Logo SLF

Fighting for you is what we do

Toxic Baby Food Lawsuit

Important information:



What is happenning with the baby food?

Investigation by the U.S. House into Baby Food Reveals Toxic Metals

Lawyers from Scranton Law Firm represent hundreds of children suffering from autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder after being exposed to dangerously high levels of heavy metals in baby food products, including arsenic lead cadmium and mercury.

Personal injury attorneys filed the first baby food lawsuit in California and possibly the nation against several baby food manufacturers alleging they knowingly sell products tainted with arsenic, lead, cadmium, and mercury. We represent parents, who allege their seven-year-old son, suffers from neurodevelopmental disorders after consuming substantial quantities of baby foods from the following baby food manufacturers:


The purpose of this lawsuit is to hold these companies responsible for their alleged negligence, aiming to secure compensation for the families affected. This compensation would help cover medical expenses, continuous therapeutic support, and other related costs. Ultimately, the lawsuit seeks to compel these manufacturers to eliminate dangerous contaminants from their products, ensuring their safety for all children.

Childhood exposure to heavy metals

has been found to cause damage to neurological development

Both the Food and Drug Administration and the World Health Organization warn that heavy metals are harmful to health. Infants can experience serious and often irreversible brain damage from even low levels of exposure to heavy metals in baby food. Long-term brain function can also be negatively affected by this.

Toxic Baby Food Lawsuit

Tell Us About Your Case

Inorganic Arsenic

ATSDR reports that organic arsenic presents the greatest health risk among various environmental substances.

Research concludes arsenic exposure has a “significant negative impact on neurodevelopment in children” and has been linked to damage to the central nervous system and cognition.

The following are additional risks associated with exposure:



ATSDR identifies lead as the most significant environmental substance potentially harmful to human health.

Even small doses are extremely harmful, accumulating in the body over time

It leads to behavioral issues, decreased cognitive performance, postnatal growth reduction, and delayed puberty

The danger is especially high for infants and young children

Early childhood exposure to lead has a number of neurological effects, including:   



The ATDSR ranks cadium 7th on its list of environmental contaminants posing the greatest risk to human health.
According to research, it is associated with:



On the ATSDR’s list of environmental substances that have the greatest impact on human health, mercury ranks #3.

In recent studies, mercury exposure during pregnancy has been associated with adverse neurodevelopment and lower IQ.

An increased level of exposure has been linked to autistic behaviors.


Scranton Law Firm is in active litigation against the baby food companies listed above and intends to go to trial in 2023. To see if your child qualifies for a baby food lawsuit, fill out our confidential case evaluation form or call our legal team at (800) 400-8742 to schedule an appointment with a lawyer who can answer all your questions.

Join the Baby Food Heavy Metals Lawsuit – Justice for Children with Neurodevelopmental Disorders

In 2021, a U.S. Congressional Subcommittee reported that numerous popular baby food products, including infant rice cereal, teething biscuits, purees, rice cakes, and others, contain “dangerously high levels” of arsenic, mercury, lead, and cadmium. Shockingly, Happy Family Organics, Gerber, Hain Celestial (Earth’s Best Organic), Beech-Nut, Plum Organics, Walmart (Parent’s Choice), and Sprout Organic Food knowingly sold tainted baby food to unsuspecting parents, according to the report.

Numerous studies have linked toxic heavy metal exposure to behavioral impairments. The link is especially pronounced among babies and young children, whose brains are still developing. Even at low levels, exposure to heavy metals can cause severe and irreversible damage to neurological development in children. As one recent study observed:

Tell Us About Your Case

Investigation by the U.S. House into Baby Food Reveals Toxic Metals

The congressional oversight committee has proven that seven companies betrayed the public trust by selling baby food containing extremely high levels of toxic chemicals.  Among these companies are some of the most popular baby food suppliers:


The report also brought to light that these food manufacturers knew their products contained high levels of toxic metals—yet they chose to do nothing about it.Knowingly allowing levels heavy metals, exceeding the limits allowed for other products, such as bottled water, under existing regulations. 



Find Out If You Have A Case.

For Free!

Toxic Baby Food Lawsuit News and Updates

Baby Food Companies hold a special position of public trust

We trust manufacturers of baby food to provide safe products for our children.

Holding corporations accountable is what we do best. Since 1973, we have been fighting to protect the rights of injured persons and their families. We’ve been at this for a long time and have established a track record you can depend on.

We consider this to be one of the most important cases we have ever been involved with since our inception as a law firm. Never has there been a greater need to hold companies accountable for their choices and prevent future wrongdoing when it comes to the safety of babies and children.


Toxic Baby Food Lawsuit Updates

April 2024:

In a significant development this April, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) made a pivotal decision regarding the ongoing legal battles involving baby food safety. The JPML has merged 25 separate lawsuits from across the nation into a single class action case, known officially as MDL No. 3101, or “In re: Baby Food Products Liability Litigation.” This combined lawsuit will be handled in the Northern District of California, under the watchful eye of Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley.

