Baby Food Autism Lawsuits: Updates and Settlements (November 2024)

The discovery of electronically stored information (ESI) is a key issue in this multidistrict litigation. The plaintiffs want to see documents and correspondence from the defendant corporations, including both baby food manufacturers and large retailers that sold the food in question. Plaintiffs hope to discover internal and external communications involving:

• Contamination discussions among executives who chose to sell tainted products after learning about possible contamination
• Proof the companies knew about harmful levels of heavy metals in their baby food products but failed to disclose this information to the FDA or the consumers who bought the food
• Product testing results showing unsafe levels of toxic heavy metals that were ignored by the defendants
• FDA documents related to whether the companies followed federal guidelines and regulations
• Where ingredients were sourced from and whether the manufacturers knew about contamination and continued to use those sources
• Other revealing information to help the plaintiffs build a strong case against the named defendants.

The LLN team will continue to monitor this important controversy and report back once the court has entered an order addressing these disclosures.

The 5th Circuit has upheld its previous ruling, rejecting a request by Whole Foods and Hain Celestial Group to rehear a lawsuit regarding toxic baby food. The case, filed by a family on behalf of their minor child, alleges that harmful metals such as arsenic, lead, cadmium, and mercury in baby food sold by Hain through Whole Foods caused their toddler to suffer mental and physical deterioration.

After being transferred to federal court—where the defendants initially prevailed on summary judgment—the Fifth Circuit determined that the case should stay in Texas state court due to the plaintiffs' clarified breach-of-warranty and negligence claims against Whole Foods.

A recent study published in Environmental Geochemistry and Health identifies ingredients like rice, corn, and spinach as primary sources of heavy metal contamination in baby food. Researchers from the University of Delaware found that rice cultivated in waterlogged fields tends to absorb more arsenic, while crops grown in drier conditions contain higher levels of cadmium. Attorneys representing the plaintiffs in this MDL claim that baby food companies have not taken adequate steps to reduce the levels of heavy metals in these essential ingredients, despite the associated health risks.

At the Case Management Conference held at the end of August, the court issued several rulings to help move this litigation forward. First, the defendants must disclose the results from baby food tests looking for heavy metals and the product formulas covering the years 2012 through 2021. The defendants also tested the water used to make the baby food, and they must provide those test results to see if heavy metals were present in the water during that same time frame.

The court also ordered the defendants to name any third-party entities that were involved in making the baby food during the same time period. The defendants must also explain the steps taken to preserve evidence for these cases and when the preservation began.

Lastly, both sides are ordered to create and submit an agreed proposal regarding electronically stored information (ESI) by September 19th, including any points of contention and arguments in support of each position. Future court conferences are scheduled for September 26th, November 7th, and December 12th.

The next hearing in the heavy metal baby food lawsuit MDL is scheduled for Thursday, August 22, 2024, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Judge Corley has set a deadline for the parties to submit a joint statement by noon on August 20, 2024. We expect the joint statement to discuss the ongoing discovery battle. 

Defendants such as Gerber Baby Foods, Beech Nut, Sprout Foods, Happy Family Organics and others allege that plaintiffs’ interrogatories which seek information on the procedures and testing to prevent heavy metal contamination is too broad. 

To date, each major baby food brand has failed to demonstrate rigorous testing procedures to safeguard our most vulnerable members of society from eating tainted baby foods. Numerous studies demonstrate that heavy metals such as arsenic and lead are not only dangerous to human health, they are known to inhibit brain development in toddlers and cause irreversible neurological damage. Consuming baby food contaminated with heavy metals can lead to neurodevelopmental disorders such as autism spectrum disorder and ADHD. 

At the last status conference, a potential discovery conflict was raised in the baby food autism MDL. The plaintiff's leadership (our firm is a member of the PSC) sent the defense a list of general questions about their testing and procedures related to heavy metals in their foods. The defendants objected to the plaintiff's request, claiming that they were too broad for this stage of the lawsuit.

