Baby Food Autism Lawsuit

January 6, 2025 – Finally We Have Guidance on Toxic Metals in Baby Food

The FDA has finalized guidance setting maximum lead levels for baby foods to reduce early childhood exposure to the toxic heavy metal. The new action levels, part of the agency’s “Closer to Zero” initiative, are 10 parts per billion (ppb) for processed baby foods made from fruits, vegetables, grains, meats, yogurts, and custards, and 20 ppb for single-ingredient root vegetables and dry infant cereals. While the guidance is not legally binding, it establishes thresholds that the FDA may use when deciding on enforcement actions against manufacturers.

January 3, 2025 – 12 New Cases Added to MDL

Twelve new cases were added to the heavy metal baby food MDL in federal court. That brings the total pending case count in the MDL up to 88. There was a lot of excitement for a trial this month but that trial has been postponed until June.

December 31, 2024: Ruling on Walmart Discovery Issue

The plaintiffs had been making a very aggressive effort to prevent Walmart and its lawyers from having any communications with its co-manufacturers regarding subpoenas issued by the plaintiffs. Judge Corely apparently did agree on the importance of this. In an Order issued last week, Judge Corely declined to prohibit Walmart from discussing the subpoenas with its co-manufacturers. She did, however, instruct Walmart to “facilitate” meetings and conferences between the co-manufacturers and plaintiffs’ counsel before the subpoena responses.

December 12, 2024: Case Management Conference Today

There is a status conference today. Here is the agenda:

1. Identification of the discovery Plaintiffs require from Parent Defendants for general causation proceedings.
2. Identification of the discovery Plaintiffs require from Walmart’s co-manufacturers for general causation proceedings.
3. Schedule for expert discovery.
4. Deadline for the parties to submit competing proposals for initial Plaintiff fact sheets.
5. Plaintiffs’ production of loyalty program information to Defendants.
6. Deadline for submitting a joint letter regarding discovery disputes related to Defendants’ interrogatory responses.
7. Page limits for future case management conference statements.
8. Rescheduling the May 29, 2025, further case management conference to May 22, 2025, at 9:00 a.m.

December 3, 2024 – Motion to Dismiss Filed in MDL

Yesterday, the major baby food manufacturers filed a motion to dismiss all claims in the MDL. In their motion, the defendants argue that the claims lack scientific evidence and fail to establish a direct causal link between heavy metal exposure in baby food and the development of autism.

The defendants maintain that the levels of heavy metals in their products are unavoidable and stem from naturally occurring elements in the environment. They further argue that the plaintiffs have not demonstrated that the companies acted with negligence or malice, asserting compliance with existing federal safety standards. The motion also contends that the lawsuits rely on speculative connections rather than definitive scientific studies to support the allegations.

In addition to challenging the causation argument, the defendants claim that the lawsuits would interfere with federal regulation of baby food, asserting that the FDA has the sole authority to regulate contaminants in food products. They argue that litigation in state and federal courts creates inconsistent standards that could disrupt a uniform regulatory framework, so plaintiffs’ claims are preempted.

These are really hard arguments to make, especially at this stage of the litigation. First, while heavy metals may naturally occur in small quantities, plaintiffs argue that the manufacturers failed to take reasonable measures to reduce contamination or warn parents about the risks. Is their argument really that since there are some heavy metals, there is no way there can be too many heavy metals in baby food? The argument is ridiculous.

Additionally, the hide behind the FDA defense is really not well suited for this litigation. And the assertion that causation has not been proven is extremely premature, and it ignores a growing body of research suggesting that heavy metals contribute to neurodevelopmental issues, including autism and ADHD. These shortcomings make it extremely unlikely that any part of this motion to dismiss will succeed.

November 25, 2024 – Maryland Joins California

If the federal government will not step up, maybe the states can protect children on their own. Effective January 1, 2025, Maryland’s “Rudy’s Law” mandates that baby food manufacturers test their products for toxic heavy metals, including arsenic, cadmium, lead, and mercury. This legislation, inspired by the lead poisoning case of young Rudy Callahan, excludes infant formula from its requirements.

