the product’s shelf life plus one month and be accessible without a UPC, lot number, or proof of purchase. For retail packaging and online product pages, a concise notice directing consumers to the web page must appear on the outermost package and on the product details page sold online.
Prohibition, penalties, and fiscal note
Section 110424.8 prohibits selling or offering in California any protein product that fails to meet the chapter’s testing or disclosure requirements. Because the Sherman Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Law governs enforcement, violations can carry misdemeanor exposure; the bill creates a state‑mandated local program but states no state reimbursement is required because any local costs arise from criminal‑penalty provisions. The statute does not specify civil penalty amounts or a private right of action.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Healthcare across all five countries.
Explore Healthcare in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- California consumers of protein powders and beverages — they gain lot‑level data that lets them assess potential heavy‑metal exposure and make purchase decisions based on measured results rather than labels alone.
- State public health agencies — the Department of Public Health gains standardized, testable data and on‑demand access to results to support surveillance, risk communication, and targeted investigations.
- Brand owners that already test and maintain low heavy‑metal levels — they can use compliance and transparency as a market differentiator and reduce reputational risk by demonstrating proactive disclosure.
- Accredited analytical laboratories — the bill will increase demand for ISO/IEC 17025 accredited heavy‑metal testing and proficiency‑testing services, creating new business opportunities for qualified labs.
Who Bears the Cost
- Manufacturers and brand owners — they must pay per‑lot testing, maintain records, update websites, and change packaging and online product pages; contract manufacturers will need tighter contracts to allocate responsibilities and costs.
- Small and startup producers — accreditation, frequent lot testing, and updating disclosures create fixed and per‑lot costs that disproportionally impact smaller operators and could force consolidation or price increases.
- In‑house laboratory units — labs that currently lack ISO/IEC 17025 accreditation will face capital and administrative costs to upgrade, or they will need to outsource testing, increasing turnaround times and expense.
- Retailers and online marketplaces — they must ensure product pages and packaging reflect the required notice language and may need to block noncompliant listings, adding operational overhead and potential inventory disruption.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill pits public transparency and the right to know about contaminant levels against the practical costs and market disruption of mandatory lot testing and public posting—especially when no California numeric safety thresholds accompany the data; the result is greater information but also greater compliance burden, potential consumer confusion, and uncertainty about how to interpret results in the absence of regulatory benchmarks.
SB1033 converts transparency into a regulatory mandate without specifying maximum allowable levels for arsenic, cadmium, lead, or mercury. That design choice avoids duplicating federal risk‑assessment work but raises practical questions: public posting of raw lot‑level results may prompt recalls, litigation, or consumer alarm in the absence of California numeric action levels or a contextualized risk framework.
Companies will need to manage communications carefully to avoid misinterpretation of trace detections that are within commonly accepted background levels.
Operationally, the bill places precise demands on laboratory capacity and sampling design. ISO/IEC 17025 accreditation and the ICP‑MS method requirement are technically clear, but laboratory availability and turnaround time vary regionally; required proficiency performance (≤ 6 μg/kg and z‑score ≤ ±2) may force some labs to increase method sensitivity or participate in new proficiency programs.
The statute allows federal regulation to control where there is a contradiction, but it does not resolve preemption questions about overlapping federal and state rules or clarify whether existing federal guidance on heavy metals in foods will be treated as substitutes for California determinations. Chain‑of‑custody, representativeness of “representative sample,” and trade‑secret or competitive concerns about publishing lot‑level numbers are left to implementers and raise predictable legal and logistical disputes.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.