Judge Corley, who is overseeing the toxic baby food lawsuit MDL, has asked the parties to resolve the issue on their own, if possible. We will keep you updated as this issue develops.

This is a vital issue as we are attempting to demonstrate the testing and due diligence or lack thereof performed by defendants such as Beech Not and Gerber. The 2021 congressional subcommittee report went into detail on how a majority of the major baby food brands performed little in the way of testing for heavy metals such as arsenic, lead, mercury, and cadmium. The levels of heavy metals found in popular baby foods are at the heart of the baby food autism lawsuit.

The Baby Food Autism Lawsuit has had some significant developments in August. Let's quickly recap to save you some time:

• Increase in Case Numbers: The number of cases joining the Toxic Baby Food MDL has continued to rise.
• Discovery Phase: The Heavy Metal Baby Food Autism Lawsuits are progressing through the discovery phase, which means that as we speak (or you read...), the plaintiffs are gathering evidence to support their claims.
• Master Complaint Filed: The plaintiffs have filed a master complaint that outlines the common allegations against the baby food manufacturers.
• All Defendants Must Move Forward: The court has ruled that any defendants who have not filed motions to dismiss must now proceed with the case.
• Next Status Conference: The next big development in the Toxic Baby Food Autism case will happen on August 25, 2024, when the next status conference is scheduled.

There was a recent MDL hearing at which the court ruled that any defendant who has appeared in the case and does not file a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction must begin electronic discovery by August 15, 2024.

This means that the defendant baby food manufacturers must start sharing relevant electronic documents and information with the plaintiffs. The next status conference is scheduled for August 24, and an updated joint statement from all parties is due by noon on August 20.

Why is this important?

Moving forward with electronic discovery is crucial for the plaintiffs because it allows them to gather and review important documents and communications related to the case.

This process can uncover evidence that supports their claims, such as internal emails, reports, and other digital records that show what the defendants knew about the risks of their products.

Electronic discovery helps level the playing field by ensuring both sides have access to all relevant information, which is essential for building a strong case and achieving a fair outcome.

The recent developments in the baby food autism lawsuits highlight significant progress and ongoing challenges in the multidistrict litigation (MDL) process. As of August 2024, the litigation has grown to include 27 cases, with more expected to join.

Last week, the lead plaintiff attorneys—with the help of other plaintiff attorneys across the nation—filed their Master Complaint in the Heavy Metals Toxic Baby Food Multi-District Litigation (MDL 3101). 

In the context of this MDL, a "Master Complaint" is a single document that combines all the many different claims against the baby food manufacturers into a comprehensive document. 

The Master Complaint outlines the main allegations and factual claims against the baby food manufacturers who are accused of selling products that contain toxic heavy metals that have been linked to autism and ADHD in children. 

This master complaint’s point is to streamline the litigation process by providing a complete overview of all the different claims so that it’s ultimately easier to manage the numerous individual cases involved. 

Now that you know what a Master Complaint is, you can probably guess what this one said. In short, it stated:

Several major baby food manufacturers sold products contaminated with toxic heavy metals, including lead, arsenic, mercury, cadmium, and aluminum. These toxins lead to children being diagnosed with neurodevelopmental disorders like autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). The defendants in this case include Beech-Nut, Gerber, Earth’s Best Organics, Happy Family Organics, Plum, Sprout grocery store brand, and Walmart’s store brand (Parent’s Choice). Each company failed to adequately test its products, used ingredients known to be contaminated, and set dangerously high internal limits for heavy metal content. Finally, these companies continued to sell their products after they already knew about the toxic levels, used faulty test methods to beat regulations, infrequently tested, and in some cases, did not test their products at all.

This complaint highlights how these companies failed to provide adequate warnings about the presence of heavy metals in their products, the negligence that led to significant harm, including brain injuries, neurodevelopmental disorders, physical and mental suffering, and financial losses due to medical expenses and lifestyle changes for the impacted children and their families.

