Baby Food Autism Lawsuit

April 11, 2025 – New Case In MDL

In a new lawsuit filed yesterday, a family from Crown Point, Indiana, has brought claims against Gerber Products Company and Beech-Nut Nutrition Company as part of the baby food multidistrict litigation, alleging that their child, S.F., sustained irreversible brain damage from consuming baby foods tainted with toxic heavy metals. The complaint asserts that S.F., who was diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder at just two years old, was fed contaminated products from March 2008 through January 2010. Of course, this is a time when the infant’s brain was undergoing critical neurodevelopment.

The Gerber lawsuit lays out the widespread, industry-wide failure to protect the most vulnerable consumers. The defendants knowingly sold baby food products with dangerous levels of arsenic, lead, cadmium, mercury, and even aluminum—chemicals scientifically linked to neurodevelopmental harm at extremely low doses. Despite having the means to source cleaner ingredients and the capacity to screen finished products, the companies instead prioritized cost savings and market share over safety. Of course, neither company warned consumers about the presence or risks of these neurotoxicants.

The complaint alleges S.F.’s exposure to these heavy metals—during the precise window when a child’s brain is most susceptible to toxic injury—directly contributed to the development of ASD. Scientific literature cited throughout the filing reinforces this connection: multiple studies, including NIH-funded twin studies and international meta-analyses, have consistently shown associations between early-life exposure to toxic metals and increased risk of autism and ADHD. The family’s claims rest on the argument that these exposures were preventable and the risks were well-known to manufacturers long before regulatory scrutiny increased in recent years.

April 1, 2025 – State Court Momentum May Be Fueling MDL Growth

March saw the MDL grow by 29 new filings, the largest monthly jump to date. That brings the total number of toxic baby food lawsuits in the federal multidistrict litigation (MDL) to 130.

One possible explanation? Momentum in state courts—particularly in California, where discovery has been aggressive and multiple bellwether cases are inching toward trial. When state court discovery begins to expose internal documents and expert reports, it often spills over into federal filings.

Lawyers watching the state-level litigation may now feel more confident about joining the MDL, but you are still seeing the lion’s share of claims being held back, especially while the statute of limitations clock is still favorable for most families.

March 26, 2025 – Consumer Reports Testing Adds Fuel to Fire

According to Consumer Reports’ latest testing, several infant formula products contain dangerously high levels of contaminants, including lead, arsenic, BPA, and acrylamide—substances that have been linked to developmental delays, neurological damage, and increased long-term health risks. Among the manufacturers with concerning results were Similac, Enfamil, Target’s Up&Up, EleCare, PurAmino, Dr. Brown’s, and Kabrita. While some formulas tested did not contain toxic levels of these harmful substances, the fact that many widely used brands exceeded safety thresholds raises serious concerns about infant exposure to heavy metals and toxic chemicals at a critical stage of development.

The Consumer Reports study analyzed over 40 different infant formulas, testing for total levels of heavy metals (arsenic, lead, cadmium, mercury, aluminum, and potassium), plastic-based chemicals (Bisphenol A, F, and S), and acrylamide, a known carcinogen. Based on the findings, the formulas were categorized into three groups:

• Top Choices, which contained no or only trace amounts of toxic substances,

• Good Choices, which had contaminant levels approaching the daily exposure limit, and

• Worse Choices, which contained at least one substance that exceeded recommended daily limits.

The results reveal significant health risks for infants consuming these formulas, particularly EleCare Hypoallergenic, which contained 23.9 ug/kg total arsenic, including 19.7 ug/kg of the more toxic inorganic arsenic. Additionally, Similac Soy Isomil had high levels of lead (3.6 ug/kg), cadmium (9.2 ug/kg), and aluminum (3,973 ug/kg)—metals linked to cognitive impairment, organ toxicity, and other long-term health complications. Enfamil Nutramigen was the only formula in which acrylamide was detected (up to 19 ug/kg), a substance associated with neurotoxicity and cancer risks.

For plaintiffs in baby food lawsuits, these test results are highly significant. First, they confirm that leading formula manufacturers continue to allow dangerous contaminants in their products, despite growing public awareness and litigation over heavy metal exposure in baby foods. The presence of high arsenic and lead levels in products meant for the most vulnerable consumers—infants—suggests that companies are either failing to properly screen raw ingredients or are knowingly allowing unsafe formulations onto the market.

