Lawsuit Information Center
Our law firm is handling baby food autism lawsuits in all 50 states.
Several popular brands of baby food contain high levels of heavy metals such as mercury, arsenic, lead, and cadmium. These heavy metals are well-known neurotoxins. Thousands of children may have developed autism and other neurodevelopmental disorders due to toxic metals found in baby foods.
A growing number of parents are pursuing a toxic baby food lawsuit to hold manufacturers accountable for their children’s exposure to harmful contaminants. These baby food autism lawsuits allege the manufacturers knew about heavy metals in their products, and children developed autism from consuming them.
Our legal team is actively investigating toxic baby food lawsuits nationwide. On this page, you will find:
- The most recent news on toxic baby food litigation in state and federal courts,
- How our toxic baby food lawyers believe these claims will unfold, and
- Estimated settlement amounts if this litigation is as successful as we expect.
If you have a potential baby food autism case, call us today at 800-553-8082 or contact us online.
Table of Contents
➤ Congressional Report on Toxic Baby Food
Baby Food Lawsuit Updates 2025
Before we dive into the substance of the baby food autism lawsuit, let’s look at the latest news and updates in the litigation:
MDL Case Count
The baby food heavy metals MDL continues its steady ascent. As of September 1, there are now 210 active cases pending in the MDL, a notable uptick from prior months.
While the addition of 30 new cases in two months may not ring alarm bells, the pace is intentionally measured. Most states toll the statute of limitations for toxic exposure claims involving minors until the child reaches the age of majority, meaning the litigation clock is not ticking in the usual way. The vast pool of viable claims has not been filed.
Plaintiffs’ baby food lawyers are closely tracking early expert discovery and, in particular, how Judge Corley approaches the pivotal general causation questions. A favorable ruling at that juncture will lead to a whole new ballgame and a rash of new lawsuits. If general causation survives the defense gauntlet, you can expect a surge in filings and an uptick in marketing as law firms finally move from cautious observation to aggressive action.
New Investigation into Toxic Metals in Baby Food
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has launched an investigation into Gerber and Plum Organics over baby food products that allegedly contain unsafe levels of heavy metals. His office issued civil investigative demands on August 26, accusing the companies of deceptive marketing and signaling that more subpoenas are on the way. The move puts the weight of a state enforcement agency behind claims that have already fueled years of litigation and public concern. For plaintiffs, this is not just political theater. It is a significant development that shifts the momentum.
With the state now demanding internal documents and safety data, manufacturers face a new layer of pressure. What was once limited to court filings and expert reports is now part of a formal state investigation. That makes it harder for defendants to hide behind industry norms or regulatory gray areas. It also increases the odds that critical information, internal emails, product testing records, and executive decisions will be unearthed and made public. (There is a ridiculous amount of confidentiality in the MDL.)
The strategic advantage is timing. Plaintiffs can now position their discovery efforts alongside a state-backed investigation that is pursuing the same core questions: what did these companies know, when did they know it, and what did they do with that information. Plaintiffs’ lawyers now need to use this moment to tighten the screws. The merits of the case against heavy metals in baby food just became a lot harder to ignore.
One thing you can bet on: baby food manufacturers will be putting up a lot more money in campaign contributions as they try to buy their way out of this mess.
New California Plaintiff
A California family has filed a new lawsuit in the baby food MDL yesterday, alleging that their child developed autism and ADHD after consuming baby foods contaminated with toxic heavy metals.
According to the complaint, A.K. regularly ate a wide range of baby foods between 2017 and 2018, including jars, pouches, cereals, and snacks sold under brands such as Gerber, Beech-Nut, Earth’s Best, HappyBABY, Plum, Parent’s Choice, Sprout, and Plum Organics. The family contends these products contained unsafe levels of arsenic, lead, cadmium, and mercury—metals known to interfere with early brain development.
The lawsuit adopts the full set of claims from the master complaint, including strict liability, negligence, breach of warranty, fraud, and concealment. The family is seeking compensatory damages for the lifelong medical and developmental costs associated with autism and ADHD, along with punitive damages to hold the companies accountable.
Their story underscores the central allegation in this litigation: parents across the country trusted these products as safe, while the manufacturers allegedly knew more about the risks than they disclosed.
On to Expert Discovery
Today marks the court-ordered close of general causation discovery in the baby food heavy metals MDL, the final checkpoint set by Pretrial Order No. 15. Both sides have now locked their expert disclosures, depositions, and supporting materials on the core question: can toxic heavy metals in baby food cause ASD/ADHD?
From here, the litigation shifts into an expert-driven phase. The Court will begin Rule 702 (Daubert) briefing on September 26, with responses due in October and replies in early November, and a hearing set for December 8, 2025. For plaintiffs, the record built during discovery, peer-reviewed studies, mechanistic evidence, exposure analyses, and corporate knowledge, now moves from gathering to testing. If the judge signs off on the science behind the plaintiffs’ general causation case, expect rapid momentum: bellwether selection, targeted case work-ups, and real settlement pressure in the MDL.
