Baby Food Autism Lawsuit – December 2025 Update

New York Calls for Stronger Safety Measures

After years of growing concern, New York lawmakers are pushing for monthly testing of baby foods for toxic heavy metals like lead, arsenic, mercury, and cadmium. These metals have been linked to autism, ADHD, and other neurodevelopmental disorders, especially when babies are exposed to them during early growth.

Parents Still Left in the Dark

A new investigation by Consumer Reports and Unleaded Kids found that over half of baby food companies make it difficult for parents to find safety test results. Some brands, like HappyBaby, Parent’s Choice, and Sprout Organics, require parents to search using product codes or expiration dates—placing the burden on families instead of offering clear, upfront information.

Baby Food Recall Raises New Concerns

On September 25, Sprout Organics recalled certain baby food pouches due to unsafe lead levels. Lead is especially dangerous for infants and toddlers and has been shown to affect brain development, behavior, and learning ability—even at low doses.

Critical Court Decision Coming Soon

In the ongoing baby food autism lawsuits, manufacturers like Gerber and Beech-Nut are asking the judge to block expert testimony that connects toxic metals to autism and ADHD. A ruling is expected this year. If the court allows these experts to testify, the cases can move forward to trial or settlement. If not, the lawsuits could face delays or dismissal.

If your child has been diagnosed with autism, ADHD, or developmental delays and consumed baby foods from major brands, you may have legal options.

Contact Dolman Law Group today for a free consultation. We’re here to help your family get answers, hold companies accountable, and pursue the compensation your child deserves.

The baby food autism lawsuits are moving forward, and the next few months could bring significant progress for families seeking answers and accountability.

A Pivotal Court Hearing Is Coming in December

In December 2025, a federal judge in San Francisco will hold a special hearing to decide a key question: Can experts testify that toxic metals in baby food cause neurodevelopmental conditions like autism and ADHD?

This decision is critical. If the court agrees that the science supports the link, it could allow hundreds of cases to move forward. It may also push baby food companies to discuss a potential nationwide settlement. But first, the court has to hear from both sides in what’s being called a make-or-break hearing.

Gerber Accused of Withholding Testing Data

Lawyers for families recently accused Gerber of quietly updating important safety test results months after they were first submitted. These late changes could make it harder for experts to give accurate opinions about the risks of these products.

Gerber claims the corrections were minor. But for families who trusted these companies, the idea that critical data may have been hidden or delayed feels like another betrayal.

Texas Launches State Investigation Into Baby Food Safety

In a major win for parents, the Texas Attorney General has launched an investigation into Gerber and Plum Organics for allegedly misleading the public about heavy metals in baby food.

This means state investigators can now demand emails, safety reports, and other internal documents that may reveal what these companies knew—and when. It also adds a layer of public pressure that could help strengthen families’ legal claims.

More Cases Join the Litigation

As of last month, the number of families participating in the federal baby food lawsuit has grown to 210 cases. This steady rise reflects growing awareness of the problems potentially caused by these products and a sense of momentum. Many more families are expected to file claims, especially if the upcoming court hearing goes in favor of the plaintiffs.

It’s important to know that in most states, the legal deadline for childhood injuries doesn’t begin until a child turns 18. That means you may still have time to file, even if your child’s diagnosis happened years ago.

Trust Dolman Law Group For Answers—And Support

These lawsuits are about more than compensation. They are about truth, accountability, and making sure this never happens to another family.

If your child was diagnosed with autism, ADHD, or developmental delays after eating baby food from one of the major brands, you may be eligible to take legal action.

Contact Dolman Law Group today for a free and confidential consultation. We’re here to listen, guide you through the next steps, and fight for the support your family deserves. You pay nothing unless we recover compensation for you.

Alarming new research suggests that some trusted baby food brands may have put children at risk. A recent study reported in Bioengineer from the Food Ingredient and Health Research Institute, led by Dr. Renee Dufault, reveals strong connections between heavy metal exposure, poor diet during pregnancy and infancy, and the development of autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and ADHD.

The study supports what many parents have feared for years… that prolonged exposure to arsenic, lead, cadmium, and mercury in processed baby food products may contribute to permanent changes in a child’s developing brain. These metals are not just unsafe—they’re toxic, and the damage they cause can last a lifetime.

A July article by MedicalResearch.com also discusses the possible link between heavy metals in baby food and the development of ASD in children who consume it. Each independent study linking these toxic foods to autism helps strengthen the pending litigation.

Texas Launches State Investigation Into Gerber and Plum Organics

In a major step forward for families seeking justice, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has launched an official investigation into baby food brands Gerber and Plum Organics. On August 26, his office demanded internal records from both companies, accusing them of deceptive marketing and warning that more subpoenas are likely coming.

This is a powerful development. Until now, most of the pressure on baby food companies has come from individual lawsuits and media reports. With a state agency now stepping in to demand real answers, families may finally learn what these companies knew about the dangers hidden in their products and when they knew it.

The state investigation could uncover internal emails, test results, and decision-making documents that have been kept secret in the civil court litigation. That kind of evidence could be life-changing for families trying to prove how their child was harmed.

More Families Are Filing Lawsuits Than Ever Before

As of last month, more than 211 families have filed lawsuits in the federal baby food MDL (Multidistrict Litigation). This increase of 31 new cases in just one month is the most significant monthly jump since the litigation began.

