No Fees Unless We Win
(310) 207-3233
Menu

Parent’s Choice (Walmart) Baby Food Lawsuit

Lawsuits are being filed across the country alleging that Parent’s Choice, a private baby food brand owned by Walmart, sold products with unsafe levels of toxic heavy metals. Exposure to these metals, including arsenic, lead, cadmium, and mercury, have been linked to an increased risk of certain developmental conditions, such as autism and ADHD. 

This page discusses why people are filing legal claims against Parent’s Choice, how to determine eligibility, and whether families may be able to seek compensation if their child was diagnosed with autism or ADHD after consuming Walmart baby food products. Affected families are encouraged to consult with an attorney as soon as possible to discuss their legal options.

Parent’s Choice Lawsuit – 2025 Updates

October 3, 2025: Wisner Baum Accepting Walmart Parent’s Choice Baby Food Lawsuits

Wisner Baum currently represents over 8,000 families who have been harmed by the effects of tainted baby food. Individuals who have been affected by heavy metal in baby food are encouraged to seek legal counsel immediately. 

October 1, 2025: Toxic Baby Food MDL Grows to 225

The toxic baby food litigation out of the Northern District of California continues to grow as more people come forward with their children’s diagnosis. The lawsuits have been filed against Walmart and other major baby food manufacturers who allegedly know or should have known their products contained unsafe levels of toxic heavy metals and failed to warn consumers. 

September 15, 2025: Multiple States Considering Laws Limiting the Sale of Baby Food Tainted with Toxic Heavy Metals

Multiple states are considering legislation that may mirror California’s AB899, which mandated that baby food manufacturers begin publicly disclosing internal testing data. Maryland, Virginia, and Illinois now have similar laws in effect, while others are expected to take action in the coming years and months. These state laws help to ensure transparency in labeling for trusted  baby food brands like Parent’s Choice, 

August 7, 2025: Walmart Makes Accessing Testing Information Difficult, According to New Report

According to Consumer Reports, Walmart is not making testing results easily accessible to the public as required under California law. Instead, the company requires that a consumer locate and enter a lot code to access results. Consumers are then only able to access the information for that particular lot. Of the 39 baby food brands evaluated, 16 provided more information and transparency than Parent’s Choice. 

March 13, 2025: Consumer Reports Calls on Walmart to Comply with CA Law and Publish Heavy Metal Test Results

In a letter to the CEO of Walmart, Consumer Reports Director of Food Policy Brian Ronholm urges the company to publicly disclose heavy metal test levels for baby food products sold under the brand Parent’s Choice. The brand is part of Walmart’s private label. According to the letter, the information that is required by California state law was not readily available to the public. 

What is the Parent’s Choice Baby Food Lawsuit?

Lawsuits are being filed nationwide alleging Parent’s Choice baby food contains high levels of toxic heavy metals, including arsenic, lead, cadmium, and mercury. Research shows that exposure to these heavy metals has been linked to neurological harm in children and may increase their risk for developing autism, ADHD, and other related conditions. 

Hundreds of cases filed against baby food manufacturers, including Walmart have been consolidated into multidistrict litigation (MDL) out of the Northern District of California. The centralization of these cases helps to streamline the pre-trial process, while still allowing plaintiffs to receive individualized compensation if successful. 

Who Owns Parent’s Choice & How It Operates

Parent’s Choice is a private label brand owned by Walmart. Products under the Parent’s Choice label are manufactured exclusively for Walmart and distributed in its stores. 

The brand includes a wide variety of baby products. It initially started with baby formula and expanded into organic and non-organic baby food, wipes, diapers and accessories. Parent’s Choice is one of Walmart’s most popular brands.

2021 Congressional Report

After receiving numerous reports of possible toxic levels of heavy metals in commercial baby food products sold in the US, the Subcommittee on Economic and Consumer Policy within the US House of Representatives launched an investigation. On February 4, 2021, the Subcommittee released their findings in a scathing report called Baby Foods are Tainted with Dangerous Levels of Arsenic, Lead, Cadmium and Mercury. 