What Is This Case Really About?
At the center of this MDL is a straightforward but critical question: can toxic heavy metals in baby food cause neurodevelopmental disorders such as autism and ADHD?
That is the issue the judge will evaluate during the general causation phase. The way the court frames the question will shape the entire case.
We believe the focus should be on the metals themselves, including arsenic, lead, cadmium, and mercury. The scientific evidence shows that these toxins can interfere with brain development during infancy. No one denies this. The right question is whether these metals, when present in baby food, increase the risk of autism or ADHD. We think it is really hard to argue that these metals are not a substantial contributing cause to autism and ADHD.
The defendants are pushing for a different framing. They want the inquiry to consider baby food as a whole product, including all of the ingredients that support healthy development. They hope that by broadening the focus in this way, it will be more difficult to isolate the harm caused by the heavy metals.
This difference in framing is not minor. It affects what evidence will be emphasized, how experts present their findings, and how a jury may ultimately understand the case. A narrow focus on toxic metals highlights the direct and compelling scientific data. A broader focus on the overall product creates unnecessary ambiguity.
We believe our approach is the only accurate and fair one. It isolates the specific harm at issue: that repeated ingestion of toxic metals during early childhood can result in permanent neurological injury. It also reflects the scientific record more faithfully. If the court accepts this framing, the case will move forward on a clear path and remain focused on the evidence that matters most: what these metals do to a child’s developing brain.
Walmart Increasingly a Defendant in Baby Food MDL
The newly filed lawsuits are increasingly suing Walmart related to its Parent’s Choice baby food. With an estimated 30% share of the U.S. baby food market, Walmart has become an increasingly prominent target as filings continue to rise.
Indiana Family Alleges Autism Caused by Beech-Nut, Gerber, and Plum Baby Foods
In a new lawsuit filed today, a family from Indianapolis, Indiana, has brought suit against multiple baby food manufacturers, alleging that their son developed autism spectrum disorder due to prolonged exposure to toxic heavy metals in baby food products. The lawsuit, now part of the toxic baby food MDL, claims the child consumed contaminated products during infancy between 2007 and 2008–at a time when those foods were a primary source of nutrition.
The complaint details an extremely broad range of products, including Beech-Nut, Gerber, Nurture, and Plum. Among the specific products listed are Beech-Nut Stage 1 Apple, Banana, and Organics Pear; Gerber’s Stage 1 Natural Apple and Banana, and Nurture’s Purple Carrot & Blueberry Puffs. The family also alleges that retail records may confirm additional items consumed during this critical developmental period.
As with other filings in this litigation, the plaintiffs assert strict liability, negligent failure to warn, and defective design claims. The lawsuit underscores the long-term nature of potential exposure risks, particularly in cases where diagnosis occurs years after ingestion. The family is seeking both compensatory and punitive damages and has requested a jury trial.
GET MORE Baby Food Lawsuit Updates Back to 2022 👈
June 22, 2025 – Oklahoma Family Alleges Brain Injuries from Beech-Nut, Gerber Products
A newly filed complaint in the baby food MDL on Friday alleges that a child from Oklahoma City developed Autism Spectrum Disorder and ADHD after consuming a wide range of baby food products between 2015 and 2015. The lawsuit names multiple major manufacturers, including Beech-Nut, Gerber, Nurture, and Walmart, and accuses them of selling food contaminated with toxic heavy metals.
The plaintiff, now 20, alleges that prolonged exposure to arsenic, lead, cadmium, and mercury during infancy caused permanent neurodevelopmental damage. The family claims the manufacturers failed to warn the public or ensure product safety despite longstanding industry knowledge of the risks posed by these metals in baby food.
The complaint adopts all core liability theories in the master MDL filing, including strict liability for design and warning defects and negligence. The family is seeking compensatory and punitive damages and has requested a jury trial. This case highlights the long tail of litigation exposure for baby food companies, as statutes of limitations for child plaintiffs often extend into adulthood.
May 23, 2025 – CDC Lead Exposure Report Is a Legal Earthquake
The new CDC report paints a damning picture of the dangers posed by lead exposure in early childhood that has serious implications for the baby food litigation now unfolding across the country.
The data reveals that more than 6.4% of U.S. children under age six (an estimated 1.5 million) have detectable blood lead levels. Even more alarming, Black children were nearly twice as likely as white children to have high blood lead levels, underscoring a profound racial disparity in exposure. Page after page of this government report confirms what public health experts and plaintiff lawyers have been shouting for years: no amount of lead is safe, especially for babies whose developing brains are acutely vulnerable to neurotoxins. This federally verified data makes it harder for baby food manufacturers to claim ignorance or minimize the harm.