The lawsuits accuse major companies like Gerber, Beech-Nut, Plum, HappyBaby, and Walmart’s Parent’s Choice of selling baby food products contaminated with toxic heavy metals without proper warnings or adequate safety testing.

Why This Matters for Your Family

If your child consumed commercial baby foods and was later diagnosed with ASD, ADHD, developmental delays, or other cognitive or behavioral issues, your family may be facing challenges that extend far beyond a medical diagnosis.

Raising a child with special needs often involves:

• Ongoing medical care and behavioral therapy
  
• Specialized educational services
  
• Extra caregiving time and emotional support
  
• Lost income and long-term planning needs
  

This lawsuit isn’t just about pointing fingers. It’s about making sure your child gets the support they need, now and in the future.

You May Still Have Time to File a Claim

Many parents worry that too much time has passed since their child ate baby food as a toddler. But in most states, the legal deadline (statute of limitations) is paused for minors until they reach adulthood. That means you may still be eligible to file a claim, even if the exposure happened years ago.

If you believe baby food may have played a role in your child’s developmental struggles, it’s important to explore your legal options. Contact Dolman Law Group today for a free, confidential consultation. 

We’ll take the time to listen to your story, review your situation, and help you decide what to do next. You won’t pay anything unless we recover compensation for your family. Let us help you seek the truth and fight for the justice your child deserves.

Walmart’s Role Expands in Ongoing Baby Food Litigation

More families are naming Walmart as a defendant in lawsuits over toxic heavy metals in baby food. As the retailer behind the Parent’s Choice brand, which represents roughly 30% of the U.S. baby food market, Walmart is now facing increased scrutiny in the ongoing multidistrict litigation (MDL). 

Like other major baby food manufacturers, Walmart is accused of selling products that may have exposed infants to dangerous levels of arsenic, lead, cadmium, and mercury, substances known to affect early brain development. Plaintiffs allege these heavy metals are causing autism in their children after consuming these products.

Indiana Parents Seek Justice After Autism Diagnosis

A recently filed lawsuit by a family in Indianapolis, Indiana, adds to the growing number of claims in the MDL. The parents believe their son’s autism spectrum disorder was caused by prolonged exposure to toxic metals in baby food consumed between 2007 and 2008, during a critical stage of his early development.

According to the complaint, the child consumed a wide range of products from trusted brands, including:

• Beech-Nut (Stage 1 Apple, Banana, Organics Pear)
• Gerber (Stage 1 Natural Apple and Banana)
• Nurture’s Purple Carrot & Blueberry Puffs
• Plum Organics

The family also notes that purchase records could reveal that even more products could be involved. Their lawsuit claims the manufacturers failed to warn parents and continued to sell unsafe products despite knowing the risks. Like others in this litigation, they are pursuing compensatory and punitive damages and have requested a jury trial.

180 Cases Now Filed, and More Expected

The Baby Food MDL has now reached 180 pending cases, with 13 new filings in the past month. While that growth may appear slow, it’s important to understand that in most states, the legal deadline for filing doesn’t begin until a child turns 18. That means many families still have time to bring legal action as they understand the link between baby food and their child’s diagnosis.

Attorneys across the country are watching closely as the litigation moves into expert discovery. A favorable ruling on general causation—whether these products can be scientifically linked to developmental harm—could accelerate the pace of filings and help more families get the support they deserve.

If your child has been diagnosed with autism or another developmental disorder and consumed certain baby foods during infancy, you may have the right to join this litigation.

A family in Oklahoma City recently filed a lawsuit in the growing baby food litigation, alleging that their now 20-year-old child developed Autism Spectrum Disorder and ADHD after consuming a variety of baby food products during infancy. The products named in the lawsuit include popular brands such as:

• Beech-Nut
• Gerber
• Nurture (HappyBABY)
• Walmart’s store-brand baby food

According to the lawsuit, the child was repeatedly exposed to dangerous levels of arsenic, lead, cadmium, and mercury—all known neurotoxins—during critical stages of brain development. The family claims these exposures caused lasting harm that will impact their child’s life permanently.

The lawsuit, filed as part of the national Multidistrict Litigation (MDL), alleges the baby food companies:

• Failed to properly test or screen their products for harmful substances
• Did not warn parents about the potential risks
• Continued selling contaminated food despite being aware of the dangers

Understanding the Larger Lawsuit – MDL 3101

This case joins more than 165 others now consolidated in the federal baby food MDL (No. 3101) in the Northern District of California. While the MDL is growing steadily, many families have yet to file because the law in most states pauses the statute of limitations for children until they turn 18. That means your family may still have time to file, even if the exposure happened many years ago.

These lawsuits focus on the same concerns:

• Heavy metals like arsenic, mercury, lead, and cadmium were found in many baby food products
• Exposure to these substances can interfere with early brain development
• Children exposed during infancy may now be facing serious, lifelong challenges

Trust the Dolman Law Group to Help You Understand Your Options

If your child has been diagnosed with autism, ADHD, or another developmental delay, and consumed baby food from one of the brands under investigation, we encourage you to reach out. You may still have time to file a claim.

A new report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) confirms what many families have suspected for years: lead exposure in early childhood is more common—and more dangerous—than previously acknowledged.

