Baby Food Manufacturers Seek To Exclude Causation Experts in Lawsuits Over Toxic Metals

Hundreds of families are pursuing toxic baby food lawsuits, alleging that heavy metals caused autism, ADHD and other developmental disorders.

Major producers of baby food products, like Gerber and Beech-Nut, want a federal judge to block expert witnesses from testifying that exposure to known toxic heavy metals, like lead and arsenic, can cause developmental disorders in children, despite decades of supporting evidence and research.

If successful, they could prevent more than 200 toxic baby food lawsuits from moving forward, each involving allegations that high levels of heavy metals sold in many popular brand name products led to children developing autism and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).

The litigation was first sparked by the release of a U.S. Congressional report in April 2021, which warned about widespread baby food metal contamination throughout the U.S. food supply. Investigators reported 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 pursuing lawsuits against the baby food manufacturers, alleging that their children have been left with devastating, life-long developmental disorders.

Given common questions of fact and law raised in complaints brought throughout the federal court system, the claims have been consolidated for pretrial proceedings in the Northern District of California as part of a federal toxic baby food lawsuit MDL (multidistrict litigation), with U.S. District Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley presiding over coordinated discovery and pretrial proceedings.

Judge Corley has ordered the parties to prepare for early trial dates, to see how juries will likely respond to evidence and testimony repeated throughout the litigation. However, despite decades of medical research into the known dangers of these substances, the manufacturers issued a motion to dismiss (PDF) on September 26, asking Judge Corley to bar any plaintiffs’ expert witnesses from linking toxic contamination in their products to young children’s ailments.

In the motion, defendants claim that plaintiffs are trying to link autism and ADHD to “trace levels” of arsenic, cadmium, lead and mercury, despite levels of arsenic sometimes being nearly 100 times higher than recommended and nearly 200 times the allowable levels of lead. Those levels, often set for bottled water, are generally for adults, not babies, who are even more susceptible.

Defendants claim that just eating fruits and vegetables in regular amounts would result in the same types of exposures as the high levels of toxic heavy metals in baby food products. They also claim that while lead and arsenic exposure nationwide have declined, rates of autism have increased. The argument comes despite numerous health experts indicating that the increases in autism diagnoses are heavily reliant on better screening and diagnostic practices that previously missed many children with autism in decades past.

Plaintiffs have named two experts as key causation witnesses, Priscilla Barr, a dietician; and Rachael Jones, Ph.D., an exposure scientist. If the two witnesses are excluded, plaintiffs will be unable to carry their cases before a jury, since they would lack the ability to present claims to the jury that children’s developmental problems were caused by eating contaminated 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.