R. Brent Wisner, a lead attorney from Wisner Baum, expressed his satisfaction with the JPML’s decision, noting the importance of the location and the judge assigned to the case. He stressed that this consolidation is a crucial step forward in addressing the severe issues linked to certain baby foods, which have reportedly caused brain injuries to infants. Wisner highlighted the defendants’ lack of transparency with parents about the potential dangers of their products, emphasizing the critical nature of the case.

As for the impact of this consolidation on the influx of new cases, it appears that the rate of new calls to lawyers hasn’t changed significantly. However, legal experts anticipate that this might change soon following the public announcement.

March 2024:

Big news is on the horizon in the legal saga concerning the safety of baby food. On March 28th, a group of federal judges will gather for a crucial meeting. This is not the first time; they’ve met before to decide if several lawsuits about harmful baby food should be handled together in one big case, known as a multidistrict litigation (MDL).

This type of case, the MDL, helps manage multiple lawsuits that are similar, making the legal process more efficient. The upcoming hearing will be the second time the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) has reviewed this matter, showing the significance and ongoing concern regarding these lawsuits.

We plan to keep you updated as soon as there are any developments. This meeting could lead to a major decision affecting many families and companies involved.

February 2024:

1) Legal Movements in Baby Food Cases: As we began 2024, attorneys handling baby food lawsuits made a significant move by filing a motion to consolidate several cases into a multidistrict litigation (MDL). Unlike class action lawsuits that combine similar claims into one representative lawsuit, an MDL groups individual lawsuits for pretrial proceedings only. This means while the cases are handled together to improve efficiency, each lawsuit maintains its identity and, after the pretrial phase, returns to its original court for trial or settlement.


This approach is particularly useful in complex cases involving multiple plaintiffs spread across different courts, as it avoids repetition in pretrial steps like discovery, streamlining the legal process without merging the cases into one trial.

2) Calls for Stricter FDA Regulations on Baby Food: In February, a group of state attorneys general from states like New York, Colorado, and Michigan, among others, renewed their push for the FDA to implement stricter regulations on testing for lead and other metals in baby food. This action was motivated by recent cases of lead poisoning associated with applesauce pouches, highlighting products like apple cinnamon purée containing lead levels far above the FDA’s proposed limits. Despite these concerns, the FDA’s current policies on metals in baby food are seen as insufficient, covering only a single metal in infant rice cereal. The attorneys general are advocating for a more robust “Closer to Zero” initiative, which has yet to make significant progress.


These legal and regulatory efforts highlight the ongoing challenges and actions being taken to ensure the safety and well-being of infants consuming commercially available baby foods.

January 2024:

1) Progress in Baby Food Lawsuits:
Starting off strong in 2024, the legal team at Wisner Baum has laid out plans to push forward with a baby food lawsuit trial. Since September 2023, they have filed five such lawsuits in Los Angeles County, California. They are aiming to have these cases tried together in a consolidated preference trial, if all goes according to their schedule. A trial could potentially be on the court’s calendar by summer 2024.
Interestingly, while Wisner Baum’s upcoming case isn’t the first baby food trial — a previous trial in Texas ended in a directed verdict concerning brain damage, not autism — it marks a significant step in their legal strategy. Although currently, there aren’t enough similar cases nationwide to warrant a multidistrict litigation, this might change soon. Updates on the trial will be shared as they become available.

2) Victory in Appeals Court for Consumer Claims Against Beech-Nut:
January also saw a win for consumer rights in a case against Beech-Nut Nutrition Company. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a previous dismissal of consumer claims, criticizing the deference given to the FDA’s slow-moving “Closer to Zero: Action Plan for Baby Foods.” Initially, the FDA had set timelines to establish limits on toxic metals like arsenic and lead in baby foods, but has since failed to stick to these plans, leading to indefinite delays. The Appeals Court found that these delays would unnecessarily prolong the legal process, potentially for years. By vacating the dismissal and remanding the case, the litigation against Beech-Nut will continue. This decision is especially significant as it helps pave the way for future baby food autism lawsuits by establishing some legal groundwork.

The most vulnerable

Stay informed.
Know your rights.
Seek justice.

Attorney Advertisement: Do not rely on this advertisement in making any medical decision. Please call your physician before making any medical decision, including altering your use of any drug. This advertisement is not intended as a testimonial or endorsement, and does not constitute a guarantee, warranty, or prediction regarding the outcome of your legal matter, either express or implied. Non-attorney spokesperson. Anyone considering a lawyer should independently investigate the lawyers’ credentials and ability, and not rely upon advertisements or self-proclaimed expertise. Court costs and expenses may be the responsibility of the client. Scranton Law Firm, 2450 Stanwell Drive. Concord, CA 94520 Attorneys are licensed in California,  and may affiliate with attorneys located in other states. Cases will not be accepted in states where attorney solicitation is prohibited.