Baby Food ADHD Lawsuit Claims Lead and Arsenic Exposure Led to Childhood Brain Injury

Lawsuit alleges manufacturers knew parents would never buy their baby food products if they had been honest about the levels of toxic heavy metals.

A Florida mother has filed a lawsuit against baby food manufacturers, indicating her child developed brain injuries, neurodevelopmental disorders and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) from ingesting toxic heavy metals in Gerber and Beech-Nut products.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by Judith Perez on behalf of herself and her minor child, identified as J.C., in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida on February 3. It names Beech-Nut Nutrition Company, Gerber Products Company, Nestlé USA Inc., Nestlé Enterprises S.A., Société des Produits Nestlé S.A. and Walmart Inc. as defendants.

Concerns about the presence of heavy metals in baby food first emerged in 2021, following the release of a congressional report that warned of the widespread presence of high levels of arsenic, lead, cadmium and mercury in a number of popular baby food products. The report warned that infant exposure to these heavy metals may heighten the risk of serious developmental disorders, such as autism and ADHD, as well as other cognitive and behavioral issues that can affect a child’s development and long-term health.

In 2024, a separate report found that popular baby food brands sold by Gerber, Beech-Nut, Sprout, Walmart and others still have potentially dangerous levels of arsenic, cadmium and lead, all of which can increase the risk of neurological side effects for children.

As a result of these findings, Perez’s complaint joins nearly 400 similar baby food lawsuits already being pursued by families nationwide, each raising allegations that manufacturers exploited parents’ trust by marketing the products as safe, while concealing the presence of dangerous levels of toxic metals for years.

According to the lawsuit, Perez fed J.C. Beech-Nut and Gerber products she purchased at Walmart, which exposed the child to toxic heavy metals, including lead and arsenic. This led to brain injuries that manifested as ADHD.

The complaint indicates that the manufacturers failed to provide parents with adequate warnings about the risks of heavy metal contamination, knowing parents would not want to feed it to their children. Instead, they failed to report the problems and placed profits over health and safety.

“The product warnings for the Contaminated Baby Foods in effect during the time period Plaintiff consumed the Contaminated Baby Foods were non-existent, vague, incomplete and/or otherwise inadequate, both substantively and graphically, to alert consumers to the presence of Toxic Heavy Metals in the Contaminated Baby Foods and/or the potentially severe health risks associated with Toxic Heavy Metal exposure in babies.”

– Judith Perez v. Beech-Nut Nutrition Company et al

Due to the lack of adequate warning, Perez states that she was unaware of the danger posed by the baby food products, and would have never fed them to her child if she had been honestly informed of the potential risks.

J.C. was diagnosed with ADHD at 11 years old, which the lawsuit links back to consumption of the tainted baby food products.

Perez presents claims of failure to warn, manufacturing defect, design defect, negligence – failure to warn, negligence – manufacturing, negligence – product design, general negligence, and seeks both punitive and compensatory damages.

Baby Food ADHD Lawsuits

The complaint will be transferred to the Northern District of California to be consolidated with other baby food ADHD lawsuits being overseen by U.S. District Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley, who is presiding over coordinated discovery and pretrial proceedings.

As part of those proceedings, Judge Corley ordered the parties to prepare for bellwether trials to see how juries respond to evidence and testimony likely to be repeated throughout the litigation.

There are also a number of baby food heavy metal lawsuits filed in California state court, where the first trial is expected to begin sometime this year.

While the outcome of that trial will not have any binding impact on other claims, it will be closely watched as any jury payout awarded may influence how much the manufacturers need to pay in autism or ADHD settlements to resolve the litigation.

Sign up for more legal news that could affect you or your family.