Evidence Linking Toxic Metals in Baby Food to Autism, ADHD To Be Evaluated by Court

Hearings scheduled for December 8 through 12 will determine which expert witnesses each side will be able to present to a jury in ADHD and autism lawsuits filed over toxic metals in baby food.

The U.S. District Judge presiding over all baby food toxic metal lawsuits filed in federal courts nationwide has approved a plan for upcoming hearings designed to test the eligibility of both plaintiff and defense expert witnesses, which are crucial to both sides’ arguments.

Major baby food manufacturers like Gerber, Beech-Nut and others face nearly 300 lawsuits currently being pursued by parents and caretakers of children diagnosed with autism or attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) after regular consumption of baby food products found to contain high levels of heavy metals.

The litigation began after the release of a U.S. Congressional report in April 2021, which warned that widespread baby food metal contamination plagued the U.S. food supply. Investigators found that many products contained more than 91 times the maximum level of arsenic allowed in bottled water, 177 times the allowable levels of lead, 69 times the allowable level of cadmium and five times the allowed levels of mercury.

As a result, families throughout the U.S. are now seeking compensation from manufacturers, alleging that their children developed ADHD or autism from these toxic metals in baby food products, leaving them with life-long developmental disorders.

Given common questions of fact and law raised in complaints brought throughout the federal court system, all baby food toxic heavy metal lawsuits are consolidated for pretrial proceedings in the Northern District of California as part of a federal toxic baby food lawsuit MDL (multidistrict litigation), where U.S. District Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley 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 are likely to respond to evidence and testimony expected to be repeated throughout the litigation.

Baby Food Daubert Hearings

The manufacturers issued a motion to dismiss the litigation in September, asking the judge to block any plaintiffs’ expert witnesses willing to testify that high levels of poisonous toxic metals is a risk to infants and children. Defendants claim that amounts of arsenic 91 times higher than in bottled water, and 177 higher times the levels of allowable lead only qualify as “trace” amounts.

On November 5, plaintiffs and defendants met with Judge Corley to finalize plans for a series of hearings meant to address the admissibility of the expert witness testimony, known as Daubert or Rule 702 hearings. The parties proposed holding the hearings from December 8 through 12, calling for each side to present a short opening statement. However, they disagreed about several key aspects of the hearings.

Following the conference, Judge Corley issued a pretrial order (PDF) finalizing the Daubert hearing plans. She agreed that the hearings should take place December 8 through 12, and that each side will be given 10 hours total for direct examination, cross examination and re-direct, not including the time allotted for opening and closing statements.

Each side will be given 30 minutes for opening statements, with the time allotted for closing statements to be determined at a later date, Judge Corley ruled.

If plaintiffs’ witnesses are excluded, they will be unable to carry their cases to a jury, because they would lack the ability to link children’s health problems with the presence of heavy metals in baby food. This would likely lead to some cases being dismissed.

However, even if those cases are dismissed, 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, and which would not be affected by the dismissal of federal plaintiffs’ expert witnesses.

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.