Second, these findings align with allegations in existing lawsuits that infant food manufacturers have engaged in deceptive marketing by touting their products as safe, nutritious, and rigorously tested while failing to disclose the presence of harmful substances. Plaintiffs can argue that this is clear evidence of negligence and failure to warn, as parents were given no indication that they might be exposing their children to dangerous toxins by using these formulas.

Finally, the timing of the report is notable. Consumer Reports shared its findings with the FDA just one day before the agency announced Operation Stork Speed, a new initiative aimed at increasing regulatory scrutiny of infant formulas. This suggests that regulators may already be responding to industry-wide safety concerns, further strengthening the argument that manufacturers have been slow to act on known risks until legal and regulatory pressure forced their hand.

From a litigation standpoint, these test results provide a compelling foundation for negligence claims, failure to warn, and potentially fraudulent misrepresentation by formula manufacturers. Plaintiffs’ attorneys can use this data to reinforce arguments that these companies failed in their duty to ensure their products were free from contaminants known to cause developmental harm. It also increases the likelihood that more parents will seek legal recourse, putting additional pressure on formula manufacturers to offer settlements or make significant industry-wide changes.

February 5, 2025 – MDL Adds 4 New Cases

The toxic baby food MDL saw just four new cases added in January, down from 12 in December. The total number of pending cases now stands at 92.

This does not tell us much.  The current caseload is too small to establish clear trends. Lawyers are loading up on this lawsuit but not filing them. Why?  With the extended statute of limitations most states provide for minors, there is no rush to file suit and potentially have your case dismissed if the MDL judge does not see the litigation in the same way judges in California state court have.

January 29, 2025 – Another Indiana Baby Food Lawsuit

In a new lawsuit last week, a mother from Rising Sun, Indiana, has sued several baby food manufacturers on behalf of her 14-year-old child, who was diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder  after consuming their products as an infant and toddler.

The complaint, part of the baby food MDL, names Beech-Nut Nutrition Company, Gerber Products Company, Hero A.G., Nestle S.A., and Walmart, alleging that their baby foods contained dangerous levels of toxic heavy metals, including lead, arsenic, mercury, cadmium, and aluminum.

According to the lawsuit, the child consumed the defendants’ baby foods from birth in 2010 until about age four in 2014, during a critical period of brain development. The mother claims she was never warned that these products contained heavy metals and would not have fed them to her child had she known of the risks. The child was diagnosed with ASD in 2015 at age five and has since required ongoing medical care and support for developmental impairments.

The lawsuit asserts that the defendants were aware of the presence of these toxins but failed to take adequate steps to eliminate them or warn parents, instead prioritizing profits over infant safety. The family seeks compensation for medical expenses, pain and suffering, and other damages, as well as measures to prevent further harm to other children.

January 20, 2025 – New Lawsuit 

In a new lawsuit filed yesterday in the MDL,  a family from Indianapolis, Indiana, alleges that their child developed autism spectrum disorder (ASD) due to exposure to toxic heavy metals in baby food manufactured by major corporations, including Beech-Nut Nutrition Company, Gerber Products Company, Hero A.G., and Nestlé entities.  The plaintiff consumed these baby food products as an infant from 2007 to 2008, allegedly resulting in brain injuries manifesting autism.

The complaint contends that the companies knowingly sold baby foods containing dangerous lead, arsenic, mercury, and cadmium levels, without adequately warning consumers. It accuses the defendants of failing to adopt safer manufacturing practices or disclose the presence of these contaminants, despite being aware of the associated neurodevelopmental risks.

The lawsuit seeks compensatory and punitive damages, asserting claims of negligence, strict liability for design and manufacturing defects, and failure to warn. The family aims to hold the companies accountable for their alleged disregard for vulnerable infants’ health and deter future harmful practices in the baby food industry.

January 16, 2025 – Beech-Nut Discovery

The heavy metal lawsuits against Beech-Nut are heating up with lawyers battling over what documents will be produced in discovery.

January 10, 2025 – When Will the Toxic Baby Food Lawsuit Be Settled?

It is unlikely that the toxic baby food lawsuits will settle anytime soon. These cases are still in the early stages of the MDL process. Settlement negotiations typically gain momentum only after bellwether trials, as these trials provide insight into how juries evaluate liability and damages. We have a bellwether trial in state court coming up in June 2025.  But we will have to instill fear in these companies with multiple big multi-million dollar jury compensation payouts to push these things toward settlement.  This is an opinion, not a fact.  But we feel pretty confident in this prediction.