According to this report, sampling found that baby food from the largest baby food manufacturers in the country contained unsafe levels of toxic heavy metals. More concerning to the Subcommittee was that Walmart refused to cooperate with the investigation. A move which the Subcommittee felt was in an attempt to obscure even higher levels of these metals in their products. 

In September 2021, a new disclosure on baby food toxicity was released. The report indicated that while Walmart had released some information about heavy metal testing for Parent’s Choice baby food products, the documents showed the company had actually eased internal standards meant to reduce heavy metal contamination. It quadrupled its internal maximum inorganic arsenic standard from 23 parts per billion (ppb) in 2018 to 100 ppb with no justification. 

Why Are Parent’s Choice Products Under Investigation?

Independent and government-led inquiries have raised questions about the safety of Parent’s Choice baby food products. It is alleged that Walmart’s line of organic and non-organic baby food may contain dangerous levels of toxic heavy metals. Walmart’s refusal to cooperate with the Congressional investigation highlights concerns about transparency in the industry. 

Calls to reduce or eliminate heavy metals in baby food products continue to grow. In its findings, the Congressional report urged the US Food and Drug Administration to take action and set enforceable safety levels for heavy metals in baby food products. While the FDA launched its Closer to Zero initiative in response to the report, it has only issued final guidance for lead levels. 

Toxic Heavy Metals Found in Parent’s Choice Baby Food Products

Studies show that Parent’s Choice baby food products may contain unsafe levels of arsenic, lead, cadmium and mercury. While Walmart did not cooperate with the 2021 Congressional investigation, independent sampling of some Parent’s Choice products determined they contained toxic levels of these heavy metals.

Arsenic

A study from Healthy Babies Bright Futures (HBBF) found that 73% of commercial baby foods sold in the US contained arsenic. Arsenic has been listed as the number one substance in the environment that presents a risk to human health, particular children. According to HBBF at least 23 peer-reviewed studies have linked exposure to arsenic and other heavy metals with long-term detrimental effects in children, including an increased risk of neurodevelopmental disorders, lower IQ, behavioral problems, and more.

On October 8, 2021, Maple Island Inc., a company that manufactures Parent’s Choice baby food products for Walmart issued a voluntary recall on multiple lots of the brand’s Rice Baby Cereal due to elevated levels of lead. 

Lead

According to the 2021 Congressional Report, even small doses of lead are hazardous to children. Lead exposure can lead to decreased cognitive performance, a delay in puberty, and behavioral problems. The HBBF study found that 94% of commercial baby food products tested contained lead. 

Mercury

Many companies do not test for mercury in their products or ingredients. When found in a child’s blood high mercury levels have been associated with autistic behaviors in children. The HBBF study found that 32% of commercial baby food products contained mercury.

Parent’s Choice Products Identified in the Lawsuit

While Walmart initially refused to cooperate with the Congressional investigation in 2021, independent testing confirmed that Parent’s Choice baby food products contained unsafe levels of toxic heavy metals. 

According to the HBBF study the following Parent’s Choice products had heavy metal levels of:

  • Organic Infant With Iron Milk-Based Powder - Stage 1 through 12 months Formula: 3.2 ppb arsenic, 3.9 ppb lead,  0.7 ppb cadmium, and  < 0.134 ppb mercury.
  • Carrot - Stage 2, 6+ months: < 2 ppb arsenic, 2.3 ppb lead, 11.2 ppb cadmium, and < 0.128 mercury.
  • Sweet Potato - Stage 1, 4-6 months: 4.3 ppb arsenic, 4.3 ppb lead, 1.4 ppb cadmium, and < 0.141 ppb mercury.
  • Organic Butternut Squash Vegetable Puree - Stage 2, 6+ months:  < 2.2 ppb arsenic, 4.2 ppb lead, 0.9 ppb cadmium, and < 0.138 ppb mercury.
  • Organic Strawberry Carrot and Quinoa Fruit & Veg Puree - Stage 2, 6+ months:  2.5 ppb arsenic, 3.6 ppb lead, 1.8 ppb cadmium, and < 0.125 ppb mercury. 
  • Organic Strawberry Rice Rusks - Stage 2, 6+ months: 108 ppb total arsenic, 66 ppb inorganic arsenic, 26.9 ppb lead, 2.4 ppb cadmium, and  2.05 ppb mercury.
  • Little Hearts Strawberry Yogurt Cereal Snack - Stage 3, 9+ months:  56.1 ppb arsenic, 5.2 ppb lead, 26.1 ppb cadmium, and 0.941 ppb mercury.