For the baby food lawsuits, this is a legal earthquake. The CDC’s findings directly bolster plaintiffs’ arguments that lead exposure is both widespread and biologically devastating, especially when it comes from routine, daily consumption of tainted baby foods. Lawyers suing brands like Gerber and Beech-Nut can now point to hard federal data showing that millions of children are being exposed to lead and that the consequences are real and measurable.
This helps establish causation, supports claims of failure to warn, and raises the stakes for punitive damages. The fact that the CDC identifies lead exposure as a “significant public health concern” lends powerful credibility to the litigation and all but shreds the food companies’ usual defenses. For parents whose children now suffer from learning disabilities or behavioral issues, this report is not just science—it is evidence. And it may be the tipping point.
April 17, 2025 – Target Baby Food Recall
More than 25,000 units of baby food sold exclusively at Target were recalled last month after testing revealed elevated levels of lead. The affected product—Good & Gather Baby Pea, Zucchini, Kale & Thyme Vegetable Puree—was manufactured by Fruselva USA and distributed in four-ounce containers. The recall includes lot numbers 4169 and 4167, with “Best by” dates of December 7 and December 9, 2025.
Although the FDA classified the recall as a Class II—meaning the risk of serious health consequences is considered moderate—we all know that there is no safe level of lead exposure for children. Every doctor who has looked at the issue will tell you that minimal exposure to lead can lead to permanent neurological damage, including learning disabilities, developmental delays, ADHD, and other serious health outcomes.
This incident underscores growing concerns about toxic metals in baby food, which has prompted lawsuits against multiple manufacturers. Plaintiffs allege that companies like Gerber and Beech-Nut failed to adequately test for and limit dangerous contaminants, resulting in preventable harm to children. Parents are being urged to return any affected products and consult with a pediatrician if their child may have consumed the recalled baby food.
March 31, 2025 – Pretrial Order No. 15: What It Says and What It Means
Judge Corley’s new pretrial order resolves several procedural issues and sets the framework for the next phase of the baby food litigation, particularly as it relates to case structure, discovery obligations, and expert scheduling.
First, the Court granted Defendants’ motion to strike all references to infant formula from the Master Complaint. The ruling makes clear that infant formula claims are outside the scope of this MDL and must be pursued either in a different MDL (if one exists in the future) or upon remand to the transferor courts. All references to infant formula—including those in Appendix A of the Master Complaint—are now officially stricken. There were not many of these cases.
Second, the order clarifies and modifies the structure of the Short Form Complaint, which every plaintiff must file. Key revisions include: the removal of hedging language like “upon information and belief”, the addition of approximate consumption timeframes per product category (e.g., jars, pouches, cereals); and the ability for plaintiffs to list additional products, injuries, or causes of action—with the understanding that only autism and ADHD will be litigated during general causation, and additional claims will be preserved for the transferor court. Notably, the Short Form must now include a jurisdictional statement establishing diversity and remove references to certain foreign parent companies (e.g., Nestlé S.A., Danone S.A., and Hero AG). The final version is due before the next CMC.
For discovery, it is time to get moving. The judge adopted the current version of the Initial Plaintiff Fact Sheet and set hard deadlines: newly filed plaintiffs must serve their completed PFS within 45 days of filing a Short Form Complaint, and current plaintiffs have 60 days from the effective date of the order to do the same.
On general causation, the Court established a clear schedule:
- Plaintiff expert reports due May 23, 2025
- Defense expert reports due June 20, 2025
- Plaintiff’s rebuttal reports due July 11, 2025
- Close of general causation discovery on August 29, 2025
- Rule 702 briefing runs from September 26 through November 7, with a hearing set for December 8, 2025
Finally, the order locks in a procedure for future joint CMC statements, imposing a precise calendar and workflow to ensure timely submissions, and it requires the parties to propose a final deadline for adding new plaintiffs in the upcoming April CMC statement.
January 17, 2025 – List of Baby Foods with Heavy Metals in 2025
We do not know all the foods that contain heavy metals. Why? Because current testing requirements for baby food manufacturers remain inadequate. Despite this, independent investigations and lawsuits have identified several brands and products that are more likely to contain harmful levels of arsenic, lead, cadmium, and mercury. Foods like infant rice cereal, rice puff snacks, and teething biscuits are particularly prone to contamination because of how their ingredients are grown and processed.
Major brands under scrutiny include:
- Gerber
- Beech-Nut
- Happy Family Organics (HappyBABY)
- Plum Organics
- Sprout Foods
- Earth’s Best Organic (Hain Celestial)
- Parents’ Choice (Walmart)
- Campbell’s Plum Baby Foods
- Neptune Wellness Solutions
Specific foods that have gotten attention:
- Infant Rice Cereal – Frequently identified as a leading source of arsenic due to rice’s tendency to absorb this metal from soil and water.