According to the CDC, an estimated 1.5 million children under the age of six in the U.S. have detectable levels of lead in their blood. That’s about 6.4% of young children, and the data shows that Black children are nearly twice as likely as white children to be affected. These findings highlight deep, systemic issues and reinforce growing concerns about the safety of common baby food products.

This new government report is not just a wake-up call—it’s a powerful piece of evidence for families involved in lawsuits against major baby food brands like Gerber and Beech-Nut. The CDC confirms that no amount of lead is safe, especially for developing brains.

In the legal world, this report could be a turning point. It supports key claims being made by plaintiffs—especially those related to the widespread presence of lead in baby foods and the failure of companies to properly warn consumers. It also strengthens arguments around causation and may pave the way for larger damages, including punitive ones. The CDC’s declaration that lead exposure is a “significant public health concern” leaves little room for companies to downplay the risks.

Meanwhile, the number of cases in the heavy metal baby food multidistrict litigation (MDL) continues to grow. As of April, six new lawsuits were added, bringing the total to 101. With more families becoming aware of the dangers and connecting them to their own children’s health issues, this number is expected to climb.

Now that all this attention has finally been placed on toxic heavy metals, more and more information on the issue is starting to come forward, either from past or new studies. Recently, Reuters tested 1,757 baby foods and found that over 100 products exceeded California’s strict daily lead limit of 0.5 micrograms. Popular brands like Gerber, HappyBaby, and Plum were among those with concerning results. While the FDA’s limit is higher at 2.2 micrograms per day, pediatricians warn that eating multiple servings could easily push a child’s exposure past safe levels, heightening the risk of developmental harm.

Even low-level lead exposure can cause permanent brain damage, including learning disabilities, developmental delays, and ADHD. Medical professionals emphasize that children’s growing brains are especially vulnerable to toxic metals.

A recent Target baby food recall has renewed serious concerns about toxic metals in products made for infants and toddlers. Although the FDA classified the recall as Class II, suggesting a moderate health risk, experts agree that no amount of lead exposure is safe for young children.

Specifically, in late April, Target quietly recalled over 25,000 units of baby food after discovering elevated levels of toxic lead. The affected product—Good & Gather’s Baby Pea, Zucchini, Kale & Thyme Puree for babies 6 months and older—was sold in 4-ounce pouches with lot numbers 4169 and 4167 and “Best by” dates of December 7 and 9, 2025.

Despite the health risks, neither Target nor the FDA issued a formal press release about the recall. The FDA’s Class II classification meant limited public outreach, even though the contaminated product had already reached store shelves and consumers.

This latest recall reinforces the claims brought in this Baby Food Toxic Metals MDL, where parents allege that companies failed to properly test for and control heavy metal contamination in their products.

Parents are urged to:

• Return recalled baby food immediately.
• Consult a pediatrician if exposure is suspected.
• Reach out to an attorney to learn about legal options.

With litigation moving forward, this recall adds powerful support to accusations of negligence and unsafe manufacturing practices.

The federal judge overseeing the Toxic Baby Food MDL, Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley, has ruled that Gerber, Walmart, Beech-Nut, and other baby food manufacturers will have to face a jury when it comes to claims they sold baby food contaminated with toxic heavy metals that greatly increased the risk of neurodevelopmental disorders such as autism (ASD) and ADHD in children.

The massively powerful and well-funded defendant baby food manufacturers tried the usual playbook—filing a motion to dismiss on the grounds that the heavy metals were “naturally occurring” and that plaintiffs didn’t pinpoint exact toxicity levels linking their products to autism and ADHD.

But on April 2, 2025, Judge Corley said not so fast when she denied the motion, giving this MDL serious momentum and affirming that these lawsuits are potentially valid. Now, this litigation will move forward—and that means families harmed by toxic baby food are one step closer to justice and compensation.

Saying that ‘baby food naturally contains toxic levels of heavy metals and that’s just the way things are’ has always been a ridiculous argument. It’s even more ridiculous to say that the parents needed to come up with a toxicity threshold in order for these companies to be held accountable. Luckily, the judge saw right through this.

In a separate ruling, Campbell Soup Company was dismissed from the MDL.

The national baby food MDL now includes 101 active cases, following the addition of nine new filings in February. To streamline the process for new plaintiffs to join the litigation, the court has approved the use of a short-form complaint. However, despite plaintiffs’ attorneys submitting a version that aligns with typical MDL procedures, defense lawyers have pushed back. Further clarification from the court is expected soon.

Separately, a class action lawsuit filed against baby food manufacturer Beech-Nut was dismissed in an unrelated case. That action focused on allegations of deceptive advertising and financial harm—rather than injuries caused by toxic ingredients. The court determined that the plaintiffs failed to prove that Beech-Nut’s products were financially worth less than advertised or that consumers paid more based on misleading safety claims.

Unlike the class action litigation, the claims in the ongoing toxic baby food MDL are based on physical harm caused by exposure to heavy metals in baby food products. As such, the dismissal of the unrelated class action has no bearing on the toxic baby food litigation currently moving forward.

Judge Corley issues PTO #15 which contains several key highlights. the latest order provides clarity to requirements for the short form complaint (SFC) that every plaintiff must file. In fact, the short form complaint must now include a jurisdictional statement explaining diversity and can no longer make reference to specific parent companies that have been dismissed from the baby food lawsuit litigation (i.e., Danone S.A., Nestle, S.A and Hero AG). Additionally, Judge Corley specified that only autism spectrum disorder and ADHD will be litigated during this general causation phase of the baby food autism lawsuit.

