Federal Judges Refuse To Consolidate Baby Food Heavy Metal Lawsuits

Although dozens of different baby food lawsuits have been filed throughout the federal court system, each involving common allegations that products sold by a number of different companies in recent years contain high levels of toxic heavy metals, a panel of federal judges rejected a recent request to consolidate the cases for pretrial proceedings.

The baby food heavy metals litigation emerged earlier this year, following the release of a report from the U.S. House of Representatives Subcommittee on Economic and Consumer Policy in February, which highlighted internal documents and testing data for products manufactured and sold by Gerber (d/b/a Nestlรฉ Nutrition), Beech-Nut Nutrition, Plum, Hain Celestial Group, Campbell Soup Company, Walmart Inc., Parentโ€™s Choice and Sprout Foods, indicating that many of the widely used baby foods contain elevated and toxic levels of heavy metals.

The House report found some baby foods contained more than 91 times the maximum level of arsenic allowed in bottled water; 177 times the allowable levels of lead, 69 times the limits on cadmium, and five times the levels of allowable mercury.

Spinal-Cord-Stimulation-Lawsuit
Spinal-Cord-Stimulation-Lawsuit

At least 38 unique class action lawsuits have been filed against different manufacturers, which are currently spread throughout a number of different U.S. District Courts nationwide, each involving similar allegations that high levels of arsenic, lead, cadmium, mercury and other heavy metals in baby foods may cause children to suffer long term developmental and neurological problems.

In March, a group of plaintiffs filed a request with the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) seeking to centralize and consolidate the claimsย before one judge in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, where the majority of cases are currently pending.

The manufacturers opposed centralizing the baby food litigation, arguing it is inappropriate to group the cases against various manufacturers for pretrial proceedings, as the defendants are competitors and sold hundreds of different products containing different ingredients.

Following oral arguments presented in late May, the JPML issued an order denying transfer (PDF) issued on June 7, finding that much of the pretrial practices and discovery would be defendant specific.

โ€œAt a general level, these actions are similar. All plaintiffs allege that defendants knowingly sold baby food products containing heavy metals and did not disclose this in their marketing. It is not disputed, though, that each defendant manufactures, markets, and distributes its own baby food products subject to different manufacturing processes, suppliers, and quality control procedures,โ€ the JPML order states. โ€œThe claims against each defendant thus are likely to rise or fall on facts specific to that defendant, such as the amount of heavy metals in its products, the results of its internal testing, if any, and its marketing strategies.โ€

Although the manufacturers maintain their products are safe and appropriately labeled, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) have long maintained that exposing infants and children to toxic heavy metals can cause a permanent decrease in IQ, an increased risk of future criminal and antisocial behavior, and untreatable and frequently permanent brain damage.

While heavy metals do occur naturally in some foods, like rice and vegetables, the amounts may be increased by adding enzymes, vitamins and mineral mixes. Companies often do that, leading to dangerous levels of heavy metals in the final products. However, long term exposure of heavy metals poses serious health concerns for children.ย Lead exposure at any level is extremely unsafe, and prior studies have linked heavy metal exposure toย behavioral impairments, brain damage, damage to the nervous system, seizures, growth impairments, and even death.

The decision by the JPML means that, for the time being, the cases will continue forward as individual lawsuits without formal coordination.

Irvin Jackson
Written by: Irvin Jackson

Senior Legal Journalist & Contributing Editor

Irvin Jackson is a senior investigative reporter at AboutLawsuits.com with more than 30 years of experience covering mass tort litigation, environmental policy, and consumer safety. He previously served as Associate Editor at Inside the EPA and contributes original reporting on product liability lawsuits, regulatory failures, and nationwide litigation trends.




0 Comments


This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Share Your Comments

This field is hidden when viewing the form
I authorize the above comments be posted on this page
Post Comment
Weekly Digest Opt-In

Want your comments reviewed by a lawyer?

To have an attorney review your comments and contact you about a potential case, provide your contact information below. This will not be published.

NOTE: Providing information for review by an attorney does not form an attorney-client relationship.

MORE TOP STORIES

Analysts expect wider use of breast reconstruction mesh through 2030, even as lawsuits raise questions about synthetic products, FDA approval and serious complications requiring additional surgery.
Olympus faces a lawsuit from a Chicago woman who says she developed a severe, life-threatening infection due to the design of its endoscopes, which she says can trap infectious material in their cracks and crevices.
A Boston Scientific spinal cord stimulator lawsuit claims the chronic pain implants are defectively designed, causing a Louisiana woman to suffer shocks and pain, as well as dizziness and fainting spells.