Key provisions of Rudy’s Law include:

• Testing Requirements: Manufacturers must conduct monthly tests on representative samples of each production batch using proficient laboratories.
• Disclosure and Labeling: Starting January 1, 2026, manufacturers are required to:
  • Publish on their websites the levels of each toxic heavy metal present in their baby food products, along with identifiable product information.
  • Provide a link to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) website detailing the health effects of toxic heavy metals on children.
  • Include on product labels a statement directing consumers to a QR code for testing information, provided the product has been tested for metals subject to FDA action levels.
• Sales Prohibition: Baby food containing toxic heavy metals exceeding FDA-established limits cannot be sold in Maryland, except for products manufactured before January 1, 2026.
• Consumer Reporting: Consumers who, based on QR code information, believe a baby food product exceeds FDA’s toxic heavy metal limits are encouraged to report it to the Maryland Department of Health.

Maryland is the second state, after California, to implement such testing requirements. Similar legislation is under consideration in Pennsylvania, and federal legislation—the Baby Food Safety Act of 2024—is being proposed to enforce nationwide limits on toxic heavy metals in baby food. This takes us back to yesterday’s update—will having Kennedy at HHS change the landscape? But you know there is going to be a counterweight of millions in lobbyist looking to protect the profits of the baby food manufacturers.

Given the FDA’s ongoing efforts, foot-dragging on finalizing guidance on lead levels and addressing other heavy metals in baby foods, it is good to see the states stepping up and trying to make a difference.

November 22, 2024 – Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and Heavy Metals in Food

RFK Jr. is well-known for his controversial views on public health. One of his least contentious positions is his concern about heavy metals in food. If confirmed as HHS Secretary, he will indirectly align with plaintiffs in these lawsuits.

This alignment is especially significant under a Republican administration. Historically, Republicans have been strong supporters of Big Food, often serving as a counterbalance to environmental concerns about toxic chemicals. The loss of that support creates headwinds for baby food manufacturers in this litigation, giving plaintiffs new momentum.

November 13, 2024 – New Deadlines

A status conference set some new deadlines. A hearing for any Rule 12(b) motions, which allow defendants to request dismissal based on specific legal deficiencies in the complaint, is set for February 27, 2025, with a briefing deadline of February 6, 2025. Expert discovery for general causation will begin in April 2025, with a hearing scheduled for December 8, 2025.

The parties are finalizing a protective order for Nurture’s document production, due by November 14, 2024, and plaintiffs may issue subpoenas to Wal-Mart’s suppliers and co-manufacturers while preserving relevant purchase records.

Plaintiffs are preparing a short-form complaint to be finalized post-Rule 12(b) ruling, and a Plaintiff Fact Sheet is expected by year-end. Future case management conferences are set monthly, beginning December 12, 2024.

October 27, 2024 – Rice and Heavy Metals

This litigation continues to drill down on the problems associated with rice in baby food and the heavy metals you see in some rice. Rice is a staple ingredient in many baby foods due to its soft texture and nutritional versatility. But it’s also uniquely prone to absorbing heavy metals like arsenic and cadmium from the environment.

Grown in flooded fields, rice has a higher risk of arsenic exposure because water allows arsenic to mobilize from soil into plants more easily. This arsenic, especially the inorganic type found in rice, is known to have carcinogenic properties and can harm children’s developing brains.

Studies have linked inorganic arsenic in rice-based baby foods to risks of neurodevelopmental delays and lowered cognitive function, sparking concern from regulatory agencies and fueling lawsuits against baby food manufacturers for not implementing stricter testing and safety protocols

October 15, 2024 – Baby Food Statute of Limitations

In toxic baby food cases, the statute of limitations is often paused, or tolled, for minors until they reach 18 years of age. This means that children typically have additional time to file claims once they become adults. However, some states have unique rules—like Florida, which limits, unfairly in our view, the time to file even for minors in certain cases involving toxic exposure or negligence.

The statute of limitations is more complicated than it seems. Rules like the discovery rule (when the clock starts from the time an injury is discovered) can extend deadlines to file a lawsuit. There are also exceptions, like the one we just talked about in Florida, can extend or shorten deadlines. Each state applies these rules differently, which can impact eligibility to file.