Finally, Judge Corley laid out a discovery calendar with deadlines for the general causation phase of the baby food lawsuit. The Daubert hearing for general causation has been set for December 8, 2025. August 29, 2025 marks the cut off for general causation discovery. The briefing schedule for Daubert runs from September 26, 2025 through November 7, 2025. Plaintiff expert reports are now due on May 23, 2025, and defense expert reports are due on June 20, 2025.

The latest case count in this MDL reached 92 last month, with just four new lawsuits added in the previous 30 days. However, the slow pace of filings does not necessarily indicate a lack of strong claims. Since these lawsuits involve injuries to children, many families may be taking a wait-and-see approach before joining the litigation. Given that most states have extended statutes of limitations for cases involving minors, many parents still have time to consider their legal options.

The timeframe for filing a claim depends on various factors, including where the child consumed the contaminated baby food. Some states allow lawsuits to be filed for a few years after an injury is discovered, while others extend the deadline until after the child reaches adulthood. If you’re considering a toxic baby food lawsuit, contact our toxic baby food autism team led by Attorney Russo for a free consultation to discuss your legal rights and potential next steps today.

Recent investigations have highlighted specific baby food brands with products containing concerning levels of toxic metals such as arsenic, cadmium, lead, and mercury. Foods frequently linked to contamination include puffed rice snacks, rice-based cereals, carrot and sweet potato purees, certain fruit juices, and teething biscuits due to agricultural and manufacturing processes.

The following brands are under scrutiny for heavy metal contamination:

• Beech-Nut
• Gerber
• Plum Organics
• Happy Family Organics (HappyBABY)
• Parent’s Choice (Walmart brand)
• Earth’s Best Organic (Hain Celestial)
• Sprout Foods
• Campbell’s Plum Baby Foods
• Neptune Wellness Solutions

Until stricter regulations are implemented, parents are advised to opt for baby foods free from heavy metals and avoid rice-based products to minimize risks.

In a move to reduce toxic heavy metal exposure in children, the FDA has announced new lead limits for baby foods:

• 10 parts per billion (ppb) for mixed foods like fruits, vegetables, yogurt, custards, grains, and meats.
• 20 parts per billion (ppb) for single-ingredient items like root vegetables and dry cereals.

Although these guidelines are not legally binding, they give the FDA authority to act against manufacturers exceeding these thresholds.

Defendants in the ongoing baby food litigation are expected to argue that external environmental factors, such as lead paint, contaminated water, or household dust, are the true cause of lead exposure in children, not baby food.

For plaintiffs to succeed, attorneys must demonstrate that the baby food products consumed were a significant source of heavy metals that directly contributed to the child’s condition. This requires presenting compelling evidence that the injured children consumed excessive metal from these products which resulted in harm to the affected children.

Claims under the Louisiana Products Liability Act against retailers Whole Foods and Amazon were dismissed by the MDL judge, who found that these companies could not be classified as “manufacturer-sellers” responsible for the presence of heavy metals in the baby foods they sold. The court held that the retailers did not control or influence the products’ safety and, as such, could not be held liable under this statute.

However, the judge dismissed a separate claim against Amazon with leave to amend. If the plaintiff can present evidence showing Amazon undertook specific responsibilities to ensure product safety through its processes, they have the opportunity to refile by December 20th.

A 2021 Congressional Report brought national attention to the alarming presence of toxic heavy metals in many popular baby food brands. This report may have contributed to declining profits for baby food makers as consumer trust eroded. Today, the growing MDL provides hope not only for families seeking compensation for their injured children but also for systemic changes in industry practices and regulatory oversight.

If this litigation results in stricter regulations and accountability for baby food manufacturers, it could have far-reaching effects. Generations of children could be protected from harmful toxic exposures, potentially leading to better overall public health outcomes. The Dolman Russo team is accepting baby food cases and helping families care for their children and possibly change the future.

In January, California state court will host the first heavy metal baby food trial to see how a jury responds to claims that toxic metals in baby food have caused harm to children. Should the jury find that baby food manufacturers were aware of the presence of these toxic metals but failed to adequately warn consumers, the decision could influence the resolution of cases within the federal multidistrict litigation (MDL).

At the same time, progress continues in the MDL, with the court establishing key deadlines for expert discovery, motion hearings, and the submission of a standardized short-form complaint for all plaintiffs. Additionally, the Dolman & Russo team is closely monitoring discussions about Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.’s potential nomination as Secretary of Health and Human Services by the incoming administration. If appointed, Kennedy’s stance on heavy metals in food products could bolster the plaintiffs’ position.

At Dolman Law Group, we often receive questions like, “How much time do I have to file an injury claim?” This answer depends on the statute of limitations, a legal deadline that each state sets for filing a lawsuit. These deadlines can vary widely depending on the specifics of the case, and they often change when a child is the one who has suffered an injury. In these cases, the timeframe may differ from those for adults, and some states allow additional time to file.

If your child was harmed by a toxic baby food, it’s essential to understand these time constraints and gather the necessary evidence to support your case. Dolman Law Group’s skilled injury attorneys can clarify the laws relevant to your case and help ensure you don’t miss any critical deadlines.