Additionally, the scientific complexity of these cases, particularly the need to prove a causal link between heavy metals in baby food and autism or ADHD in individual children, creates significant hurdles that the defendants need to see plaintiffs overcome time and time again before they will come to the settlement table.

January 3, 2024 – Trial Pushed Back

The biggest event in this litigation will be the baby food autism trial in state court in California in June 2025.  This baby food lawsuit had been set for trial this month but was postponed.

January 2, 2025 – New California Law Takes Effect

The plaintiffs had been making an assertive push to restrict Walmart and its attorneys from communicating with co-manufacturers about subpoenas issued by the plaintiffs. However, Judge Corley did not find this restriction necessary. In an order issued last week, she declined to bar Walmart from discussing the subpoenas with its co-manufacturers. Instead, she directed Walmart to “facilitate” meetings and discussions between the co-manufacturers and plaintiffs’ counsel before the subpoenas are responded to.

December 18, 2024 – Why Baby Food Autism Settlement Amounts Could Be So High?

In many product liability cases, damages revolve around physical injuries, but here, settlement amounts are likely to reflect the lifelong costs of autism-related care, therapy, and lost earning potential.  So every one of these cases is arguably akin to a birth injury claim. Birth injury lawsuits have the highest settlement compensation payouts of any type of injury claim for this very reason—the future economic expenses. So for this reason, toxic baby food settlement amounts could reach historic highs, particularly for cases involving severe disabilities.

December 13, 2024 – The Good This Litigation Can Do

The Congressional Report has already caused reputational harm to major baby food brands.  That is an indirect loss of profits. A prolonged MDL or significant settlements could force manufacturers to reevaluate their sourcing, production, and marketing strategies because a more direct loss of profits that coms from defendant baby food lawsuit and the billion we expect these companies to ultimately pay.

But these baby food autism lawsuits represent more than just an opportunity for compensation for affected families. They hold the potential to drive meaningful, systemic change that will make children safer. These cases highlight glaring gaps in the regulation and safety of children’s food, putting a spotlight on the need for stronger oversight and accountability.

Honestly, before that Congressional Report, most people who worked for baby food companies—the average employee—probably did not even know of the issue of lead in the foods. Litigation has long been a catalyst for change in industries resistant to reform. The baby food industry is no different. By exposing the prevalence of heavy metals in baby food products and the apparent indifference of manufacturers toward these risks, these lawsuits may push companies to prioritize safety over profit.

A successful outcome for plaintiffs very well may lead to significant improvements in how baby food is sourced, manufactured, and tested. For example, manufacturers might be compelled to implement stricter internal controls, adopt innovative agricultural practices to reduce heavy metal contamination, and invest in advanced testing technologies. These changes would not just benefit the families involved in the lawsuits—they could protect millions of children from exposure to harmful substances, improving public health outcomes over generations.

December 4, 2024 – Whole Foods and Amazon Ruling

The MDL judge issued ruling on yesterday addressing claims against Amazon and Whole Foods.

The court dismissed the Plaintiffs’ claim under the Louisiana Products Liability Act (LPLA), finding that the plaintiffs failed to plausibly allege that the Retailer Defendants qualified as “manufacturer-sellers” under the statute. While the plaintiffs argued that the retailers exercised control over baby food production through unacceptable ingredient lists and product standards, the court determined these actions did not meet the legal threshold of controlling or influencing the product characteristic—namely, the presence of heavy metals—that caused harm. This claim was dismissed without leave to amend, as the deficiencies could not be remedied.

The court also addressed the Plaintiffs’ negligent undertaking claims. It dismissed the claim against Amazon with leave to amend, acknowledging that Amazon’s product safety monitoring processes, such as addressing customer reviews, could theoretically establish an assumption of duty. Yet the negligent undertaking claim against Whole Foods was dismissed without leave to amend. The court concluded that Whole Foods’ acceptable and unacceptable ingredient lists did not create a duty to monitor for contaminants like heavy metals, as such contaminants fall outside the scope of these lists, which address only listed food ingredients.

Additionally, the court denied the Retailer Defendants’ motion to strike portions of the Plaintiffs’ amended petition, finding the changes were consistent with the court’s prior orders and relevant to the negligence claims. Plaintiffs have until December 20, 2024, to amend their negligent undertaking claim against Amazon. With the Louisiana Products Liability Act and negligent undertaking claims against Whole Foods permanently dismissed, the ruling narrows the scope of the litigation but leaves room for Plaintiffs to refine their allegations against Amazon.