Many trees have been sacrificed to the endless paperwork and legal briefs debating the correct statute of limitations. The key to avoiding these arguments is simple: file the lawsuit before anyone has the chance to claim the deadline has passed. Given the complexities involved, consulting with a qualified lawyer is essential to ensure your case is filed within the proper time limits.

October 13, 2024 – Baby Food Loyalty Programs and This Litigation

Baby food loyalty programs are rewards programs offered by manufacturers or retailers to encourage repeat purchases. They are a key piece of evidence for some plaintiffs in this litigation.

If you are not familiar with loyalty programs, they are just what you would expect. They allow customers to accumulate points based on their purchases, which can later be redeemed for discounts or products. Members may also receive exclusive offers, coupons, or samples. Typically, these programs track purchase histories through receipts, rewards accounts, or linked loyalty cards, providing companies with valuable insights into consumer behavior while promoting brand loyalty—and evidence of usage in a baby food lawsuit.

If you are a member of a baby food loyalty program that tracks your purchases, it is important to retain all documentation related to the program. This includes any receipts, itemized purchase histories, or records from your account that show your participation. Such documentation can serve as critical evidence in legal matters, such as product liability claims or class actions, where proof of purchase is required. Your toxic metal baby food lawyer is likely to ask you for this information if they have not already. What we want are details about your participation in the loyalty program, including the brands you purchased, the timeframe, and any rewards earned or redeemed. Providing this information ensures that your claim is accurately documented and can support your case in litigation.

September 10, 2024 – Fixing the Metal Problem with Rice and Spinach

The primary reason there are heavy metals in baby food is metals in some rice, corn, and spinach grown in some parts of the country. A new study published in Environmental Geochemistry and Health highlights the problem of toxic metals found in baby food staples like rice and spinach.

Researchers from the University of Delaware discovered that rice grown in flooded fields absorbs higher amounts of arsenic, while drier fields lead to increased cadmium levels. Plaintiffs’ lawyers in this litigation argue that the makers of baby food have invested no energy in doing everything they can to make sure that rice, corn, and spinach put in these products have a few heavy metals as possible.

July 22, 2024 – Master Baby Food Lawsuit

Last week, plaintiffs’ baby food class action lawyers filed a master complaint in the MDL. A master complaint in an MDL consolidates the claims of multiple plaintiffs with similar legal issues against common defendants into one comprehensive document. It streamlines the litigation process by centralizing factual and legal allegations in one place.

The plaintiffs allege that major baby food manufacturers (Beech-Nut, Gerber, Hain Celestial, Nurture, Plum, Sprout, and Walmart) sold baby food products contaminated with toxic heavy metals, including lead, arsenic, mercury, cadmium, and aluminum. The plaintiffs, children who consumed these products, claim they suffered neurodevelopmental harm, manifesting as autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and/or attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).

The plaintiffs argue that the defendants failed to warn consumers about the presence of these toxic substances, despite knowing the risks. In fact, the risks have been screamed to them on a bullhorn. Congressional investigations and independent testing revealed substantial levels of heavy metals in these baby foods. The master lawsuit identifies factors driving contamination, such as sourcing ingredients with elevated metal levels, implementing dangerously high internal limits for metals, failing to set any limits, not adhering to their own standards, and contributing to contamination through manufacturing practices.

Moreover, the plaintiffs allege that the defendants concealed the dangers, preventing them from avoiding exposure and seeking safer alternatives. The defendants’ actions were deemed reckless, placing profits over children. Specific accusations include failing to test and warn about heavy metals, deviating from manufacturing specifications, and defective product design.

The plaintiffs seek damages for severe and permanent injuries, including pain, suffering, disability, impairment, economic loss, and future medical expenses.

July 15, 2024 – New Lawsuit

A new toxic baby food lawsuit was directed filed in the MDL pursuant to the new procedure we discuss in the July 3 update below.