Each of these products were marketed as safe and appropriate for infants, but were found to exceed health-based exposure limits.

Which Parent’s Choice Products Were Recalled?

On October 8, 2021, Maple Island Inc. issued a voluntary recall of three lots of Parent’s Choice Rice Baby Cereal. The company manufactures the brand exclusively for Walmart. The products were recalled due to elevated levels of inorganic arsenic that may present a risk to infants and children.  

Parent’s Choice Rice Baby Cereal 8 oz lots recalled:

  • Lot 21083 with UPC Code #00681131082907 with a best if used by date of JUN 24 2022.
  • Lot 21084 with UPC Code #00681131082907 with a best if used by date of JUN 25 2022
  • Lot 21242 with UPC Code #00681131082907 with a best if used by date of NOV 30 2022

It is important to note that many products do not get recalled, despite having unsafe levels of toxic heavy metals. The absence of a recall does not mean that a lawsuit cannot be filed. Parent’s may still be eligible to take legal action if their child was diagnosed with autism, ADHD or a related condition after consuming Parent’s Choice baby food products.

Do I Qualify for the Parent’s Choice Baby Food Lawsuit?

Families with children diagnosed with autism, ADHD, or a related condition must meet certain eligibility requirements to file a claim against baby food manufacturers and distributors, such as Walmart. The best way to determine whether you qualify for the Parent’s Choice baby food lawsuit is by consulting with an attorney as early in the process as possible.

Parent’s Choice MDL Process Explained

Hundreds of cases have been consolidated into multidistrict litigation out of the Northern District of California. These cases all involve major baby food manufacturers and distributors, including Walmart. The MDL process helps to streamline the pre-trial process but allows for individualized compensation for plaintiffs. 

While still in its early stages, it is expected that the MDL will continue to grow over the coming months. During the process, several cases will be chosen as bellwether trials. These trials allow each side to test their legal theories and may help to influence settlements depending on the outcome of the cases. Complex litigation can take months or years to resolve which is why it is important to work closely with an attorney throughout the process. 

Compensation Available in Parent’s Choice Baby Food Lawsuits

Families who file successful claims against Walmart for heavy metals in its Parent’s Choice baby food products may be eligible for compensation. Compensation may include both economic and non-economic damages. 

Economic damages include out-of-pocket losses such as past and future medical expenses, lost wages, therapy costs, special education services, and other documented losses. Non-economic damages include more general losses such as emotional distress and compensation for diminished quality of life or pain and suffering. 

While many families have experienced similar harm, each case is different and compensation will depend on the individual circumstances of the case. 

How to File a Parent’s Choice Baby Food Claim

There are several steps to filing a Parent’s Choice baby food lawsuit. Foremost, affected families are encouraged to seek legal counsel. Consulting with an experienced attorney can help determine eligibility and provide the guidance and resources necessary to make informed decisions about the case. It is important to consult with an attorney as early in the process as possible, as cases may be subject to strict statutes of limitations.

Prior to filing, families may need to gather documentation such as purchase records, proof of purchase, feeding logs, financial statements, and photographs. While medical records can help establish proof of a qualifying diagnosis. 

Contact a Parent’s Choice Baby Food Lawsuit Attorney

Contacting an attorney as soon as possible in a baby food lawsuit is often critical to a successful outcome. Wisner Baum currently represents over 8,000 families in toxic baby food claims nationwide. Recently, managing partner R. Brent Wisner was appointed co-lead trial counsel in the toxic baby food MDL, overseeing the Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee. He along with the legal team at Wisner Baum is dedicated to securing justice for families harmed by corporate negligence and wrongdoing. 

Families of children diagnosed with autism or ADHD after consuming Parent’s Choice baby food products are encouraged to contact Wisner Baum today to schedule a free, no-obligation consultation. Attorneys will guide you through the MDL or individual filing process and work to ensure you get the outcome you and your child deserve.

