Baby Food Autism Lawsuit

Our lawyers are handling baby food autism lawsuits for families who have a child who has autism as a result of baby foods that contain toxic heavy metals. Our law firm handles these toxic baby food lawsuits in all 50 states.

This page gives you an update on these suits in 2024 and offers predictions of the settlement amounts victims can expect if these baby food autism claims are successful.

Several major brands of baby food contain dangerously high levels of toxic heavy metals such as arsenic, lead, and mercury. These toxic substances cause neurologic and other health problems in developing children. Consumption of these toxic baby foods may be linked to developing conditions such as ADHD and autism. Our law firm focuses on children with autism who are six and under.

As of November 2024, this litigation is heating up again, as plaintiffs now have an MDL class action lawsuit in federal court for baby food toxic metal injuries. These are lawyers – good, smart lawyers – who think this will be historic litigation in terms of the amount of the settlement and the change these claims will bring in terms of how baby food is made in this country.

This page will provide the latest news and updates on the toxic baby food litigation, as well as our predictions on the potential settlement value of these cases.

Our attorneys are talking to parents who want to file a toxic baby food autism lawsuit in 2024. Call 800-553-8082 or contact us online for a free consultation.

Toxic Baby Food Autism Lawsuit Updates 

Our law firm is committed to bringing you the latest news and updates in this litigation:

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.

November 1, 2024 – 20 New Cases Added to MDL

The toxic metal baby food MDL continues to grow slowly. In October, 20 new toxic baby cases were added to the class action MDL, nearly doubling its size and bringing the total number of pending cases from 32 to 52. Lawyers are collecting these claims but are not in a rush to file suit unless there is a deadline to file that must be met.

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.  If 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.

September 30, 2024 – Status hearing Last Thursday

September 20, 2024 – Electronic Discovery Battles

The parties in the case have reached significant agreements on a proposed ESI Order (Electronically Stored Information) and a Protective Order but still face three areas of dispute. The first disagreement, regarding applying the ESI protocol to plaintiffs’ discovery, was initially settled but has resurfaced. The second dispute involves the applicability of the order to retailer defendants, and the third concerns the collection of hyperlinked documents. Despite ongoing negotiations for over four months, a resolution has not been fully achieved.

Several court orders have been issued throughout this process, with deadlines for submitting proposed orders being extended. The plaintiffs argue that requiring the same ESI protocol for both large corporations and individual plaintiffs would place an undue burden on plaintiffs. They propose a two-step process, commonly used in MDL (multi-district litigation) cases, to address discovery for plaintiffs and the bellwether selection process.

Additionally, plaintiffs argue that the ESI protocol should apply to retailer defendants, as they have refused to engage in negotiations. Plaintiffs contend that exempting retailer defendants from the protocol will cause unnecessary delays and complications. Plaintiffs request that the court adopt their proposed ESI and Protective Orders.

This all sounds like boring lawyer stuff, right?  It does. But it could also be the key to this litigation. ESI will play a pivotal role in heavy metal baby food lawsuits because it provides key evidence about the companies’ knowledge, actions, and internal communications regarding the presence of heavy metals in their products.

Internal emails, chats, and other digital communications can reveal whether the company was aware of harmful levels of metals like arsenic, lead, cadmium, or mercury in baby food and chose not to disclose this information to consumers or regulators. For instance, ESI might uncover internal conversations between employees or executives discussing product contamination but deciding to continue selling the products without addressing safety concerns.

ESI also includes important digital records of product testing and research. These documents may show whether companies had conducted internal testing that revealed unsafe levels of heavy metals, and whether they ignored these findings in favor of continuing production. Similarly, communications with regulatory agencies like the FDA are critical in determining whether the company followed legal guidelines or attempted to downplay findings of heavy metals in their products. ESI could expose correspondence where companies disputed regulatory findings or misrepresented the safety of their products in discussions with the FDA.