A child from Orlando, Florida, along with his mother, has sued Gerber, Beech-Nut, and Walmart, alleging that the defendants knowingly sold baby food products containing dangerous levels of toxic heavy metals, including lead, arsenic, and mercury. These toxic substances are claimed to have substantially contributed to the plaintiff developing autism.

July 3, 2024 – Direct Filing Lawsuits in the MDL

Plaintiffs now have the option to file their case directly in this MDL to avoid delays associated with case transfers. This direct filing procedure aims to expedite the process and enhance judicial efficiency, allowing for quicker handling of cases alleging personal injuries due to exposure to toxic heavy metals from consuming certain baby food products, which purportedly led to conditions like autism spectrum disorder or attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.

To directly file your case, you need to open a new case without using the existing MDL case number and pay the standard filing fee. You must complete a civil cover sheet, designating your original venue for remand after pretrial proceedings.

The court does not want baby food lawyer grouping plaintiffs together into one lawsuit because of the administrative challenges that poses. So multi-plaintiff complaints are not allowed unless they involve plaintiffs from the same household or assert derivative claims.

Service of process for the key defendants can be streamlined via email, but other defendants will require traditional service.

June 20, 2024 – What Is the Issue in This Litigation?

If the MDL judge believes the science in this litigation. our toxic baby food lawyers believe the total settlement amounts for these cases will be deep in the billions.

The lens the judge uses will be important. The plaintiffs’ lawyers argue that the general causation expert proceeding should focus on whether the ingestion of toxic heavy metals autism found in the defendants’ baby food products can cause neurodevelopmental harm leading to autism and ADHD. We think this framing is essential because it aligns with our theory of causation and the burden we have in showing the science supports the premise of the litigation.

The defense lawyers do not like this approach because they are have to know they can win – of course toxic metals cause autism and ADHD. So these baby food lawyers propose that the causation question should center on whether consuming any of their baby food products during infancy and early toddlerhood can cause ASD, with or without ADHD. They argue that the focus should be on the baby food products themselves, considering all their ingredients, including those that promote healthy brain development. The defendants believe that plaintiffs must demonstrate that these products, as a whole, can cause ASD rather than focusing solely on the heavy metals.

Either way, the defendants should lose. But the distinction between the plaintiffs’ and defendants’ proposed scope of the general causation question is crucial because it determines the focus of the scientific and legal inquiry. The plaintiffs’ framing directs attention to the specific alleged harmful agents—heavy metals—and their potential neurodevelopmental effects. In contrast, the defendants’ framing broadens the focus to the overall baby food products, which could dilute the examination of the specific toxins at issue. This distinction impacts how evidence is presented and evaluated and, ultimately, how causation is determined.

We think our argument is stronger because it directly addresses the specific harm alleged: neurodevelopmental damage due to toxic heavy metals in the baby food. This focused approach aligns with their burden of proof and allows for a more precise and scientifically grounded inquiry into whether these metals can cause ASD and/or ADHD. By centering the causation question on the known harmful agents, the plaintiffs ensure that the court considers the relevant scientific evidence and mechanisms of injury, which is critical for a fair and accurate determination of causation.

May 22, 2024 – New Study Links Fluoride to Neurological Damage

A new study in JAMA suggests that prenatal fluoride exposure may increase the risk of children developing neurobehavioral problems, such as autism and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.

Fluoride, a natural mineral found in water, soil, and certain foods, is often added to drinking water and toothpaste to prevent tooth decay by strengthening teeth and reducing cavities.

The study suggests that children living in areas with “optimal” fluoride levels may have an increased risk of neurobehavioral issues, suggesting that in utero exposure to fluoride could be a significant factor.

So here is the question: Does this weaken plaintiffs’ arguments in baby food lawsuits if the study is correct? It absolutely does not. We know the causes of ADHD are complicated. There can be – and there is – more than one mechanism of neurobehavioral risk. Fluoride could be on that list. Maybe. More scientific research would need to be conducted first. But we know – we have long known – that consuming heavy metals like lead, arsenic, cadmium, and mercury can cause brain injuries that lead to autism and ADHD. That is the premise behind every toxic metal baby food lawsuit, and it is impossible to refute.

