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 December 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. There will be trial in state court in California in January 2025 that may kickstart this litigation.

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:

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 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.

December 3, 2024 – MDL Grows to 75 Cases

November saw 23 new cases added to the toxic baby food MDL, up from 20 in October. This brings the pending case count to 75.

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 has 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 20, 2024 – Vulnerable Babies 

The big thing to remember in this litigation is that infants are not miniature adults—their metabolic systems are less efficient at detoxifying heavy metals, and their rapid brain development makes them uniquely vulnerable to even low-level exposures. Defendants will argue that this vulnerability does not equate to causation, asserting that plaintiffs must demonstrate a specific link between their product’s heavy metal levels and the alleged harm. They are right.  But there is a link and their is science that supports the link and it we can demonstrate this with individual plaintiffs.

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.

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.

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.

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 a