ESI related to the company’s supply chain is also crucial. It will show how ingredients were sourced and whether the company was aware of contamination risks from suppliers. Did they know the metals in the rice they were buying higher than they could get elsewhere and kept on buying that rice anyway?   Internal records or contracts with suppliers might reveal knowledge of contaminated ingredients that were still used in production any how little effort it would take to make a safer product for children to consume.

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 “Parent’s Choice,” as responsible for selling products that exceeded internal and FDA limits for toxic heavy metals.

September 3, 2024 – MDL Decreases in Size

The number of pending cases in the toxic baby food class action MDL dropped from 31 to 30 over the past month. While a few new cases were transferred in, a few others were dismissed or remanded to state courts.

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 manufactured. 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 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.

June 1, 2024 – Five New Cases Added to New Baby Food MDL

Last month, five new cases were added to the newly formed MDL. In May, however, not a single new case was added to the toxic baby food class action MDL. The current case count still stands at 25.

More Baby Food Lawsuit Updates

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.

May 5, 2024 – Five New Cases Added to Baby Food MDL

In the initial month since its inception, five new cases were integrated into the ongoing toxic baby food class action MDL, elevating the tally of pending cases to 25. The trajectory of this MDL’s expansion will be interesting. The pool of potential plaintiffs appears notably vast.

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, they 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 dismiss their 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” play, 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 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.

December 12, 2023 – Court Dismisses Two Baby Food Lawsuits

Plaintiffs in toxic baby food lawsuits have been unsuccessful so far. Two different cases alleging that heavy metals in baby foods caused autism have been pressed forward, and both of them were eventually dismissed. Our toxic baby food lawyers have new optimism about these cases as we head into 2024. We are currently accepting baby food autism cases from anyone who meets our eligibility criteria.

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 Capital 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 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.

Baby Foods Found to be Contaminated With Toxic Heavy Metals

In February 2021, the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Economic and Consumer Policy released a bombshell report revealing that several major baby food brands contain dangerous toxins. The shocking findings in the Subcommittee Report resulted from a long-term investigation into the safety of certain brands of baby food sold in the U.S.

The Subcommittee Report found that many top baby food brands (including Gerber and Earth’s Best) were tainted with unsafe levels of hazardous heavy metals, including arsenic, lead, cadmium, and mercury. Consumption of these metals, even in small amounts, is hazardous to a developing child’s brain.

Both the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) have warned about the dangers of these toxic elements. According to the FDA, research studies show that consumption or exposure to these heavy metals can be particularly hazardous for babies and young children. Specifically, these toxic elements cause neurologic damage and interfere with brain development in children.

The Subcommittee Report also found that the manufacturers knew their baby food contained these high levels of known toxins. According to the report, Gerber and other baby food manufacturers set standards for the “safe” levels of these elements in their products. Moreover, the investigation found that food makers routinely ignore their own already high standards despite internal testing showing excessive levels of these heavy metals in baby food.

Tainted Baby Foods Can Cause Brain Damage and Neurologic Disorders

The symptoms of toxic heavy metal poisoning and the symptoms of autism are very similar. This is why many doctors believe early neurotoxic poisoning from these heavy metals in baby food, such as lead, cadmium, and mercury, are a potential cause or contributing factor in a child’s autism.

So if your child consumed Gerber, Earth’s Best, or other baby food brands that contained high levels of heavy metals, they may have suffered neurologic and developmental delays from the metals in those foods. Studies have shown that childhood exposure to these heavy metals can cause brain damage, reducing intelligence and behavioral problems.

Medical studies have long linked consumption of these metals in childhood to a substantial decrease in adult IQ and a reduced lifetime earning capacity.

Arsenic & Lead Levels in Contaminated Baby Food

Arsenic is a highly toxic substance that is often used as a poison. The Subcommittee Report found some levels of inorganic arsenic in all baby food brands tested. However, two brands with very high levels were considered unsafe by the FDA: Gerber and Earth’s Best.