The plaintiffs are seeking equitable relief, monetary restitution, compensatory and punitive damages, and aim to hold the companies accountable for their actions.

The baby food autism lawsuit centralized in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California has now grown to 28 lawsuits. Further, Judge Corley provided the mechanism for baby food lawyers to file their lawsuits directly into the MDL via a direct filing order. Our firm presently represents over 1000 children with autism in lawsuits alleging that baby food brands such as Gerber, Earth's Best Organic, Walmart branded baby food, Happy Baby, and others knowingly marketed and sold baby food products containing dangerously high levels of arsenic, lead, and mercury. Certain baby food brands, such as Gerber, have failed to issue recalls or provide for rigorous testing of their various products.

Whole Foods and Amazon were accused of negligence in selling allegedly harmful baby food. They filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit, arguing that as retailers, they are not responsible for inspecting or testing the baby food products made by other companies. They claim liability should rest with the manufacturers.

Baby food retailers like Whole Foods and Amazon must ensure the safety of their products, particularly baby food. They argue that the retailers should have conducted proper inspections and tests to identify hazards or defects.

If the litigation results in a large settlement, having a financially strong company like Amazon contribute would be beneficial, as they could fund a settlement without significant financial strain.

We attended the second status conference in the toxic baby food lawsuit today in San Francisco. The biggest issue, as previously discussed, is the definition of general causation. Judge Corley entertained arguments from both parties and opted not to make a ruling from the bench. 

However, the Judge may have tipped her hand by indicating that this argument is essentially moot as both sides have offered similar arguments. This issue will be further explored during litigation. 

Judge Corley is a brilliant legal scholar, but we respectfully disagree and believe the distinction between the two proposed definitions for general causation makes all the difference in this case. General causation should focus on the general harm alleged by plaintiffs, that neurodevelopmental disorders are caused by heavy metals in contaminated baby foods. 

Lawyers from a number of major baby food companies were present and several spoke on the record concerning less consequential discovery issues. Several of the discovery issues addressed included protective orders and protocols for the discovery of electronically stored information (ESI). we anticipate a ruling from Judge Corley 

A fifty-page joint statement has now been submitted to Judge Corley in advance of tomorrow's status conference in the heavy metals in baby food lawsuit pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. 

While the plaintiff's and defendant's positions seem similar, the differences between them are heavily nuanced, and the differences can make or break this litigation for the plaintiffs.

The defendant manufacturers are attempting to paint this lawsuit as an indictment on all baby food products and have stated in their position paper that there is not a single study that demonstrates baby foods cause neurodevelopment disorders. 

However, this is extremely misleading. The plaintiffs believe the focus should be on the actual heavy metals present in specific baby foods. 

There are numerous studies that demonstrate a causal link between exposure to heavy metals such as arsenic and lead and the subsequent diagnosis of a neurodevelopmental disorder such as autism or ADHD. 

Hence, the plaintiffs are attempting to frame the general causation argument around the heavy metals in baby foods, including arsenic, lead, mercury, and cadmium. In contrast, the major baby food brands want a broad general causation question that forces discovery into whether baby food, in general, causes autism spectrum disorder or ADHD. 

We believe this decision is monumental. Asking plaintiffs to prove that baby foods, in general, cause neurodevelopmental disorders may be an insurmountable hurdle. Further, we are and have always alleged this lawsuit is simply about the heavy metals in specific baby food products. Several of the major baby food brands produce a host of baby food products. Some of these baby food products have minimal amounts of heavy metals and are not the concern here

Further down on this page is a list of the actual baby food products with alarmingly high levels of heavy metals such as arsenic and lead. Hence, why the baby food lawsuit has named major baby food brands like Gerber and Beech-Nut as defendants. 

The defendants in the toxic baby food lawsuit have filed a motion stating that in previous similar lawsuits, they followed certain rules for keeping information private and managing electronic data [electronically stored information (ESI)], and everything worked fine. 