May 20, 2024 – Customer Loyalty Records Could Be Important Evidence

Information from “retailer customer loyalty records” could be critical evidence that plaintiffs can use to prove which specific baby food brands and products they purchased. Customer loyalty records would include any customer purchase information system (often linked to a “rewards” or “bonus” program in which the retailer gives customers free perks) that tracks a specific customer’s buying history. Plaintiffs or prospective plaintiffs should put some effort into obtaining any of this type of information (or other purchase records) to strengthen their claims.

May 3, 2024 – New Lawsuit in Illinois

A new baby food lawsuit was filed last week by an Illinois child diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder at age five from consuming baby food products containing toxic heavy metals (lead, arsenic, mercury) manufactured and sold by the defendants. These products were consumed from around 2016 through early childhood. The plaintiff claims that the exposure to these toxic metals directly resulted in brain injuries manifesting as ASD.

The lawsuit details that the baby food products exceeded regulatory limits for heavy metal content and did not include adequate warnings about the risks associated with these toxins. If the risks had been adequately disclosed, the plaintiff asserts that the baby food would not have been consumed.

As a result of the defendants’ alleged negligence and failure to warn, the plaintiff suffered from severe and lasting injuries, including neurodevelopmental disorders and other related sequelae. The lawsuit seeks to hold the manufacturers accountable for their actions, demanding compensation for damages such as pain, suffering, medical expenses, and loss of life quality, alongside punitive damages to deter similar conduct in the future.

The specific allegations focus on the defendants’ purported knowledge of the risks, their alleged failure to adequately test or redesign their products to minimize these risks, and their lack of adequate warnings to consumers about the dangers posed by the heavy metal content of their baby foods.

April 11, 2024 – Baby Food Class Action Lawsuit

We have a baby food MDL. Today, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation agreed to consolidate all baby food lawsuits in the Northern District of California under Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley in San Francisco.

The court ruled that “All actions share common issues of fact regarding the presence of heavy metals in defendants’ products, their knowledge of and testing for heavy metals in their products, whether the presence of these heavy metals could have caused plaintiffs’ alleged injuries, and whether defendants adequately warned of the presence of heavy metals in their products.”

More than 20 lawsuits alleging that baby food products federal court. But there are thousands more in the wings. If you have a potential claim, there are many reasons to contact a baby food lawyer sooner rather than later.

February 16, 2024 – Baby Food Class Action Opposed

A coalition of baby food producers, including Gerber Products Co., The Hain Celestial Group Inc., and Beech-Nut Nutrition Co., opposes the consolidation of lawsuits into an MDL class action. These lawsuits allege that the presence of heavy metals in their products contributes to autism spectrum disorder and other health issues.

The companies assert that the reasons for previously rejecting consolidation still stand. They emphasize that nearly all pre-suit discovery is complete, and mechanisms for evidence sharing are in place, making centralization unnecessary for efficient litigation. They highlight the limited number of federal cases, all filed by a small group of attorneys representing the plaintiffs and a unified defense counsel, arguing that attorney coordination diminishes the need for an MDL.

They also argue against the central causation claim, arguing it lacks a reliable scientific foundation. But this is not the place for that argument… and the idea that heavy metals do not cause brain injuries in children is a hard argument.

Should the JPML decide to consolidate, the manufacturers suggest that the Southern District of New York is the most suitable venue due to its proximity to the defendants’ bases and its capacity for handling such litigation.

January 14, 2024 – New Baby Food MDL Sought

Baby food lawyers have filed a motion to transfer and consolidate pretrial proceedings in an MDL – basically a class action lawsuit – for all currently filed personal injury lawsuits related to baby food. The plaintiffs in these cases allege neurodevelopmental disorders, such as autism spectrum disorder (ASD) or attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), due to exposure to heavy metals in baby food products. Several defendants, including major companies like Gerber, Hain Celestial Group, and Beech-Nut Nutrition Company, manufactured and sold these products.