The FDA has set the maximum safe level of arsenic in food or water at ten parts per billion (“ppb”). Testing found that Earth’s Best brand of baby food (manufactured by Hain Celestial Group, Inc.) contained arsenic at 129 ppb – 13 times the level considered safe by the FDA. Testing of Gerber brand baby foods found arsenic at 90 ppb.

The same two baby food brands also found unsafe levels of lead. Earth’s Best baby food contained 352 ppb of lead, and Gerber brand food contained 48 ppb. By comparison, the FDA has set maximum safe lead levels for bottled water at five ppb. This means the tainted baby food contained 70 times the maximum safe lead level.

(This makes the Earth’s Best particularly offensive, right? Parents are drawn to the Earth’s Best label in a world awash with chemicals in our food. It certainly does not sound like baby food that has 70 times the safe level of heavy metals.)

• So many people ask how this could happen in 2024. This Politico article does an excellent job of explaining how we still allow toxic metals in children’s food

Lead in Baby Food Causes Autism and Other Brain Injuries

Lead is a toxic heavy metal our lawyers are familiar with from lead paint lawsuits. It is a neurotoxin and carcinogen. Lead resembles other metals that a child needs. So it is easily absorbed into body tissue. Lead has a depressing ability to damage and kill cells in the body. This toxic metal also has an extended half-live, which gives it time to do even more significant damage. The half-life of leads lasts for up to 30 years – 30 years! – in the child’s bones.

What is a safe level of lead for a baby? The FDA, CDC, WHO, EPA, AMA, and AAP (American Academy of Pediatrics) have told us there is no safe lead level for children.

Cadmium in Baby Food Causes Autism and Other Brain Injuries

While less well known than lead, cadmium is also a toxic heavy metal for babies and a known neurotoxin and carcinogen. It is one of only six hazardous substances banned in Europe in electrical and electronic equipment because of the risks to humans.

Also, like lead, Cadmium has a low excretion rate from the body, especially in the kidneys and liver. Cadmium exposure also has been shown to affect kidneys and bones and increase cancer risk adversely. Just as concerning, Cadmium also functions as an endocrine disruptor which can impact a baby’s neurodevelopment.

Mercury in Baby Food Causes Autism and Other Brain Injuries

Mercury is a neurotoxin that causes a baby to suffer brain damage. This chemical attacks the nervous system and, like cadmium, has a particular impact on the kidneys and liver. Mercury has been shown to cause brain injuries, tremors, vision or hearing loss, and memory and other cognitive problems. There is also an association between autism and mercury levels. Autistic children have higher serum levels of blood mercury.  Exposure to high levels of mercury can lead to mercury poisoning, which can cause a range of symptoms, including tremors, memory loss, depression, and other injuries.

Arsenic in Baby Food Causes Autism and Other Brain Injuries

Inorganic arsenic is #1 on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s priority list of hazardous substances. The body absorbs arsenic primarily via the digestive tract and the respiratory system.

Arsenic is known to be toxic to the human body when consumed in high amounts, and it has been linked to a number of adverse health outcomes, including cancer, cardiovascular disease, and developmental problems. However, the evidence supporting a direct link between arsenic exposure and autism is limited and inconclusive.

Even in trace amounts, arsenic can cause brain injuries, including autism. There is no question that arsenic can cause deficits in children’s cognitive function and behavioral performance.

Example of a Baby Food Autism Lawsuit

Shortly after the release of the Congressional Report detailing the extent of heavy metal contamination in various major baby food brands, baby food autism lawsuits were filed around the country. These product liability lawsuits asserted that the baby food manufacturers knowingly made products contaminated with toxic heavy metals and that the plaintiffs (or their children) developed autism from consuming these tainted baby food foods.

A good example of one of these toxic baby food autism lawsuits is the case of Ibert v. Plum, et al., 4:21-cv-02066 (N.D. Cal.), filed in federal court in California. The 53-page complaint in Ibert lays out a detailed narrative of the discovery of dangerous levels of heavy metals in baby foods, beginning with the HBBF report and the subsequent congressional investigation. The complaint also details the numerous published studies identifying the link between autism and exposure to arsenic, mercury, lead, and other heavy metals during infancy.