- Teething Biscuits and Rice Rusks – Often made with rice flour, which is susceptible to heavy metal contamination.
- Puffs and Rice Snacks – Processed snacks made with rice or rice flour have been flagged in multiple investigations.
- Carrot and Sweet Potato Purees – Root vegetables are prone to absorbing cadmium and lead from contaminated soil.
- Fruit Juice Products – Certain apple and grape juices have been found to contain lead and arsenic.
January 10, 2025 – What Causes Heavy Metal Toxicity in Toddlers?
Heavy metal toxicity in toddlers is primarily caused by exposure to contaminants like lead, arsenic, cadmium, and mercury in their environment and diet. One significant source, obviously, is heavy metals in baby food. The risk is greatest in products like infant rice cereal, teething biscuits, and rice puff snacks, which absorb metals from contaminated soil or water during cultivation.
Other potential sources of heavy metal exposure in toddlers include lead-based paint, contaminated water (especially from aging pipes), and household dust containing residues from lead or other metals. These sources, particularly lead paint, are common in older homes and are well-documented as significant contributors to childhood lead poisoning. In the ongoing litigation, defendants are expected to argue that these environmental factors—not their products—are the primary sources of the heavy metals linked to a child’s neurodevelopmental injuries.
For plaintiffs’ baby food lawyers, overcoming this defense will require us to show that the baby food products in question were a substantial contributing factor—not the only cause—to the child’s exposure. This requires evidence linking the child’s consumption of specific products, like those made by Gerber, Beech-Nut, or Plum Organics, to heavy metal contamination levels in the child’s body. Plaintiffs’ attorneys must also present compelling expert testimony showing that the levels of metals found in these foods were sufficient to cause harm and that alternative sources alone cannot fully account for the exposure. This causation argument is central to the success of these toxic baby food lawsuits.
Parents can reduce risks by choosing baby food without heavy metals, avoiding rice-based products, and being mindful of environmental exposures.
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.
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, in some cases, serving as evidence in a baby food lawsuit.
If you are a member of a baby food loyalty program that tracks your purchases, you want to retain all documentation related to the program. This includes any receipts, itemized purchase histories, or account records showing 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 will likely ask you for this information if they have not already. We want 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 rice grown in drier fields leads 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 as few heavy metals as possible.
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 lawyers 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.
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.
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 were filed in 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.
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 (Earth’s Best Organic)
- Nestle (Gerber)
- Nurture (Happy Baby, Happy Family Organics)
Associated Products:
May have used products from these manufacturers (not currently defendants):
- Sun-Maid (Plum Organics)
- Walmart (Parents’ 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 the Sargon hearing, Superior Court of Los Angeles County Judge Lawrence Riff found that the expert’s testimony was not scientifically valid due to the flawed methodology underlying 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.
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.
Baby Food Autism Lawsuit – FAQs
What Is the Baby Food Autism Lawsuit About?
Why Is Rice Such a Big Problem in Baby Foods?
Rice is a sponge for heavy metals. Some rice, particularly some grown in certain areas, are prone to soak up arsenic, cadmium, and lead from the soil. Mostly because it is cheap, many food manufacturers decided to make rice the star ingredient in infant cereals, teething biscuits, and snacks—foods designed for babies in their most vulnerable developmental stage.
Now, some companies have figured out how to reduce arsenic levels in rice products. Others? Not so much. Instead of investing in better sourcing or testing, many simply shrugged and continued to churn out contaminated products. And when they got caught? They returned to the classic “Well, there’s arsenic in nature” excuse. That is true. But there are a lot of things in nature we do not want to bring into our kitchens and feed to our children.
The lawsuits argue that these companies knew their rice-based baby foods contained high levels of toxic metals but sold them anyway, without warning parents, and that they did not even bother to try to get the rice with the least heavy metals possible.
How Do I Know If My Child’s Autism Was Caused by Toxic Baby Food?
There is no magic blood test that spits out, “Autism Caused by Baby Food – Yes/No.” But medical research strongly supports the link between heavy metal exposure in infancy and neurodevelopmental disorders like autism. And while there is no direct “autism test,” there is testing that can measure heavy metal levels in the body. A high lead level in early childhood is a major red flag, especially if your child regularly ate rice-based baby foods, teething biscuits, fruit juices, or certain vegetable purees from brands like Gerber, Beech-Nut, or Earth’s Best.
If your child was later diagnosed with autism, that exposure could be a critical factor. These lawsuits are not just about proving a link between heavy metals and autism in general; they are about showing that specific children were put at risk by specific products. And we readily agree not every child with autism can point to toxic baby foods as a substantial cause of the condition. A lawyer can help assess whether your child’s exposure fits the patterns seen in other lawsuits and whether you have a case worth fighting.
Are Baby Food Companies Really Arguing That Heavy Metals in Their Products Are Fine?