Building a strong case against a manufacturer requires specific proof: claimants must demonstrate they purchased and used the harmful product, describe how it caused injury, and document the resulting losses. For example, showing a record of purchase and providing medical documentation of the child’s injury are crucial steps. If you’re a baby food brand loyalty club member, those records may support your case further by demonstrating ongoing purchases.

Save any purchase receipts, medical bills, and records of care-related expenses. Collecting this evidence now will put you in the best position to build a successful claim with the help of your attorney.

In this multidistrict litigation, the discovery process surrounding electronically stored information (ESI) plays a pivotal role. The plaintiffs are seeking access to documents and communications from the defendant companies, which include both baby food manufacturers and major retailers that sold the products under scrutiny. The aim is to uncover key internal and external exchanges, such as:

• Discussions among company leadership regarding potential contamination, especially those who continued selling the products despite learning of contamination risks.
• Evidence showing the companies were aware of dangerous levels of heavy metals in their baby food but failed to report this to the FDA or inform consumers.
• Test results indicating toxic levels of heavy metals that were disregarded by the defendants.
• Documentation from the FDA concerning whether the companies complied with federal safety regulations.
• Details about ingredient sourcing, including whether the companies knew of contamination issues but continued to use compromised suppliers.
• Additional information that could strengthen the plaintiffs’ cases against the defendants.

This information could be crucial in building a compelling argument in favor of the plaintiffs. Our team will provide further updates on this important issue when the court finally resolves these disputes.

At the last court appearance, the MDL judge entered discovery orders requiring certain disclosures and evidence preservation actions. More specifically:

• The Defendants have run tests to determine if their baby food and ingredients contained heavy metals. These companies must provide those test results along with the baby food formulas from 2012 until 2021.
• Defendants also tested the water used to make the food products. They must disclose those test results covering the same timeframe.
• If any third-party companies were involved in the production of the baby food in question, the defendants must disclose those companies.
• Defendants must describe the actions they took to preserve relevant evidence for this litigation and when those actions began.
• Both sides are to file an agreed-upon proposal by September 19th regarding how electronically stored information (ESI) will be exchanged. Any disagreements must be stated, and both sides can provide arguments for their respective positions.
• Future case management conferences are scheduled for September 26, November 7, and December 12.

Judge Corley has set a deadline of noon on August 20th for both parties to submit a joint order updating the court on ongoing discovery battles. The next hearing in the baby food autism lawsuit is scheduled for August 22, 2024. 

Defendant manufacturers, including Beach-Nut, Gerber Baby Foods, Sprout Foods, Happy Family Organics, and others, allege that plaintiffs’ interrogatories requesting testing information and levels of heavy metals in specific baby food products are overbroad. We believe that the testing and procedures, or lack thereof, utilized by defendant manufacturers go to the heart of the baby food lawsuit and what we, plaintiff lawyers, are alleging. 

At this juncture, the various defendant baby food manufacturers have not demonstrated rigorous testing protocols and procedures to safeguard our children from toxic substances, including heavy metals.

Based on some recent actions by the plaintiffs and defendants in the baby food autism MDL, it looks like there will be some tension over the discovery process. Lawyers for the plaintiffs in the toxic baby food lawsuits have served interrogatories on the defendant baby food manufacturers with general questions about their testing and procedures related to heavy metals in their foods.

In response, the defendants have objected to the plaintiff’s questions, claiming they are too broad for this stage of litigation. The parties brought this issue up at the last status conference with Judge Corley, who has encouraged both parties to try resolving the issue independently to prevent it from being a court matter, if possible. We hope this issue plays out in favor of the plaintiffs, and we will keep you updated once we hear more.

To keep the litigation moving and avoid stalling by the defendants, the court has ordered all parties to begin the discovery and information-gathering process unless a Motion to Dismiss is filed. While this MDL is still small compared to other multidistrict litigation, we expect it to grow quickly as discovery proceeds.

Lead counsel for the plaintiffs has filed a Master Complaint, which is a comprehensive document that combines many different claims against the manufacturers of baby food that may be harming children. The complaint essentially alleges that certain baby foods contain toxic heavy metals that may cause autism and ADHD in the children who consume them.

Using a Master Complaint will streamline the litigation process and allow many plaintiffs to seek the compensation they deserve based on the negligence of the food makers.

Twenty-nine lawsuits have been filed in the baby food lawsuit MDL. Federal lawsuits were recently consolidated before Judge Jacqueline Corley in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. We believe toxic baby food litigation will grow slowly as the plaintiff’s steering committee is carefully selecting only well-vetted claims. 

Judge Corley recently made it easier for plaintiffs to file their lawsuits via a direct filing order. This enables baby food lawyers to file their lawsuits directly into the MDL. However, Judge Corley is wary of multi-party complaints absent the parties residing in the same household. 

All baby food lawsuits contain common issues concerning facts and law. They all allege personal injury was sustained by the child after being exposed to high levels of heavy metals such as lead, arsenic, and mercury. The lawsuits are against specific baby food brands, and the injuries alleged are either autism spectrum disorder or ADHD. 

The MDL saw a modest expansion last month with the addition of two new baby food lawsuits. This gradual increase in case numbers is typical in the early stages of litigation. Potential plaintiffs are not immediately pressured to rush their filings, as many states offer extended timeframes for submitting claims on behalf of minors.