So the plaintiffs’ baby food lawsuit is far from dead. Plaintiffs will refile against Amazon, and the lawsuit continues against other defendants, including baby food manufacturers Hain Celestial Group Inc. and Nurture LLC.

November 26, 2024 – Another New Baby Food Lawsuit

The number of filed claims continues to slowly but surely increase.  On Friday, the family of a minor from Illinois initiated proceedings against several baby food manufacturers, including Beech-Nut, Gerber, Hero A.G., and Nestlé S.A., as part of the ongoing baby food MDL.

The family contends that the child suffered significant brain injuries, manifesting as ADHD, after consuming the defendants’ baby food products between 2008 and 2010. The lawsuit asserts that the manufacturers were aware of the risks posed by the heavy metals but failed to provide adequate warnings or take necessary measures to mitigate exposure. The plaintiffs argue that these omissions represent manufacturing, design, and labeling defects, rendering the products unreasonably dangerous for infant consumption.

November 7, 2024 – New ADHD Baby Food Lawsuit Filed

In a new lawsuit filed yesterday, the family of a child from Terre Haute, Indiana, claims that toxic heavy metals in baby food products manufactured by Beech-Nut Nutrition Company, Gerber Products Company, Hero A.G., and Nestlé have caused their child severe neurodevelopmental harm, including a diagnosis of ADHD. Filed as part of the social media MDL, the complaint details that the child consumed these baby food products from 2016 to 2019, during their early developmental years, which the family claims led to significant neurological damage.

According to the lawsuit, the child has suffered brain injuries and now lives with lasting neurodevelopmental impairment, specifically ADHD, which was diagnosed in August 2022. The family alleges the defendants’ failure to disclose the presence of toxic heavy metals deprived them of an informed choice in feeding their child. They argue that regular consumption of the defendants’ baby food, which independent studies and congressional reports have found to contain detectable levels of lead, arsenic, cadmium, and mercury, led directly to their child’s lasting neurological injuries.

This toxic baby food lawsuit seeks damages for the child’s ongoing medical needs, pain, emotional distress, and other life impacts related to their condition. The family is also pursuing punitive damages, aiming to prevent similar harm to other children by ensuring stricter safety standards and transparency in baby food production.

Our law firm has focused on the autism claims. But the ADHD lawsuits are certainly viable.

October 25, 2024 – Documentation Will Be Key in These Lawsuits

For families pursuing toxic baby food lawsuits, medical documentation is essential to building a strong case. Plaintiffs need to demonstrate a clear link between their child’s exposure to heavy metals—such as arsenic, lead, or mercury—and the developmental delays or cognitive impairments their child is experiencing. Medical records, blood tests, developmental assessments, and neurological evaluations help establish that the child’s symptoms align with conditions scientifically linked to toxic exposure. Without this documentation, it becomes much harder to prove that the child’s issues stem from the consumption of contaminated baby food rather than other factors.

In addition to diagnostic records, early intervention and educational assessments can also strengthen the case by showing how the child’s condition has impacted their growth and learning abilities over time. These records not only demonstrate the extent of the harm but also highlight the costs of ongoing care, such as therapy, specialized schooling, or medical treatment. Having a detailed medical history provides attorneys with the necessary foundation to argue for higher settlements, ensuring families are compensated for both present and future expenses related to their child’s condition.

Our lawyers do not think you need specific evidence of usage.  Testimony of the parents should be enough.  But records would help a lot.  You want to save any possible records you have. Baby food loyalty programs, which offer points, discounts, and exclusive offers based on purchase history, are emerging as key evidence in toxic baby food lawsuits. These programs track detailed purchase histories through receipts or linked accounts, providing proof of product usage over time.

October 1, 2024 – Two New Cases Filed in MDL

The pace of newly filed heavy metal baby food lawsuits continues to be slow. Last month, the toxic baby food MDL decreased in size from 31 to 30 pending cases. This month, it added 2 new cases, pushing the total back to 32.

Does this mean plaintiffs’ lawyers are not excited about this litigation?  No. Most states have very generous statute of limitations deadlines for minors, allowing them to file lawsuits well into adulthood.

Because of these extended deadlines, lawyers involved in toxic baby food litigation are mostly taking a “wait-and-see” approach. Unless there is an urgent need to file a lawsuit due to an approaching deadline, it generally makes sense to hold off on filing and monitor how the litigation develops to better evaluate the strategy and potential outcomes before taking legal action.4.