What Happens Next in the Toxc Baby Food Lawsuit?
The lawsuit is in a critical phase. There is a case going to trial in late 2025 in the California state court. If a substantial verdict is reached, you will likely see this litigation gain momentum.
The MDL is progressing more slowly in 2025, but discovery is ongoing, and we are learning more about what these companies did—or did not—do. Plaintiffs’ lawyers continue to develop expert witnesses to present the scientific evidence linking baby food toxins to autism. If the court finds the science convincing (which it should), the case will proceed to trial or, more likely, settlement negotiations. If a jury sees the internal documents showing what these companies knew, expect the settlement offers to increase significantly.
What Is the Estimated Settlement Value of These Cases?
Do I Need to File a Lawsuit Now, or Can I Wait?
What Should I Do If I Think My Child Was Affected?
What Is the End Goal of This Lawsuit?
Is This Just Another Lawsuit for Lawyers to Make Money?
Discovery of Toxic Heavy Metals in Certain Baby Food Brands
In October 2019, a non-profit organization called Happy Babies Bright Futures (“HBBF”), published a report with the results of extensive testing performed on 168 different baby foods sold on the U.S. market. The HBBF report found that over 90% of the tested products were contaminated with arsenic, lead, cadmium, and mercury. All but nine of 168 baby foods contained at least one of these metals and most contained more than one.
Specifically, the HBBF report identified “puffs and other snacks made with rice flour,” “teething biscuits and rice rusks,” “infant rice cereal,” “an apple, pear, grape, and other fruit juice,” and “carrots and sweet potatoes” manufactured by baby food companies as particularly high in toxic metals.
This report sparked concerns about heavy metals in baby food, which ultimately led to the baby food autism lawsuits.
Congressional Report Confirms Findings of Toxic Heavy Metals in Baby Food
Four years ago, the U.S. House of Representatives Subcommittee on Economic and Consumer Policy issued a detailed investigative report entitled Baby Foods are Tainted with Dangerous Levels of Arsenic, Lead, Cadmium, and Mercury (the “Congressional Report”). The Congressional Report confirmed the HBBF findings that many major baby food brands contain toxic heavy metals such as lead, arsenic, and mercury.
The levels of these metals found in baby food were many times higher than the levels allowed for other products like bottled water. For example, the FDA’s maximum safe level for lead in bottled water is 5 ppb. The Congressional Report found that Beech-Nut brand baby foods tested as high as 886 ppb for lead, and Hain Celestial (Nature’s Best) brands contained 641 ppb. Other major brands, including Gerber, Campbell Plum, and Walmart, had lead levels between 25-40 ppb, which was still 5-10 times higher than the safe limit.
The most shocking finding contained in the Congressional Report, however, was that the food manufacturers were well aware that their products contained these high levels of toxic metals.
Internal testing at many manufacturers confirmed that the foods contained dangerously high levels of lead and other metals, but the products were sold anyway. Hain Celestial held a meeting with the FDA at which it acknowledged the heavy metal contamination in its baby food products.
The FDA under Trump did nothing in response to this Congressional Report. Under Biden? Nothing but baby steps. Very frustrating. For any victims, all they can do is file a baby food autism lawsuit to be heard and make a difference for their child.
What Led to the Congressional Inquiry?
In October 2019, a renowned public health organization, named “Healthy Babies Bright Futures” (HBBF), released a report titled “What’s in my baby’s food?” that documented a scientific study on early baby foods.
The testing conducted by HBBF found toxic heavy metals in 95% of the products tested, and one in four baby foods was found to contain all three hazardous metals: arsenic, lead, and mercury.
The report further noted that even “trace amounts” of these toxic substances can alter the developing brain and erode a child’s IQ. Additionally, since these metals accumulate in the body over time, each meal or snack a baby eats can have a cumulative impact on the child’s health.
After the release of HBBF’s report, the House Subcommittee launched its inquiry.
Link Between Autism and Heavy Metals
Autism spectrum disorder (“autism”) is a neurologic disorder that impairs the individual’s ability to engage in normal social interactions, learning, and interpersonal communications. Autism comes in different levels of severity and a variety of related symptoms. Autism is not something that can be cured.
The exact causes of autism are not fully understood. But there are no serious experts, although defendants will look hard, disagreeing that exposure to heavy metals in early life can cause autism. The CDC and NIH have both noted that exposure to lead, in particular, can lead to neurodevelopmental effects in children, including autistic behaviors.
A 2016 consensus statement from a consortium of epidemiologists, autism experts, and medical organizations identified lead and mercury as toxic chemicals that can contribute to ASD. The study we discussed above, conducted by the Healthy Babies Bright Futures organization, found that 95% of early baby foods tested contained toxic heavy metals, with one in four containing arsenic, lead, and mercury. Other studies have found that exposure to heavy metals such as lead, mercury, and arsenic during early life is associated with the development of ASD.