The motion highlights the adverse effects of heavy metals on early childhood brain development and links them to ASD/ADHD. It references a Congressional investigation that we discuss below, which found significant levels of heavy metals in various commercial baby food products. The investigation also revealed the defendants’ failure to meet their internal safety standards and the lack of appropriate regulatory limits for heavy metals in baby foods.

Given the lawsuits’ commonalities, including the same products, toxins, injuries, and defendants, baby food lawyers argue that class action consolidation is warranted. This argument emphasizes the practical difficulties of managing these cases separately, including the potential for inconsistent rulings and duplicated discovery efforts.

The motion suggests several potential venues for the centralized proceedings, considering factors like the location of the events, the courts’ resources, and the progress of existing cases. These venues include the District of Nevada, Northern District of California, Central District of California, and Eastern District of Louisiana.

January 8, 2024 – New Hope for Toxic Baby Food Lawsuit

As you know, lawsuits have been filed across the country linking baby food to autism, but they have not been successful. As you know from the comments below, plaintiffs are 0-2 in the two baby food autism lawsuits that have been pressed forward.

But there is renewed optimism as we approach 2024. More toxic baby food lawyers are undaunted and pushing forward. Here are our requirements and the type of cases we are looking for:

• The child is six years of age or younger.
• The child was born at or after the 26th week of pregnancy.
• The child has not been diagnosed with Down Syndrome, Fragile X Syndrome, Tourette Syndrome, or tuberous sclerosis.
• The mother was 45 or younger at the time of the child’s birth.
• No parent of the child has been diagnosed with autism.
• The parents have not engaged a lawyer for an autism case related to the acetaminophen product (APAP).
• The child’s birthplace was outside of Michigan.

Product Use:

Must have used at least one product from the following companies:

• Beech-Nut Nutrition Company
• Hain Celestial Group, Inc (Earth’s Best Organic)
• Nestle (Gerber)
• Nurture, Inc (Happy Baby, Happy Family Organics)

Associated Products:

May have used products from these manufacturers (not currently defendants):

• Sun-Maid (Plum Organics)
• Walmart (Parent’s Choice)
• Kroger
• Sprouts (Sprouts Organic Foods)

High Heavy Metal Foods:

The child consumed foods generally associated with high levels of heavy metals, specifically:

• Infant rice cereal
• Rice puff snacks
• Carrots and sweet potatoes
• Fruit juice (though products listed above are preferred)

September 1, 2023

Plaintiffs suffered a hit in this baby food litigation when, after a Sargon hearing, a Los Angeles, California state court judge deemed inadmissible the expert opinion that a child developed autism and attention deficit disorders from consuming baby food allegedly tainted with harmful heavy metals.

A Sargon hearing refers to a specific type of evidentiary hearing in California state courts concerning the admissibility of expert witness testimony. The name derives from the case “Sargon Enterprises, Inc. v. University of Southern California,” which the California Supreme Court decided in 2012. In this case, the court clarified the trial court’s role as a gatekeeper in evaluating the admissibility of expert testimony.

In this Sargon hearing, Superior Court of Los Angeles County Judge Lawrence Riff found that an expert’s testimony at the hearing was not scientifically valid due to the flawed methodology behind his conclusions.

It is easy to prove that heavy metals cause autism. The challenge for plaintiffs in these cases is proving specific causation because lead is not only in baby food. It is everywhere. This is just one judge’s opinion in one case. But is it a tough blow for plaintiffs? Absolutely.

June 26, 2023

A recent investigation by Consumer Reports has found that heavy metals, including arsenic, cadmium, and lead, continue to persist in some baby food brands, a concern first raised five years ago. Notwithstanding the calls for manufacturers to ensure healthier baby foods, major brands such as Earth’s Best Organic, Gerber, and Hot Kid still exhibit variable levels of these harmful metals in their products. Such exposure can potentially impair children’s IQ and cause developmental issues. The report underscores the need for the Food and Drug Administration to instigate stricter regulations on permissible levels of toxic metals in baby foods. Foods primarily made from rice, sweet potatoes, and carrots were identified as carrying the highest risk, largely due to the farming methods used. Consumer Reports plans future tests for heavy metal contamination in baby foods and related products.