In the “Plaintiff-Specific Allegations” section, this toxic baby food lawsuit states that the plaintiff (a minor bringing the case through his mother) regularly consumed baby food products manufactured by the defendant manufacturers (Hain Celestial, Plum, Beech-Nut, Gerber, and Sprout). The lawsuit asserts that these foods were contaminated with various heavy metals and that “prevailing scientific evidence” consumption of these metals in the food caused the plaintiff to develop autism.

The complaint goes on to plead seven separate product liability causes of action. The causes of action included strict liability claims for failure to warn, design defect, and manufacturing defect. The four negligence claims in this baby food autism lawsuit were based on the same three theories, plus an additional claim for negligent misrepresentation. But the core of it is that these baby foods are tainted with toxic heavy metals that caused autism.

Lawsuits Against Manufacturers of Toxic Baby Food

The Subcommittee Report revealing the contamination levels of Gerber and Earth’s Best baby food brands led to an immediate round of product liability lawsuits. So far, around 20 separate heavy metal autism lawsuits have been filed across the country against Geber, Hain Celestial, and other manufacturers.

Hundreds, possibly thousands more baby food autism lawsuits claiming a link between heavy metals and autism will likely be filed in the coming months. Plaintiffs in pending baby food lawsuits have already filed a motion asking the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to consolidate all toxic baby food cases into a new MDL in the Southern District of New York. If granted, this could set the stage for a new class action involving contaminated baby food.

The lawsuits are being filed by parents who fed the contaminated baby foods to children later diagnosed with various neurologic and/or cognitive disorders or developmental/behavioral conditions. Mainly based on the findings in the Subcommittee Report, the lawsuits allege that the baby food manufacturers knew that their baby food products contained dangerously high levels of toxic metals such as lead and arsenic. The claims assert that the manufacturers intentionally concealed and/or failed to disclose these contamination levels to consumers.

Is There a Baby Food Class Action Lawsuit for Autism?

There is now an MDL baby food class action lawsuit that alleges these products cause autism or other neurological injuries. These lawsuits were being pursued as individual autism lawsuits around the country. Now we have consolidation for all federal court lawsuits.

A baby food class action lawsuit is a mixed bag for victims. Yes, it makes it easier for plaintiffs who often get a settlement payout without much pre-suit discovery. But the settlement amounts are sometimes higher with individual lawsuits because you have a better chance of getting a trial date (which facilitates larger settlement amounts, and you can go to trial and get a verdict).

Consumer Baby Food Class Action Lawsuit

Thirteen plaintiffs filed a new consumer class-action lawsuit in February 2022 in California against a group of baby food manufacturers, including Beech-Nut, Nuture Inc., Plum Inc., and Gerber. This class action lawsuit claims that the defendants violated consumer protection laws by falsely marketing their baby food products as safe when they knew they contained toxic heavy metals.

The plaintiffs are all general consumers who purchased baby foods manufactured by the defendants. None of the plaintiffs claim that their children developed neurological damage or other adverse health effects from consuming the baby food. Instead, they are pursuing purely economic damages for themselves and other class members.

The complaint contains a general fact allegation section which recites in detail the findings published in a U.S. Congressional Report last year revealing alarmingly high levels of toxic metals like arsenic and lead in various baby foods made by the defendants. The complaint sets forth eight causes of action, including two California consumer protection statutes violations.

It is an all too common trope to dismiss these types of cases because only the lawyers make any money from them. But that charge has some truth with consumer class action lawsuits like this.

What Settlement Amounts Can We Expect in the Autism Baby Food Lawsuits?

In most lawsuits like these baby food claims, any settlement amount the victims receive is proportionate to the injuries suffered. The potential injuries in these lawsuits are catastrophic, and the damages last a lifetime in terms of pain and suffering and lost earning potential of the victims.