September 12, 2024 –  New MDL Lawsuit

A new lawsuit filed in the baby food classic action lawsuit, S.K. v. Beech-Nut Nutrition Company, et al. provides a detailed account of how the contaminated baby food products from major manufacturers like Beech-Nut, Gerber, Hain, and others led to severe health problems for children, including the plaintiff,  a child from Broward County, Florida.

The lawsuit alleges that the child consumed baby foods that contained unsafe levels of toxic heavy metals such as arsenic, lead, cadmium, and mercury. These metals are alleged to have caused S.K. to suffer long-term injuries and developmental problems that may result in permanent disability.

The complaint names major baby food brands, including Beech-Nut, Gerber, Plum Organics, and Walmart’s “Parents’ Choice,” as responsible for selling products that exceeded internal and FDA limits for toxic heavy metals.

August 30, 2024 – State Court Trial in January

The odd thing about this litigation is that the federal MDL is lagging so far behind the pretty well-developed state court litigation in California. The MDL is just getting underway while we have the first baby food lawsuits set to go to trial in January 2025.

A big verdict in that case would provide an incredible kickstart to this litigation.

August 14, 2024 – Discovery Dispute Emerging

An early discovery dispute may be emerging in the baby food MDL. Plaintiffs have issued a set of general interrogatories to all defendants, requesting information about their testing and procedures related to heavy metals in their products. The defendants are objecting, arguing that the scope of these interrogatories is too broad and exceeds what is appropriate for general causation discovery. The MDL judge was notified of this disagreement during the last status conference and has instructed the parties to meet and confer in an effort to resolve the issue.

July 3, 2024 – Whole Foods and Amazon File Motion to Dismiss

Whole Foods and Amazon are being accused of negligence related to the sale of baby food that allegedly caused harm. They have filed a motion to dismiss a baby food lawsuit.

Their argument is that as retailers, they are not responsible for inspecting or testing the baby food products, which other companies manufacture. They contend that they should not be held liable for defects in products they simply sell, as they do not have a duty to test or inspect these sealed products for defects. Essentially, they are saying the responsibility lies with the manufacturers, not with them as sellers.

June 28, 2024 – Whole Foods Challenges Recent Decision to Remand Lawsuit to State Court

Whole Foods and Hain Celestial request the full Fifth Circuit review of a recent decision that remanded a lawsuit back to state court. The suit alleges that the toxic heavy metals in Hain’s baby food caused the mental and physical decline of a toddler. The companies argue that the panel’s decision to remand the case after a final judgment in federal court contradicts both Fifth Circuit and Supreme Court precedent.

This case involves legal arguments specific to this particular toxic metal lawsuit that are unrelated to the larger litigation. Whole Foods and Hain contend that the second amended complaint should not have been a reason to remand the case, as the jurisdiction should be based on the operative complaint at the time of removal. They assert that there was complete diversity of citizenship at the time of the judgment since Whole Foods, based in Texas, had already been dismissed from the suit. They further argue that amending a complaint post-removal does not divest federal courts of jurisdiction and that the claims against Whole Foods were not viable under Texas law, which generally does not hold non-manufacturer sellers liable for product-related harm.

June 20, 2024 – Lawsuits Depend on the Framing of Causation and Evidence

The key to the success of the toxic baby food lawsuits will be getting the MDL judge to genuinely believe in the validity of the scientific evidence. For that reason, the battle over how the issue of causation and the related evidence gets “framed” in court is very important. The plaintiffs are arguing that the focus of the experts on general causation should be on whether the ingestion of heavy metals in baby foods can cause autism and ADHD.

The defense, by contrast, wants the focus to be not on the link between heavy metals and autism, but rather on the link between baby food products and autism. This is a subtle but extremely significant distinction. Why? Because it would be pretty easy to show that heavy metals are linked to autism. The defense wants the question to be whether the baby food products in general can cause autism and ADHD. The way the causation issue is framed will potentially impact how the scientific evidence is presented and evaluated.

June 11, 2024 – Plaintiff and Defense Attorneys Agree to Victim Confidentiality

Toxic metal baby food attorneys on both sides agree that there should be a high level of confidentiality for victims bringing claims. To that end, the lawyers have met and agreed to hat is called an Omnibus Sealing Stipulation. This involves redactions in the Defendants’ Amended Notice of Replacement Personal Injury Bellwether Discovery Pool Selections, focusing on protecting Protected Health Information (PHI) and other non-public materials.