March 8, 2023

A new autism baby food lawsuit was filed in federal court in Nevada last week with five plaintiffs who allege Beech-Nut Nutrition Company Inc. (“Beech”), Gerber Products Company, Plum PBC (“Plum”), Sprout Foods Inc. (“Sprout”), Walmart Inc. (“Walmart”) caused their autism. The causes of action include strict liability, failure to warn, breach of implied warranty of merchantability, negligence per se, ordinary negligence, gross negligence, and unjust enrichment. The autism suit also brings counts specific to Nevada law for adulterated products and violating the Nevada Deceptive Trade Practices Act. The lawsuit seeks both compensatory and punitive damages.

This lawsuit was not mere notice pleading. The suit reviews not only the House subcommittee report on heavy metals in baby food but also the Healthy Babies Bright Futures report and the medical literature—including faraway studies in South Korea, Egypt, and China—on the risk of toxic metals and the presence of toxic metals such as lead, cadmium, mercury, and arsenic in baby food.

January 4, 2023

Most baby food lawsuits are filed in state courts that have jurisdiction over one of the defendants. For various reasons, most baby food lawyers believe state courts likely provide a more favorable venue for victims.

The number of toxic baby food lawsuits pending in the federal courts has decreased significantly over the last 16 months. At one point, Hain Celestial had around 25 pending cases against it in federal courts. Now, however, only two of those lawsuits are still pending. The obvious question is why. We think most of these cases were consumer class actions voluntarily abandoned following an adverse ruling in New Jersey. Also, new plaintiffs may be electing to bring their case in state court – primarily in California – where there have already been favorable rulings on causation evidence.

December 15, 2022

This article takes offense to lawyers advertising for baby food autism lawsuits because the author believes the studies – actually just one meta-analysis – show correlation and not causation. Let’s accept her premise for a moment. The “correlation” in this one study she cites is undeniably strong.

Does the author then jump to what needs to be done to determine if it is not just correlation but causation? No. She goes back to railing against lawyers and makes the uncited and unsupportable conclusion, “Class action lawsuits are not new in the U.S., but their scientific basis has weakened over the years.”

The irony is rich. An utterly unfounded conclusion punctuates her lecture about unsubstantiated conclusions. How has the Daubert standard changed over the years, leading to a lower bar, in your opinion? Is the study you cited the only study the plaintiffs’ experts rely upon in their conclusions? What does she know that the well-credentialed epidemiologists and medical doctors who have offered opinions in this litigation do not? Does a “non-statistician,” as you concede, have the bones in this field to be so condescending towards another view?

It is good to remember that when it comes to scientific debates like this one, people smarter and more qualified than you disagree with you, regardless of which side you are on in the dispute.

December 3, 2022

Over 100 lawsuits are pending against baby food companies seeking to hold them liable for their products’ high levels of toxic heavy metals.

Beech-Nut and other defendants have recently filed motions to dismiss many of these cases. Based on the legal arguments made in these motions, the overall defense strategy in these cases is evident.

First and foremost, the defendants will aggressively argue that there is no reliable scientific evidence to show that their baby food products (even with the heavy metals) can cause autism and other conditions.

Second, the defendants will present a federal preemption defense and argue that the tort claims are preempted by the federal authorities’ ability to regulate the presence of heavy metals in baby food products.

August 30, 2022

The earliest baby food autism lawsuits were filed in March 2021, following the release of a congressional report on the levels of heavy metals in baby foods.

About 60 similar product liability lawsuits have been filed against baby food manufacturers in federal and state courts since then.

Our lawyers reviewed the status of many of the earliest cases. The plaintiffs have voluntarily dismissed a large percentage of them.

There is a case in state court heading to trial this summer. It is hard to imagine a scenario in which the manufacturers would allow that case to go to trial. It is reasonable to expect they will offer a reasonable settlement amount to give them a chance to figure out how they will approach these autism baby food lawsuits.

Our attorneys have not seen any trial dates scheduled in federal court for the pending cases. However, based on normal time frames for federal court cases, that could happen soon. We could see our first autism baby food case go to trial before the end of 2023.