These studies—spanning cohort research, prenatal studies, case-control, cross-sectional analyses, and meta-analyses—consistently reveal a strong association between heavy metal exposure and autism in children. Baby food lawyers are putting the pieces to this puzzle together over the last few years and seeing a troubling picture. The repeated findings across diverse studies worldwide, led by different researchers and measuring various outcomes, suggest a causal link that is hard to ignore: toxic metals lurking in baby food fuel the development of neurodevelopmental disorders, including autism, in children.
So there is ample evidence that the consumption of toxic heavy metals in baby foods can cause autism. Too many studies—we describe a few below—released over the last decade have consistently found a positive association between exposure to toxic heavy metals (particularly during infancy and early childhood) and the development of autism.
Korean Study Linking Mercury and Autism
The first study was published in 2014. This study found that environmental exposure to mercury during early infancy caused a twofold increase in the risk of developing autism. A 2017 cohort study of children in Korea found a similar link between mercury exposure and autism.
Buffalo Study Linking Arsenic and Autism
In 2019, researchers at the University of Buffalo released findings from an extensive study examining the relationship between early-life exposure to inorganic arsenic and autism spectrum disorder in children. The study analyzed a large dataset involving children’s arsenic exposure levels and evaluated the potential neurodevelopmental impacts, specifically focusing on ASD diagnosis.
The researchers found consistent evidence indicating that children exposed to higher levels of inorganic arsenic during early development faced a significantly increased risk of developing autism. Their analysis suggested that arsenic’s neurotoxic properties, particularly its potential to disrupt brain development in critical stages, could be a contributing factor to autism. The study also reinforced prior research showing that even low levels of arsenic exposure often impair cognitive and behavioral functions in young children, leading to long-term neurodevelopmental challenges.
New York Studying Linking Cadmium and Mercury to Autism
Similar results were observed in another systematic review and meta-analysis published in 2020 by researchers at the State University of New York. This study found a similar connection between autism and exposure to cadmium and mercury.
Lawsuits Alleging Heavy Metals in Baby Food Cause Autism
The Congressional Report about heavy metals in baby food has prompted many product liability lawsuits against baby food manufacturers by parents who allege that these products caused their children to develop autism.
The baby food autism lawsuits are based in part on findings in the Congressional Report. The report confirmed what baby food lawyers have been saying long before these autism lawsuits were being taken seriously. Baby food manufacturers were aware their food contained unsafe levels of heavy metals. Some baby food companies have failed to adhere to their internal testing procedures for detecting heavy metals in their products.
The foundation of every heavy metal food autism lawsuit is the complaint that these companies ignored test results finding dangerously high metal levels. Many of these companies violated their internal company standards in doing so. It is not too dramatic to say that it is putting profits over babies.
Other manufacturers, such as Hain Celestial, simply don’t bother to test their products for heavy metal contamination levels. Some companies, such as Plum Organics and Sprout Foods, Inc., refused to cooperate with the congressional investigation, so we don’t know what testing they may have done on their products. All these baby food companies either knew or should have known about the scientific research linking exposure to heavy metals in baby food causes autism.
So the core argument in every baby food autism lawsuit is that these defendants strategically positioned their baby foods in the market to maximize profits, fully aware of the potential harm to consumers. They operated under the guise that their food was safe for human consumption while knowingly concealing the real dangers posed by the toxic heavy metal contained within these products. Why would they hide this? This concealment was likely driven by a motive to maximize sales, as full disclosure of these risks would likely have diminished their profits.
Remember, this scheme was executed not just through misleading labels. It was through a calculated mix of selective and misleading research, inadequate testing, false advertising, and deliberate omissions. These tactics are detailed in many baby food lawsuits.
As a result, parents were deprived of the essential information needed to make informed decisions about purchasing these Baby Foods for their children, fully understanding the associated risks. Such reckless actions, these lawsuits allege, exhibited a blatant disregard for the rights of the plaintiffs.
Universal Agreement on Lead in Baby Food
Lead is a heavy metal that is a known neurotoxin and carcinogen. It is readily absorbed into body tissue and is difficult to expel, making it harmful for an extended period.
This is not just the musing of a lawyer looking to file a baby food autism lawsuit. There is widespread agreement on the perils of children consuming lead.
- The Centers for Disease Control (CDC): “No safe blood lead level has been identified.”
- The Food and Drug Administration (FDA): There is no known identified safe blood lead level.”
- The World Health Organization (WHO): The neurological and behavioral effects of lead are believed to be irreversible. There is no known ‘safe’ blood lead concentration…”
- The American Medical Association (AMA): “We know that there is no safe level of lead.”
- American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP): “There is no safe level of lead exposure in children, with lasting decreases in cognition documented in children with blood levels as low as 5 micrograms per deciliter of lead in blood.”