They used a quote from the judge stating that the litigation is “more mature than we often see” as a clever opening to their brief, which basically said there's no need to reinvent the wheel since they have already handled ESI successfully, and it has already cost them millions.

Their underlying motive here is to avoid producing new documents, witnesses, or any other new discovery that's not already available. However, that's not how things work. While the previous cases may be similar, they don't include the same details and nuances of this MDL.

Last week, a new toxic baby food lawsuit was filed on behalf of a child from Texas who was diagnosed with autism at the age of three. This claim is being transferred into the MDL. 

His parents say the boy consumed baby food products from Beech-Nut and Gerber starting in 2017 and allege these products contained high levels of toxic heavy metals (lead, arsenic, mercury) that exceed limits created by the FDA and lead to brain injury and Autism Spectrum Disorder.

Lawyers for the plaintiff allege that scientific evidence supports the link between toxic metal exposure and neurodevelopmental disorders.  The lawsuit also argues that if the plaintiff's caregivers had been warned about the risks, the plaintiff would not have consumed the contaminated baby foods and his parents would have avoided them at all costs. The plaintiff's claim is that Ethan consumed Hain's baby food almost exclusively during his early years, which later caused him to suffer from health issues related to heavy-metal poisoning.

Attorney Anthony Russo from Dolman Russo, who is also affiliated with Lawsuit Legal News, has been named to the Plaintiffs' Steering Committee for this multistrict litigation. The LLN team is super excited to be part of the leadership in the toxic baby food MDL.

A major event has occurred in the overall lawsuits against baby food manufacturers for producing products with dangerous levels of heavy metals. The case in question involves the parents of Ethan Palmquist, who allege Whole Foods breached 'express warranties' about the safety of Hain's Earth's Best Organic baby food. 

The plaintiff's claim Ethan consumed Hain's baby food almost exclusively during his early years, which later caused him to suffer from health issues related to heavy-metal poisoning.

Recently, the US Fifth Circuit Court found that the family did, in fact, have sufficient claims against Whole Foods and questioned why the federal court took the case from state court. The case was initially moved to federal court from state court, and despite earlier rulings that favored the defendants, the appellate court found credible claims that Whole Foods could be held liable, especially since their entire brand revolves around product safety and quality.

Whole Foods could now be found liable under Texas law. This decision marks a major turn in the litigation over the safety of popular baby food products, and it could affect many different aspects of the MDL, like the importance of evaluating State claims, the inclusion and consolidation of similar cases in the baby food MDL, and the notion that plaintiffs can clarify their claims to meet federal standards without fundamentally altering them, which may influence the pretrial proceedings and jurisdictional decisions.​

We all know that entering your phone number at Walgreens, using the Target app to pay, or scanning your Costco card is a must so you can get those huge discounts. But did you know that those loyalty programs track every single thing you buy? And they are directly tied to you through your phone number or email, usually both.

Well, that information from retailers' customer loyalty programs could serve as crucial evidence for the plaintiffs in the toxic baby food lawsuits. These programs, which track what people buy and how often, would go a long way toward demonstrating the specific baby food brands and products the injured parties purchased.

These records are stored in customer purchase information systems (such as rewards or bonus programs) that track a customer's buying history and could significantly strengthen the plaintiffs' claims.

The first status conference for the toxic baby food MDL will be held today presided over by Judge Corley, who will address initial pretrial proceedings, review joint statements from plaintiffs and defendants, and consider appointments for leadership roles such as plaintiffs' lead counsel and the Plaintiffs' Steering Committee.

Notably, Attorney Anthony Russo from the law firm Dolman Russo, who works closely with Lawsuit Legal News, was named to the steering committee.

Discussions will also cover procedural issues, the MDL's schedule, and potential early disputes. The plaintiffs are pushing for bellwether trials to be held sooner than later, while the defendants are likely to seek ways to prolong the litigation in an attempt to force injured parties into settling for too little money. This could be a strategic error as the scientific evidence supporting the plaintiffs' case continues to strengthen.