So the damages in baby food lawsuits can quickly get into the millions of dollars. This drives settlement compensation payout. Frankly, this is why you see more baby food attorneys seeking new clients. The settlement value of autism baby food lawsuits, if successful, will be substantial. The average individual settlement amounts in successful cognitive injury class action could range between $500,000 and $1.5 million.

Is There a Baby Food Class Action Lawsuit?

In 2024, the baby food lawsuits are gaining new interest. This resurgence has led to an initiative to consolidate existing lawsuits into a Multi-District Litigation (MDL), despite facing opposition from major baby food companies like Gerber and Walmart. This proposed MDL aims to streamline the legal process for a toxic baby food lawsuit while respecting the individuality of each claim, ensuring tailored compensation for the unique damages suffered by each family.

The MDL court agreed that the baby food lawsuits in federal court should be consolidated and there is now an MDL class action lawsuit pending in federal court in California.

What Are the Eligibility Requirements for a Toxic Baby Food Lawsuit?

There are not requirements for eligibility to file baby food autism lawsuit.  But, of course, different law firms have different exclusions.  Most of the claims we exclude are for these reasons:

1. Parental Age at Conception
   • Neither parent was over the age of 50 when the child was conceived.
2. Exposure to Substances During Pregnancy
   • No exposure to alcohol, recreational drugs, or tobacco during pregnancy.
3. Gestational Diabetes or Severe Complications
   • No diabetes, including gestational diabetes, diagnosed during pregnancy.
4. Preterm Birth and Delivery Trauma
   • No delivery before 37 weeks or major birth-related trauma (e.g., lack of oxygen at birth).
5. Exclusion of Genetic Syndromes
   • No diagnosis of conditions like Fragile X, Rett Syndrome, Timothy Syndrome, or Tuberous Sclerosis.
6. Infections During Pregnancy
   • No maternal infections during pregnancy, such as rubella, influenza, or cytomegalovirus.
7. Lead and Pesticide Exposure
   • No history of lead poisoning or exposure to heavy pesticides during pregnancy or childhood.
8. Family History
   • No direct family history of the same condition (e.g., ASD or ADHD) or severe mental health disorders, like schizophrenia or bipolar disorder.
9. Use of Anti-Seizure Medications or Thalidomide
   • No use of anti-convulsant drugs or thalidomide during pregnancy.
10. Threatened Abortion or Premature Membrane Rupture

• No incidents of bleeding (threatened abortion) or early rupture of membranes before full-term pregnancy.

11. Product Use Duration

• Continuous consumption of identified products for at least 9 to 12 months before diagnosis.

12. Severe Viral or Bacterial Illnesses in Child

• No history of major viral infections or significant neurological complications post-birth.

13. Weight at Birth

• Birth weight not less than 5.5 lbs.

14. Parents’ Age Range for Diagnosis

• Both parents need to be under 50

15. Time Limit for Cases

• Diagnoses must be within the last 10 years for autism and 15 years for ADHD.

16. Absence of Complications During Labor

• No complications like toxemia, antepartum hemorrhage, or eclampsia reported during delivery.

17. Brain Trauma or Injury

• No significant head injuries or neurological trauma throughout the child’s development.

18. Threatened Preterm Labor

• Pregnancy carried without early labor scares or need for emergency interventions.

19. Cord Prolapse or Blockage Issues

• No incidents of umbilical cord prolapse affecting oxygen supply at birth.

20. Oxygen Deprivation Events

• No reported events of severe oxygen deprivation before or after birth leading to cognitive impairment.

This is not all of the exclusions our law firm has. But this covers most of it. Still, the lion’s share of calls we get qualify for a baby food lawsuit with our firm.

Hiring a Baby Food Lawyer

Our committed attorneys strive to ensure that responsible companies are held accountable and justice is served for the impacted families and individuals. Reach out to discover how we can assist you on your journey towards compensation. We are paid on a contingency fee which means there is only a cost of expense to you if we get your family a compensation payout.

Get in touch with our team now for a complimentary consultation at 800-553-8082, or reach out to our law firm online.