Plaintiffs’ attorneys emphasize the need to seal PHI to prevent potential embarrassment and maintain privacy, citing legal precedents. While the defendants acknowledge the relevance of medical histories to the case, they agree to temporary sealing to avoid disputes, reserving the right to argue for unsealing in the future. The lawyers request that the MDL judge accept their proposed redactions and sealing.

May 28, 2024 – New Lawsuit Alleges that Baby Food Caused Autism in Toddler

A new toxic baby food lawsuit was filed in federal court in California.  The plaintiff, diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder at approximately 2 and a half years old, began consuming baby food products manufactured or sold by Hain Celestial Group, Beech-Nut Nutrition Company, Gerber,  and other unknown companies around 2021. The lawsuit alleges that these baby food products were contaminated with toxic heavy metals, including lead, arsenic, and mercury, at levels exceeding regulatory limits. The plaintiff claims that consuming these contaminated products resulted in significant exposure to these toxic metals, which directly caused brain injuries manifesting as ASD and related conditions such as ADHD. The lawsuit asserts that the defendants failed to warn about the potential risks of toxic metal exposure, and had the plaintiff’s caregivers been aware, they would not have used these baby foods. As a result, the plaintiff suffered significant harm, including conscious pain and suffering, physical injury, and lifelong impairments.

May 14, 2024 – Customer Records May Bolster Plaintiff Claims

A new focus in the litigation has been on “retailer customer loyalty records” as key evidence for plaintiffs. These records could help verify which specific baby food brands and products were purchased. Customer loyalty records, typically linked to rewards or bonus programs, track individual purchasing histories. Plaintiffs or prospective plaintiffs should make a concerted effort to secure this information (or any other purchase records) to bolster their claims.

May 10, 2024 – District Judge Holds Initial Status Conference on Baby Food Lawsuits

U.S. District Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley, recently assigned to oversee pretrial proceedings for lawsuits regarding toxic heavy metals in baby food, will hold an initial status conference today. At the conference, Judge Corley will address initial pretrial proceedings, review joint statements from baby food lawyers on both sides, and consider appointments for leadership roles for the plaintiffs’ legal team. Discussions will also cover procedural suggestions, MDL scheduling orders, and potential early disputes.

The plaintiffs advocate for the first bellwether trials by mid-2025, while the defendants seek to begin the case by first determining whether there is general causation. As for the causation issue, this request has become standard fare in mass tort cases in 2024 and it almost never gets granted.  This would also seem to be the worst scenario for general causation to go first.  There really is no argument that heavy metals are in these foods and that heavy metals cause brain injuries.

April 15, 2024 – All Baby Food Lawsuits Consolidated into California Federal Court

All toxic baby food lawsuits in federal courts nationwide have been merged into a consolidated class action MDL in the Northern District of California. Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley has been designated to preside over this new toxic baby food MDL. The defendants in the MDL encompass prominent baby food producers like Gerber, Beech-Nut, and Campbell Soup Co.  This is big news. We assumed the result would be a flood of news cases after the announcement.  Yet our lawyers’ flow of new calls has not really changed all that much.  It has been pretty consistent over the last year or so.  We expect that will change soon.

March 3, 2024 – New Video Explains Current Status of Baby Food Lawsuits

We have a new baby food lawsuit video explaining where we are in the odd history of this litigation and our lawyers explain our thinking regarding potential settlement amounts in these cases.

February 11, 2024 – State Attorneys Call for Lead and Metal Testing in Baby Food

State attorneys general have reiterated calls for the FDA to mandate lead and other metal testing in baby food. Prompted by recent lead poisoning cases linked to applesauce pouches, the coalition, including AGs from NY, CO, CT, DE, HI, IL, ME, MD, MA, MI, MN, NJ, NM, NV, NC, OR, PA, VT, WA, and WI, seeks stringent measures against metal contamination in infant and toddler foods. For example, the AGs point to lawsuits involving apple cinnamon purée with lead levels vastly exceeding the FDA’s draft guidance limits. Despite previous requests, the FDA’s guidelines remain limited, with established action levels for only one metal in infant rice cereal. The “Closer to Zero” initiative by the FD aimed at setting more action levels has gone nowhere.

January 17, 2024 – Lawyers Win Appeal on Dismissed Claims Against Beech-Nut

Lawyers appealed the dismissal of consumer claims against Beech-Nut Nutrition Company and won. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed this decision and found that deferring to the FDA would cause unnecessary delays. What is the issue with the FDA?