This measured pace allows for thorough case preparation and gives families ample time to consider their legal options.

The extended statute of limitations for minors in most jurisdictions provides a buffer, ensuring that affected families can take the necessary time to gather evidence, consult with medical experts, and make informed decisions about pursuing legal action.

As the litigation progresses, it’s likely that the number of cases will grow more rapidly. However, this initial slow growth period is crucial for establishing precedents and shaping the overall direction of the MDL.

It allows legal teams on both sides to refine their strategies and arguments, potentially leading to more effective representation for all parties involved.

The gradual influx of cases also gives the court system time to adapt and prepare for the potential increase in lawsuit volume, ensuring that each case receives proper attention and consideration as the MDL moves forward.

The next status conference is set for Thursday (June 20, 2024) in San Francisco, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, before Judge Jacqueline Corley. 

We believe an issue that will receive significant attention is the overall definition of general causation, which will guide discovery conducted by both plaintiffs and defendant manufacturers, such as Gerber, Beech-Nut, Hain Celestial Group (Earth’s Best Organic), Plum Organics, and Nurture, among others. 

We believe the focus in determining general causation should be on the heavy metals found in within baby foods as compared to baby food in general. 

In other words, can plaintiffs prove through expert testimony that the cumulative ingestion of heavy metals commonly found in baby foods cause neurodevelopment disorders such as ASD (Autism Spectrum Disorder) or ADHD (Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder). 

Another issue that will be addressed is discovery related to ESI (electronically stored information) and protective orders over specific corporate representatives. Defendant manufacturers have already filed motions with Judge Corley requesting that the Federal MDL follow the same procedures already determined by multiple State Court Judges. 

Keep in mind that toxic baby food lawsuits have been pending in various State Courts, and Judge Corley may opt to follow prior rulings. However, State Court orders are considered persuasive authority, and Judge Corley is in no way obligated to follow them.

In other words, toxic baby food lawsuits have been filed in various Federal circuits since 2020. However, the recently formed toxic baby food MDL is the first time these lawsuits pending in various Courts have now been consolidated before a single Judge in one jurisdiction. 

Discovery will soon commence against a number of different manufacturers of baby food products. Our toxic baby food lawyers are beginning to consolidate our cases against every conceivable confounding factor for neurodevelopment disorders, such as autism. 

We strongly believe the defendant manufacturers are not going to give an inch, and it is the responsibility of plaintiff lawyers to only file extremely strong cases in the MDL.

At the end of May, information was released about the first status conference for the toxic baby food MDL led by Judge Corley. The agenda includes initial pretrial proceedings, reviewing joint statements from plaintiffs and defendants, and considering leadership appointments such as plaintiffs’ lead counsel and the Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee.

Attorney Anthony Russo from Dolman Russo, who is also affiliated with Lawsuit Legal News, has been named to the Plaintiffs Steering Committee and will help represent all plaintiffs during the pre-trial proceedings held in this multidistrict litigation. 

The Dolman Law Group team is certain that Attorney Russo will be a valuable member of the leadership in the toxic baby food MDL.

The conference also addressed procedural issues, the MDL’s timeline, and some early disputes. Plaintiffs are pushing for early bellwether trials, while defendants are seeking to delay litigation to pressure injured parties into lower settlements, which could be risky as the scientific evidence supporting the plaintiffs’ case continues to grow.

Senator Amy Kloubachar of Minnesota and Tammy Duckworth of Illinois introduced a new bill that would force the FDA to set maximum allowable limits of toxic heavy metals found in baby foods. 

The FDA commissioner previously asked a Senate Subcommittee for more authority to regulate and oversee the food industry in the same manner it handles drug manufacturers. Sadly, the FDA lacks full authority to set guidelines for baby food manufacturers at this juncture.

In only four weeks, the multi-district litigation (MDL) consolidated 26 cases for pre-trial procedures. Two recent cases, one from Nevada and one from Illinois, include similar allegations against baby food manufacturers such as Beech-Nut Nutrition Company and Gerber.

This MDL involves parents whose children have been diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) and/or other neurodevelopmental conditions. The parents claim their children were injured after eating baby food with dangerously high levels of heavy metals, such as arsenic, lead, and mercury.

The predominant legal theory is that baby food manufacturers made and sold food products containing heavy metal amounts that exceeded regulatory levels. The complaints further allege the companies failed to warn parents about the potential dangers associated with this food. The parents also state if they had known about these dangers, they certainly would not have given this food to their children.

Possible damages requested include brain injuries, pain and suffering, ASD, reduced quality of life, all related medical expenses, and future costs. Some plaintiffs have requested punitive damages against the baby food companies to deter them from harming other children.

The MDL Judge, Jacqueline Scott Corley, has a solid resume that should help her manage the litigation. Judge Corely is a Harvard graduate (manga cum laude). She also worked in the private sector and as a judicial clerk before assuming the role of United States Magistrate Judge.

Judge Corley’s background also includes Alternative Dispute Resolution mediation experience, which can only help when the parties begin settlement discussions. United States District Court for the Northern District of California has been a very favorable jurisdiction for plaintiffs in mass tort actions.