The House Report on baby food found up to 177 times – 177 times! – more than the levels of lead deemed acceptable for adults. So why do we continue to allow lead in baby food? This recent study provides one answer. We are not getting decisions and recommendations from neutral third parties with our children’s best interests in mind. We are getting it from people in the industry who profit from not properly monitoring the lead levels in the food that we are giving our children.
Symptoms of Lead Exposure
Gastrointestinal Distress
One of the initial signs of heavy metal toxicity in toddlers is often gastrointestinal distress. Parents may notice symptoms like nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, or abdominal pain. These discomforting signs can be early indicators that something is amiss.
Neurological Red Flags-*
Changes in a toddler’s behavior and neurological functioning can be alarming. Children experiencing heavy metal toxicity might become irritable, fatigued, and display difficulties sleeping. Headaches, poor concentration, and learning challenges can also emerge.
Behavioral and Developmental Shifts
Heavy metal exposure can lead to notable behavioral and developmental changes in toddlers. Increased aggression or irritability may surface, as well as developmental delays. Speech and language difficulties and impaired motor skills could also be observed.
Skin and Hair Alterations
Heavy metal toxicity can produce external symptoms that often manifest as changes in the skin and hair. These symptoms may include persistent rashes, discoloration, or unusual sensitivity of the skin, as well as changes in hair texture, such as brittleness, thinning, or unexpected hair loss. These physical indicators can be subtle, especially in children, and are often misattributed to more common childhood conditions like eczema, dermatitis, or allergies. However, the presence of these symptoms alongside other signs, such as behavioral changes, fatigue, or gastrointestinal issues, could be a red flag for underlying toxic exposure.
Respiratory Issues
Respiratory symptoms, although less common, can be linked to heavy metal exposure. Coughing, wheezing, and difficulty breathing might be signs of a deeper issue.
General Symptoms
Other general symptoms include fever, weight loss, loss of appetite, joint pain, and muscle weakness. These indicators, when observed collectively, can point toward heavy metal toxicity.
Parents need to remember that these same symptoms can also be indicative of various conditions that do not pose a risk of brain damage. Identifying heavy metal toxicity in toddlers can be challenging, as these symptoms can be easily attributed to other common childhood illnesses or conditions. So, if you have concerns, it is not hard to get a blood test to check your child’s lead levels.
Who Are the Defendants in Baby Food Autism Lawsuits?
Possible defendants in your baby food autism lawsuit include:
- Beech-Nut
- Gerber
- Hain Celestial Group (Earth’s Best Organic)
- Nurture (Happy Family Organics and HappyBABY Plum)
- Nestle
- Organics Sprout Foods (Sprout Organic Food)
- Walmart (Parent’s Choice) [/sc_fs_faq]
- Hero
- Sun-Maid Growers of California
- Campbell Soup Company
Where Are the Baby Food Autism Lawsuits Going?
There is a federal MDL class action baby food autism lawsuit. Many toxic baby food lawsuits have also been filed in California. These suits are progressing more quickly there than in other jurisdictions. If one of these lawsuits makes it to trial—there is a trial set for October 2025. If we win a big verdict, this litigation will explode.
What has to happen before a baby food lawsuit makes it to trial? The big thing is getting the trial judge to agree that the science shows there is a link between baby food and autism. There are good studies that link heavy metals and autism. However, baby food autism lawyers must demonstrate that this link extends to the metals in baby food.
In federal court cases, courts employ a process known as Daubert to determine whether the science is sufficiently robust to proceed to trial. In California, the process is called Sargon. Both are named after court cases that set federal and California standards for whether the science presented by the experts is sufficient. If toxic baby food lawyers overcome this hurdle, it could compel baby food makers to work harder to eliminate toxic heavy metals from their products and offer reasonable settlement amounts for the pending toxic baby food lawsuits.
In the California lawsuits, four heavy-hitter experts testified for the plaintiffs:
- Dr. Beate Ritz (epidemiologist at UCLA)
- Dr. Hannah Gardener (Epidemiologist at the University of Miami)
- Dr. Michael Aschner (Professor of Neuroscience at Albert Einstein)
- Dr. Kevin Shapiro (Executive Director of Research and Therapeutic Technologies at Cortica)
It would seem difficult to suggest that these experts do not employ well-tested science to form their conclusions. We will see.
[Update: The Sargon hearing did happen. The hearing allowed both sides to present their experts and explain the scientific evidence that supports their arguments. Judge Amy D. Hogue of the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles held the Sargon hearing for this case in two parts, with the plaintiffs presenting their experts in January and February and the defendants presenting their experts in March. Judge Hogue determined that the plaintiff’s experts had used valid methodologies to arrive at their scientific conclusions that heavy metals can cause autism and other disorders in children. So the case continues in a big win for not just these plaintiffs but every family who has brought or is considering bringing a claim.] [Update to the Update: But the experts were eventually stricken, and the case was dismissed. The plaintiff has since learned some lessons to be applied in the future.]Baby Food Autism Settlement Amounts
If toxic baby food lawsuits alleging autism are successful, the settlement amounts in these cases could be enormous.