The FDA set in motion its “Closer to Zero: Action Plan for Baby Foods” plan, which initially had set timelines for establishing limits on toxic metals in baby foods. However, since the district court’s decision, the FDA has abandoned these timelines, causing indefinite delays in setting and finalizing action levels for arsenic, cadmium, lead, and mercury.

The Second Circuit Court decided that the delay in the FDA’s decision-making would unnecessarily prolong the case, potentially for several years. It concluded that the potential costs of these delays outweigh any benefits of deferring to the FDA. Thus, they vacated the district court’s dismissal and remanded the case, allowing the litigation against Beech-Nut to proceed. This is helpful because the consumer class action can lay some groundwork for baby food autism lawsuits.

October 11, 2023 – New California Law Requires Baby Food Testing

California has enacted a stringent new law requiring baby food manufacturers to test their products for toxic heavy metals, exceeding current FDA guidelines. Governor Gavin Newsom ratified this law, mandating monthly tests for lead and arsenic in January. By 2025, these results must be publicly disclosed, including if the product aligns with FDA-recommended heavy metal limits. Amidst concerns over the widespread presence of metals in baby foods, this move emphasizes transparency and safety, obliging companies to use QR codes for easy access to results. While manufacturers grapple with compliance, experts foresee the law pushing federal authorities and the entire industry toward stricter safety standards.

September 17, 2023 – Beech-Nut Urges Appeals Court to Hold Dismissal of Baby Food Lawsuits

Beech-Nut is urging the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, a federal appeals court, to maintain the dismissal of consumer lawsuits alleging deception regarding heavy metals in baby foods. Parents claim Beech-Nut concealed lead, arsenic, and other heavy metals, resulting in overpayment. Beech-Nut contends that determining the safety of trace metals in baby food requires the FDA’s expertise. The company asserts that the FDA, rather than the courts, is better equipped to address the issues. Of course, they do.  They do not want to explain themselves in front of a jury. This is a consumer class action, not an autism or ADHD lawsuit.

September 2, 2023 – New California Law Requires Monthly Testing of Baby Food

AB 899, approved by California officials, mandates monthly testing of baby food for toxic elements. By 2025, a QR code on products will allow consumers to see test outcomes, and non-compliant foods will be prohibited from being sold.

August 15, 2023 – California Judge Rules Against the Admission of Expert Testimony

A judge in California has ruled that expert testimony establishing a link between heavy metals in baby food and autism is not admissible in court. The judge concluded that the expert opinions were based on speculation and, therefore, failed to satisfy the scientific reliability standards required for admission in court. This is a potentially fatal setback for the toxic baby food lawsuits.

July 9, 2023 – Texas Family Appeals for Reinstatement of Lawsuit Against Hain and Whole Foods

A family from Texas has appealed for the reinstatement of their lawsuit against Hain Celestial Group Inc. and Whole Foods Market Inc., blaming the heavy metals in Hain’s baby food for their son’s brain damage. The boy developed normally until nearly age 3, then regressed and lost his ability to communicate. They assert that the district court wrongly dismissed Whole Foods and refused to return the case to Texas state court.

After the case proceeded against Hain Celestial, the court ruled in Hain’s favor midtrial, asserting the plaintiff’s failure to prove that heavy metals caused the alleged harm. The family contends they presented evidence tying the heavy metals to their son’s condition, warranting a jury trial, and they request the judgment be reversed or a new trial ordered.

June 12, 2023 – Consumer Reports Study Finds Heavy Metals in Baby Food

A recent Consumer Reports study has highlighted the ongoing presence of heavy metals – including arsenic, cadmium, and lead – in certain baby food brands, echoing concerns first raised five years ago. Despite mounting pressure on manufacturers to create safer baby foods, prominent brands like Earth’s Best Organic, Gerber, and Hot Kid still have various amounts of these metals in their products.

These harmful contaminants can lower children’s IQs and result in developmental issues. The report accentuates the urgency for the Food and Drug Administration to establish stricter guidelines on toxic metal limits in baby food. It further noted that foods produced with rice, sweet potatoes, and carrots present the most significant risk, mainly due to their cultivation practices. Consumer Reports plans to persist in testing for heavy metal contamination in baby foods and other products.