New legislation has been proposed in both houses of Congress to address ongoing concerns about the presence of toxic metals in baby food that are causing harm to the next generation. 

The proposed legislation would require federal regulators to establish and enforce science-based limits on levels of dangerous metals in baby foods, including arsenic, cadmium, lead, and mercury.

Senators Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) and Tammy Duckworth (D-IL) introduced the "Baby Food Safety Act of 2024" on May 9, 2024, "to amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to ensure the safety of food and limit the presence of contaminants in infant and toddler food."

Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-IL) and Tony Cárdenas (D-CA) also introduced a corresponding bill in the US House of Representatives.

If enacted, this legislation would significantly enhance the FDA's authority over baby food regulation and impose stricter requirements on manufacturers for testing and sampling their products. This would go a long way toward ensuring safer food options for parents and caretakers of infants.

During the first four weeks of this multi-district litigation (MDL), 26 cases were consolidated for pretrial procedures. The two most recent cases allege similar facts to support their claims against baby food manufacturers, including Gerber, Beech-Nut Nutrition Company, and others.

Most of these lawsuits are filed by parents on behalf of their children who have been diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) and/or other neurodevelopmental conditions. The parents believe their children were harmed when the child ingested baby food that contained dangerously high levels of heavy metals, including arsenic, mercury, and lead.

The claims allege that baby food manufacturers made and sold food products that exceeded federal regulatory levels of heavy metals, and the companies failed to warn parents about the potential dangers associated with these products. The parents insist they would not have purchased these products or fed them to their children if they had known about these dangers.

These families are requesting compensation related to damages such as brain injuries, ASD, reduced quality of life, pain and suffering, medical expenses, and more. Some plaintiffs are requesting punitive damages, which would deter the baby food makers from harming others in the future.

The LLN team is pleased with the judge who was chosen to head this MDL. Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley has an impressive resume that suits her for this position. A Harvard graduate (manga cum laude), she has worked in the private sector and clerked for various judges before being appointed as a United States Magistrate Judge by President Obama.

Judge Corley also has extensive experience in alternative dispute resolution mediation practices, which will be beneficial when this MDL reaches the settlement discussion phase.

Judge Corley issued the first pretrial order in the recently consolidated heavy metal baby food lawsuits that were centralized in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The initial order was significant for setting a deadline of April 29, 2024, for plaintiff's lawyers to submit an application for the plaintiff's steering committee. The initial hearing has been set for May 16, 2024, in San Francisco. 

The purpose of the initial order was to set procedural guidelines for how toxic baby food cases shall proceed between now and the May 16 hearing. We anticipate this MDL will become a very fast-moving lawsuit.

After a hearing at the end of March, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has ruled on the matter of consolidating the toxic baby food autism lawsuits. Our prediction was right: the JPML officially created a multidistrict litigation for the product liability claims involving children who suffered irreparable brain damage from consuming baby food contaminated with unsafe levels of heavy metals. 

Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley will be responsible for managing the multidistrict litigation. The MDL, which will be held in the Northern District of California, represents positive momentum for the toxic baby food plaintiffs. Major baby food manufacturers, including Gerber, Beech-Nut, and Sprout, were against a multidistrict litigation altogether. 

They also wanted the cases to be transferred to the Southern District of New York in the event that an MDL was formed, which is more convenient to their headquarters. The baby food manufacturers asserted that there was no basis for a multidistrict litigation because MDLs are usually reserved for a large number of plaintiffs and situations where coordinated discovery is needed. 

According to the defendants, the plaintiffs were already well-managed by a few personal injury lawyers and the parties are already prepared to exchange evidence. Plaintiffs refuted the defendants' positions, noting that there are already 11 districts involved, so centralizing the toxic baby food claims in one jurisdiction would make more sense logistically. 

They emphasized that their allegations were rooted in the same set of facts, which is a prerequisite for forming a multidistrict litigation. Additionally, the JPML pointed out that nearly all of the plaintiffs were pursuing product liability claims against multiple baby food manufacturers, making it more difficult to separate the cases.