Judge Corley’s first pretrial order covered procedures regarding the filing of lawsuits and pleadings in the MDL prior to the initial hearing that was scheduled for May 16, 2024, in San Francisco. Additionally, the initial order set a deadline of April 29, 2024, for attorneys seeking to apply to serve on the plaintiff’s steering committee. The Court will appoint the plaintiff’s steering committee shortly after the initial status conference.

We anticipate that numerous lawsuits will be filed in the MDL over the coming weeks against every major baby food brand. The lawsuits will have common allegations that any measurable amounts of lead and arsenic can impact a child’s brain development. Further, the complaints will certainly allege that baby food manufacturers knowingly sold packaged foods with exceedingly high levels of heavy metals that could greatly impact a child’s development.

As we anticipated, the federal judges serving on the JPML ruled that the toxic baby food lawsuits warranted consolidation. This does not come as a surprise, given that the product liability claims share many similarities. The plaintiffs have alleged the same types of injuries, specifically developmental and behavioral disorders like autism and ADHD, were caused by exposure to lead, mercury, and other heavy metals in tainted baby food.

Beyond that, the defendants are all facing scrutiny for allowing their baby food products to be contaminated with heavy metal toxins. The court will consider the plaintiffs’ position that the baby food manufacturers are liable for their damages based on the same lines of reasoning. Plaintiffs believe the manufacturers neglected their duty to keep products safe through testing and monitoring, and by failing to warn consumers about possible heavy metal exposure.

Now, the existing heavy metal baby food lawsuits will be transferred to the same jurisdiction as multidistrict litigation. The JPML has assigned the product liability claims to Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley of the Northern District of California. This U.S. District Court handles many class action lawsuits, including the Uber sexual assault lawsuits and the Tepezza hearing loss lawsuits.

Like most defendants facing mass tort claims, the baby food manufacturers argued against the need to consolidate the cases into multidistrict litigation. Representatives for Gerber and Beech-Nut, among others, essentially said that an MDL would be redundant because the small number of claims and their established system make further organization unnecessary.

The defendants requested that if the toxic baby food claims proceeded as an MDL, the JPML let a federal judge in the Southern District of New York oversee the cases. Both Gerber and Beech-Nut are headquartered nearby in New Jersey and New York, respectively. Not only did the JPML disagree with the defendant’s position on the need for an MDL, but the panel chose a location across the country from their preferred jurisdiction.

On the other hand, plaintiffs are pleased with the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation’s ruling, as they have been seeking a toxic baby food MDL for months. At the time of the JPML ruling, the heavy metal baby food lawsuits spanned 11 districts, which likely contributed to the judges’ decision.

Hopefully, we will see a more expedient resolution and fairer settlement outcomes now that the baby food autism lawsuits are being handled as multidistrict litigation. Keep in mind that just because the toxic baby food plaintiffs can coordinate their cases, that doesn’t mean you should forgo hiring your own product liability attorney.

Depending on a child’s level of exposure to heavy metals in the defective baby food and other factors like their existing health conditions, the severity of a developmental condition like autism can vary greatly. That means damages can also vary between plaintiffs, so it’s best to have a toxic baby food attorney who is looking out for your specific case.

The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) held a hearing at the end of March to decide if all federal cases alleging toxic baby food can lead to autism should be consolidated into a Multidistrict Litigation (MDL). The team at Dolman Law Group expects the JPML to create an MDL and issue a transfer order over the next two weeks.

We are projecting all federal lawsuits claiming heavy metals in baby foods can cause autism will be consolidated before one Judge in either the Northern District of California, the Southern District of California, or the District of Nevada.

The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) is scheduled to hear arguments for and against consolidating all toxic baby food lawsuits on March 28, 2024, in Charleston, South Carolina. We are curious about whether all claims against all manufacturers will be consolidated. Gerber and Beach-Nut are the two largest corporations involved in these cases. We are particularly interested in seeing whether the JPML also includes lawsuits against several other baby food companies.

Parents who filed lawsuits against several big baby food makers filed a motion in January to consolidate all federal cases into an MDL to help move their cases more quickly through the system. Several of the large food manufacturer defendants, including Gerber Products Co., Beech-Nut Nutrition Co., and Hain Celestial Group Inc., are opposing the MDL.

These lawsuits are filed by parents who claim their children developed Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) or ADHD after consuming baby food that contained toxic heavy metals. The defendants claim there is insufficient scientific proof of a connection, but this is not the time to argue that issue. We are waiting for a decision from the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) to see if and where an MDL may be formed.

Plaintiffs in the toxic baby food lawsuits are actively pushing for a Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) hearing in hopes that their cases can be consolidated into a Multidistrict Litigation (MDL).

The plaintiffs want their cases centralized into an MDL to improve efficiency in managing the large number of cases, streamline proceedings, promote consistent rulings, and expedite a resolution. An MDL not only ensures all of these things, but it usually saves both parties money (since defendants don’t have to try 300 different cases across the country, and plaintiffs can pool their resources for things like discovery and expert witnesses).

And, of course, if an MDL speeds up a resolution, the injured parties can get their money a lot sooner if they get a favorable outcome.

The date for the JPML hearing, or if there will even be one, has not been determined yet.

An appeal has been filed in the California lawsuit dismissed by Judge Lawrence Riff. We remain hopeful the plaintiff’s lawyers will be able to establish specific causation that a particular baby food caused autism. 