May 20, 2023 – FDA Removes Deadlines on Guidelines for Heavy Metals in Baby Food

We all should have seen this coming. The FDA has quietly removed the deadlines for setting guidelines on heavy metals in baby food from its website. Two months ago, the FDA published proposed action levels for lead in some foods consumed by babies and young children, including fruits, vegetables, yogurts, and single-ingredient meats. Does anyone think there was some behind-the-scenes lobbying at the FDA?  Meanwhile, there may be a better path to clean up metals in baby food. The first baby food autism lawsuit to trial will be in California on May 2, 2023.

March 4, 2023 – Lawmakers Criticize FDA’s Failure to Address Concerns of Heavy Metals in Baby Food

A group of lawmakers on Capitol Hill sent a letter to FDA Commissioner Robert Califf, criticizing his agency for continued delays in addressing concerns about the level of toxic heavy metals in baby food products. The letter demands that the FDA take immediate action to expedite final regulatory guidance for the baby food industry on the acceptable levels of certain toxic metals in food products. In 2021, the FDA indicated it would release new guidance for heavy metals in baby food. But that process has been exceedingly slow.

January 15, 2023 – FDA Publishes Proposed Regulations for Lead Levels in Baby Food

The FDA finally published its new proposed regulations for the maximum safe lead levels in baby food products. The new rules prohibit baby food products from exceeding ten parts per billion lead levels. Once the regulations are finalized, the FDA will be allowed to pursue enforcement actions against baby food companies that sell higher-quality products.

November 12, 2022 – Lawsuits Against Plum Dismissed

One of the consumer class action cases involving heavy metals in baby foods against Plum was dismissed last month for failure to state a claim. In dismissing the case, a federal judge in New Jersey held that the plaintiffs did not have viable consumer fraud claims because they couldn’t show that they suffered financial harm.

The plaintiffs claimed they were defrauded because they purchased baby food, thinking it was safe, when it contained toxic heavy metals. According to the judge, the plaintiffs had not claimed because they could not show that the baby food was valueless. We would like to see these cases succeed, but they have nothing to do with the merits of how baby food autism claims are being pursued.

October 25, 2022 – Baby Food Companies File Motions to Dismiss Cases

Toxic baby food lawsuits have been pushed aside a bit with the effort to seek a Tylenol autism class action lawsuit. But there are now over 100 lawsuits pending against baby food manufacturers claiming that they failed to warn about the presence of toxic heavy metals in their products.

Recently, baby food companies such as Beech-Nut have filed motions seeking to dismiss many of these cases. The arguments made in these motions give us a good summary of what the defense strategy is going to be in these cases. First, the baby food companies will argue that inadequate scientific evidence shows that their products cause autism or are otherwise unsafe. Second, the baby food companies will assert a preemption defense because the FDA has confirmed that their products are safe and that the tort claims conflict with the FDA’s authority to regulate heavy metals in baby foods.

July 18, 2022 – Fourteen New Lawsuits Allege Toxic Metals in Baby Food Caused Autism in Children

We have been watching all the new toxic baby food lawsuits filed in federal courts recently. In the previous six months, 14 new lawsuits have been filed against baby food manufacturers alleging that toxic metals in their products caused children to develop autism spectrum disorder. Nurture, Inc., the manufacturer of HappyBaby Organics products sold at Walmart, has been the most frequently named defendant, with seven new cases against it. Gerber is the second most common defendant, with 4 cases, and Hain Celestial and Sprout Foods are tied for third, with 3 cases each.

May 13, 2022 – California Judge Denies Motion to Exclude Plaintiff’s Testimony 

This month, a judge in California denied a motion by a group of baby food manufacturers that sought to exclude expert testimony suggesting that there may be a causal link between heavy metals in baby foods and the development of autism and ADHD.

This is the most significant development in the history of this litigation. The ruling in this baby food autism lawsuit – NC v. Han Celestial, et al. (Superior Ct. of Cal., Los Angeles County – means a jury will get to decide the merits of these lawsuits.

In this case, the family’s lawsuit alleges that ingesting heavy metals in baby foods caused their son’s autism. To establish the necessary causation evidence, the plaintiff retained four expert witnesses (who we list below) who testified that lead, arsenic, and/or mercury can be a significant factor in causing autism and ADHD.

The defendants sought to prevent the case from moving forward by seeking the dismissal of all four experts because their opinions were scientifically flawed and undermined by “analytical gaps.” The judge denied this motion in a lengthy 61-page opinion and allowed the case to proceed. This ruling could be significant for the viability of toxic baby food lawsuits.