Settlement Amounts Are Speculative at This Point
But let’s take a step back. Estimating the settlement payouts for any personal injury claim is inherently speculative. There are so many variables, and no two cases are exactly alike in terms of the various factors that impact settlement compensation or a jury payout. This is true with any mass tort, but it is particularly true in the baby food litigation – we have not won a case yet.
Not Many Injuries Comparable to Autism
Estimating the settlement amounts for a baby food autism lawsuit is a particular challenge. The most reliable method of estimating settlement value is by looking at settlements in prior cases involving comparable injuries and other circumstances.
For a toxic baby food lawsuit, however, prior comps don’t exist. There have never been any successful tort lawsuits in which autism was the primary injury. Previous efforts to link autism to some type of negligent action have generally failed.
Birth Injury Cases Are Lens to Settlement Amounts in Baby Food Autism Lawsuits
In the absence of prior settlements or verdicts awarding compensation for autism, our baby food lawyers look at prior cases involving injuries with similarities to autism. The best comps for this are probably birth injury malpractice cases involving permanent neurologic injuries. Neurological birth injuries are comparable to autism because they result in:
- permanent limitations in a child’s mental functioning,
- a lifetime of future medical care, and
- a lifetime of future lost income from reduced earning capacity.
Birth injury cases involving permanent neurologic injuries have a very high settlement value. Birth injury cases involving cerebral palsy have the highest average settlement value of any type of personal injury malpractice. Cerebral palsy is not a good comparable injury to autism because C.P. often involves severe physical disabilities and more extensive medical care.
Successful Lawsuit Settlement Compensation Amount Predictions
The best comparable lawsuits are those involving neurologic birth injuries that result in mental but not physical impairment. Cases involving this type of permanent injury to a child have an average jury payout in the range of $1,200,000 to $5,000,000, depending on the severity level of the mental impairment.
The toxic baby food autism cases would probably have a somewhat lower settlement value because of the potential problems with establishing causation. Realistically, there is also the question of how much these companies would be able to pay without declaring bankruptcy. This is a hard variable to bake into a settlement amount estimate.
Assuming there is enough money to pay settlements and solid causation evidence linking baby food metal to autism, toxic baby food lawsuits alleging autism could have a settlement payout of around $350,000 to $1,500,000, depending on the severity of the autism.
Some Baby Foods Are Safe
The list of baby foods with heavy metals in 2025 is as long as your arm. But the narrative the baby food manufacturers want to push in these toxic baby food lawsuits is that these toxins are just in the environment, and they cannot make baby food without these toxic metals is not true. Not all baby food brands are contaminated with unsafe levels of toxic heavy metals such as lead, arsenic, and mercury.
Several companies produce baby foods that do not contain heavy metals above the maximum safe levels set by health authorities. These companies use higher-quality ingredients with fewer heavy metals and also perform strict product quality testing on the contamination levels of their products before they leave the production line.
Below is a list of “safe” baby foods that ensure their products do not contain high levels of toxins and heavy metals.
- Once Upon a Farm: this is a new company that makes baby foods with higher quality, organic ingredients and ensures that there are no high levels of heavy metals. The downside is that they also do not use any preservatives on their products, so everything has to be refrigerated. Once Upon a Farm says that it won the Clean Label Purity Award after independent testing of its products for over 400 distinct contaminants, encompassing heavy metals, chemicals, pesticides, and various toxins. (It did have a small recall for mold last year, which underscores the perils of no preservatives. Still, there is a lot less to fear with mold than toxic metals that cause brain injury.)
- Yumi: Yumi has some of the strictest product quality control testing in the industry. Not only do they test their finished products, but they also test for metals in the organic ingredients before they use them. Yumi also sources its ingredients based on an analysis of soil contamination data to determine what the safest growing locations are.
- Little Spoon: this is a fresh baby food company that makes its products without preservatives and delivers them to customers directly on a subscription basis. This allows them to ensure the highest quality without heavy metals.
So it can be done. In addition to buying higher-quality baby foods that test for heavy metals, there are other ways to reduce the amount of heavy metals your child consumes in their diet. One of the best ways is to avoid giving them fruit juice. Juice, especially certain types like grape juice, often contains high trace levels of arsenic. Another tip is to avoid feeding your child rice-based products because rice absorbs metals in the soil and tends to have the highest trace amounts of heavy metals.
Get a Lawyer to Fight for You and Your Child
Our lawyers are dedicated to holding these companies accountable and obtaining justice for affected individuals and families. Contact us to learn more about your path to compensation. Call our legal team today for a free consultation at 800-553-8082 or contact our law firm online.