California State Court Judge Lawrence Riff found the plaintiff failed to meet their burden to admit expert testimony. Judge Riff presided over a Sargon hearing (California’s version of a Daubert examination wherein the Court acts as a gatekeeper in the evaluation of expert scientific testimony. Judge Riff states in his order the methodology utilized by the plaintiff’s crucial expert was “a too-far leap of logic and a too-great analytical gap to be tolerated.” More specifically, Riff states the plaintiff admits to consuming baby foods from seven different defendants. Thus, it is difficult to determine and prove that any one specific product caused the subsequent prognosis of a neurodevelopmental disorder. 

Previously, Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Amy Hogue presided over the first Sargon hearing in this case. She found plaintiff’s experts employed sound methodologies in illustrating toxic heavy metals found in baby foods by major brands can be a substantial factor in causing autism. 

An article published in late June by Consumer Reports published findings of alarmingly high levels of arsenic, lead, and cadmium in popular brands of baby and toddler foods. All three are considered toxic to infants and have been found to cause developmental delays. An issue that will continue to impact this litigation is the plaintiff’s burden to prove specific causation. More specifically, a plaintiff must demonstrate that the use of a specific baby food product led to the diagnosis of autism.

The first true test of manufacturers’ liability for toxic baby food was originally scheduled for the beginning of this month. That jury trial has now been reset to October 2023. We’ll keep you posted about the last-minute pre-trial happenings and the trial itself.

Five plaintiffs in Nevada allege that Beech-Nut, Gerber, Plum, Sprout Foods, and Walmart baby food caused autism. The legal arguments include strict liability, failure to warn, breach of the implied warranty of merchantability, three forms of negligence, and unjust enrichment, as well as violations of state-specific Nevada laws. The plaintiffs are demanding compensatory and punitive damages.

Another case in Texas ended mid-trial when the court agreed the plaintiffs had not proven a causal connection between lead, arsenic, and other heavy metals in baby food and autism. Those plaintiffs did not have qualified expert witness testimony to support the connection, showing just how important expert testimony can be in these types of cases.

Finally, the FDA had previously set deadlines for creating guidelines to reduce toxic metals in baby food. Those deadlines were removed from the FDA website, and we now wonder if the FDA will ever take the action needed to protect children from these risks.

After an adverse ruling in New Jersey, several federal class action lawsuits were voluntarily dismissed. However, more state cases are expected, especially in California, where the courts have ruled favorably for the plaintiffs in these baby food cases.

Although the FDA found toxic heavy metals in 33 out of 39 baby food samples back in 2007, it refused to set limits or issue guidance about maximum safe amounts of metals in food. This month, the FDA finally released a report stating that baby food cannot exceed lead levels of 10 parts per billion in vegetable, fruit, grain, and meat mixtures. Once the regulations are final, the FDA can take action against any baby food manufacturers that exceed this limit.

Several baby food manufacturer defendants have filed motions to dismiss them from the lawsuits based on two arguments. First, they argue that there is insufficient scientific evidence to prove baby food can cause autism even with high levels of heavy metals. Second, the defendants claim that because federal authorities regulate the presence of heavy metals in baby food, the manufacturers are not responsible under a preemption argument.

Over the past several months, many more lawsuits have been filed, and a first trial is scheduled for May 2, 2023, in Los Angeles. The most common defendants in these cases are Nurture, Inc., which produces Happy Baby Organics food, Gerber, Hain Celestial, Sprout Foods, Beech-Nut, Parents’ Choice, and Plum.

A California court found the evidence linking heavy metals to autism has a strong enough foundation to allow a lawsuit to proceed to trial. In federal court, a California judge ruled that a toxic baby food class action case could go forward based on the argument that Walmart knowingly sold baby food containing toxic metals.

Toxic heavy metals are well known to cause severe health issues among adults who inadvertently consume them, let alone children who can suffer even more damage with smaller doses. For example, lead pipes are known to cause even more harm to the health of young, developing children compared to adults who also consume water from the same pipes. 

While lead pipes are a well-known issue that persists today, baby food has long been considered safe. Unfortunately, several studies have confirmed that this could not be farther from the truth regarding certain brands and the baby foods they make.

Concerns about the presence of heavy metals in food products are nothing new, but now these concerns extend to baby food. Reports of heavy metals in food prompted several investigations into the extent to which baby food was affected. 

As early as October 2017, the Clean Label Project, a small nonprofit based in Colorado, published a report where they tested 500 samples of baby food and infant formulas for a variety of toxins like heavy metals. They found that 30% of all products they tested contained detectable levels of lead. 

This disturbing revelation prompted a myriad of institutions and organizations to undergo their own investigations into baby food toxic heavy metal contamination.

• In 2018, the FDA conducted its own investigations into childhood food-based lead exposure, which led to the conclusion that food was, in fact, a large source of lead exposure among young children. 
• By analyzing the FDA’s food tests, the Environmental Defense Fund found that there were measurable levels of lead in 20% of the baby products that were tested. 
• In August 2018, Consumer Reports published results of their tests on 50 popular baby food products that found about two-thirds contained what they called “worrisome levels” of at least one neurotoxic heavy metal. 
• In 2019 Healthy Babies Bright Futures reported that 95% of 168 containers of baby foods they tested contained one or more toxic heavy metals.