This represents the second major attempt to create multidistrict litigation regarding children who developed neurodevelopmental disorders like autism and ADHD from baby food containing heavy metals.

Since then, scrutiny has increased as the FDA has found chromium and other heavy metals in baby food. The first effort in 2021 was unsuccessful; the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation decided not to establish an MDL. 

What differentiates the circumstances of the original attempt from the current one is that the heavy metal baby food claims were filed against a single negligent manufacturer. Additionally, the original set of toxic baby food autism lawsuits was transferred to the district where the manufacturer had its headquarters.

Given the geographic spread of jurisdictions and the number of defendants, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation sided with plaintiffs seeking an MDL. The JPML's new ruling is just the beginning for the plaintiffs, although they may reach settlements sooner with an MDL.

The toxic baby food plaintiffs still have to meet the burden of proof for manufacturers to be considered liable for their damages. 

Overall, we believe that the formation of a toxic baby food MDL is a positive for parents of children who were harmed by these tainted products. As personal injury attorneys who concentrate on product liability, our team at LLN is ready to help you navigate the complexities of multidistrict litigation. 

A lawsuit filed in Oakland, CA, is on shaky ground after a U.S. District Judge considers granting summary judgment. The allegations in that case involve the baby food manufacturer Plum Organics' failure to warn parents about potential toxic ingredients in their products. The plaintiffs claim heavy metals and perchlorate in the food lead to thyroid problems.

LLN is following claims that toxic baby food has caused autism, so this case is somewhat similar but different in many important ways. Unfortunately, if the Oakland case fails, it can affect the momentum of the other baby food lawsuits.

On March 28, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) held a hearing to decide if all federal baby food autism lawsuits should be consolidated into an MDL. We expect a decision later this month.

Several baby food manufacturers are opposing the motion to consolidate the pending federal lawsuits that allege certain baby foods have caused Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) and ADHD in children. As mentioned below, parents of children diagnosed with these neurological disorders have filed claims alleging these baby foods contain heavy metals that harmed the babies who consumed them.

The motion to create the MDL was filed in January. However, Gerber Products Co., Beech-Nut Nutrition Co., and Hain Celestial Group Inc., among other food makers, oppose the MDL's formation, claiming there is no need to coordinate all pending federal cases for pretrial processes. We are still waiting to hear from the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) to decide if an MDL is appropriate and the best venue for these cases.

Plaintiff parents whose children were diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder or ADHD after consuming baby food with high levels of heavy metals have requested the formation of a Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) to efficiently address their legal rights. These plaintiffs name various baby food producers as defendants, including big corporations such as:

• Gerber
• Beech-Nut
• Nestle
• Nurture
• Hain
• Campbell
• Danone
• Sprout and
• Walmart

The lawsuits claim these producers sold baby foods that harmed their children because they contained toxic levels of metals, including lead, mercury, and arsenic, that led to their children's neurodevelopmental problems.

If the federal cases are combined, the Panel that will decide the new location could consider Nevada, California, or Louisiana since several cases are currently pending in those court systems. The very first baby food autism lawsuit filed in the country is already scheduled for trial in August 2024, so that case would be excluded from the MDL.

Some of the plaintiffs in the toxic baby food lawsuits have filed a motion for a hearing by the JPML in hopes that their cases will be consolidated in a Multidistrict Litigation (MDL).

If they are successful, an MDL will improve efficiency, streamline the proceedings, allow for consistent rulings, and speed up the process. If the plaintiffs' cases are successful, the MDL will help them receive settlements sooner than through the traditional legal process.

Whether or not the JPML will consolidate the cases is yet to be determined.

Despite the setback they experienced in October, the California plaintiffs are filing an appeal of Judge Riff's dismissal in hopes that they can proceed with their product liability claim against baby food manufacturers. In the meantime, we may receive additional reports on the status of heavy metals in baby food that could help provide further context.

California has begun requiring monthly testing of baby food products for potential contaminants like heavy metals. Consumers will eventually be able to access this information via QR codes on food labels. The passage of this regulation represents a positive step towards holding baby food manufacturers accountable.

Unfortunately, California plaintiffs have not been as successful in this effort as of late. State Court Judge Lawrence Riff dismissed a toxic baby food autism claim after the plaintiff's expert witness testimony failed to meet the standard for admissibility in a Sargon hearing. The judge noted that the amount of conjecture present in the testimony rendered the argument for cause untenable, as did the fact that the child was fed several different baby foods.

Consumer Reports has identified dangerous quantities of lead, cadmium, and arsenic in several popular brands of baby food. These heavy metals have previously been linked to cognitive impairments and developmental issues in children who were exposed to these toxins. Plaintiffs hope to bolster their product liability claims with this information.

In Nevada, a group of plaintiffs has leveled accusations against multiple baby food manufacturers, claiming they are owed punitive and compensatory damages after contaminated baby food led to their children's health issues. Meanwhile, other product liability claims pertaining to tainted baby food have faced mixed results. 

In Texas, a second toxic baby food autism claim was dismissed based on insufficient scientific evidence offered by the plaintiffs. On the other hand, a California toxic baby food autism claim is scheduled for trial in October. Additionally, the FDA has proven to be the source of some obstacles regarding toxic baby food. 

While the FDA did address acceptable lead levels for baby food products, it has yet to provide regulations for other heavy metals. Legislators have reprimanded the FDA for the continued delays in a scathing letter addressed to FDA Commissioner Robert Califf. Many members of the public and Congress felt that this issue should be a priority for the FDA. Despite mounting pressure, the agency has now removed the deadlines it had set to issue guidance on heavy metals from its website.

As a federal agency, the FDA has the authority to propose regulations within the scope of its mandate. The FDA has suggested that lead levels in baby food products, including fruits, vegetables, grain, and meat mixtures, should be capped at 10 parts per billion.

Now, the public can comment on the regulation, as will other government agencies and departments. Once the rulemaking process is complete, the FDA can enforce the new standard.

Plaintiffs in California secured an early success when a judge rejected a motion that would have made their expert testimony inadmissible evidence. Had the court sided with the defendants, the toxic baby food claim would not have been able to proceed because the expert witnesses' testimony was necessary to support the plaintiffs' assertion heavy metals in baby food caused their son's autism. 

This claim is one of a growing number of product liability lawsuits brought against Walmart, though other baby food companies like Gerber are facing similar claims. By the end of 2022, baby food manufacturers began pushing for product liability claims to be dismissed, citing their lack of scientific evidence. Further, they argued that the preemption of federal standards over state laws renders the claims invalid because they complied with the higher authority.

Multiple Investigations Find Unsafe Levels of Heavy Metals in Baby Food

In the last few years, parents of young children have been confronted with multiple crises related to tainted baby food. The news of heavy metals in baby food led to public outcry in 2021, followed by a critical baby formula shortage in 2022. Like infant formula, baby food is subject to stringent regulations to ensure that it is safe for consumption by children. 

When multiple sources raised concerns about the presence of toxins in baby food, parents understandably directed their concerns at agencies like the FDA as well as the baby food manufacturers. The allegations were first made by the Clean Label Project in 2017 after their testing revealed lead in about a third of the 500 baby food products they used. Further inquiries by the FDA and consumer advocacy groups confirmed the presence of lead and other heavy metals in a significant portion of baby food. This campaign culminated in a Congressional investigation. 

In 2021, the results of that probe were made publicly available. Earlier concerns were justified, as the report confirmed that heavy metals were found in baby food products from various companies, particularly in rice and root vegetable-based products. Investigators found evidence that manufacturers did not abide by federal or internal safety standards, nor did they conduct adequate testing. The release of this report initially prompted panic among parents, which has solidified into a wave of product liability lawsuits.