Parent’s Choice Lawsuit Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

Q: Was Parent’s Choice baby food recalled because of heavy metals?

In 2018, Maple Island Inc. issued a voluntary recall of three lots of Parent’s Choice Rice Baby Cereal due to elevated levels of inorganic arsenic. The company manufactures Parent’s Choice rice baby cereal to be distributed by Walmart.  

Q: What conditions qualify for a Parent’s Choice baby food lawsuit?

Children diagnosed with autism, ADHD, or a related condition after consuming Parent’s Choice baby food products may qualify to file a lawsuit against Walmart or a baby food manufacturer.

Q: Is Parent’s Choice baby food safe?

Studies show that Parent’s Choice baby food may contain unsafe levels of toxic heavy metals. Exposure to toxic heavy metals has been linked to an increased risk of developing autism, ADHD, and other conditions. 

Q: Does Parent’s Choice baby food contain heavy metals?

Independent testing indicates that Parent’s Choice baby food products distributed by Walmart may contain heavy metals, including arsenic, lead, cadmium, and mercury. 

Q: What do I need to prove my child ate Parent’s Choice baby food?

Product labels, purchase records, financial statements, and feeding logs can all help to substantiate the claim that your child consumed Parent’s Choice baby food. 

Q: Is there a class action lawsuit involving Parent’s Choice?

Over 200 cases have been consolidated into multidistrict litigation in California. These cases were filed against major baby food manufacturers and distributors alleging their products contained dangerous levels of toxic heavy metals. Walmart (the distributor of Parent’s Choice) has been named in these lawsuits. 

Q: How do I file a Parent’s Choice baby food lawsuit?

The best way to file a Parent’s Choice baby food lawsuit is by consulting with an experienced attorney as soon as possible. An attorney can help determine eligibility and will guide you through the legal process. 

Get Started
Call (310) 207-3233 or fill out the form below and request a free consultation.
20,000+ Families Represented

"Wisner Baum gave exceptional attention to all aspects of the case, detailed inquiry, and tenacious overview of all the information submitted. The paralegals are efficient and diligent. I was completely surprised to find an empathic personal message to take care of my own health during the challenging time of being a full-time caretaker.*"

Mary Flores
Reviewed
on Google
Read More Reviews
Case Results
We Demand Accountability.
More Successful Results
$2.0 Billion Verdict
Personal Injury
In May of 2019, the jury in the case of Pilliod et al. v, Monsanto Company ordered the agrochemical giant to pay $2.055 billion in damages to the plaintiffs, Alva and Alberta Pilliod, a Bay Area couple in their 70s. R. Brent Wisner served as co-lead trial attorney for the Pilliods, delivering the opening and closing statements and cross-examining several of Monsanto’s experts. Wisner Baum managing shareholder, Michael Baum and attorney Pedram Esfandiary also served on the trial team in the Pilliod case. The judge later reduced their award to $87M. Monsanto appealed the Pilliod’s verdict which the California Court of Appeal for the First Appellate District denied on August 9, 2021. Monsanto then requested the California Supreme Court review the appeal’s court decision, which the court denied on Nov. 17, 2021. Monsanto (Bayer) then submitted a petition for a writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court which SCOTUS denied on June 27, 2022, allowing the final judgment of $87M to remain intact.
In May of 2019, the jury in the case of Pilliod et al. v, Monsanto Company ordered the agrochemical giant to pay $2.055 billion in damages to the plaintiffs, Alva and Alberta Pilliod, a Bay Area couple in their 70s. R. Brent Wisner served as co-lead trial attorney for the Pilliods, delivering the opening and closing statements and cross-examining several of Monsanto’s experts. Wisner Baum managing shareholder, Michael Baum and attorney Pedram Esfandiary also served on the trial team in the Pilliod case. The judge later reduced their award to $87M. Monsanto appealed the Pilliod’s verdict which the California Court of Appeal for the First Appellate District denied on August 9, 2021. Monsanto then requested the California Supreme Court review the appeal’s court decision, which the court denied on Nov. 17, 2021. Monsanto (Bayer) then submitted a petition for a writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court which SCOTUS denied on June 27, 2022, allowing the final judgment of $87M to remain intact.
Continue Reading
$2.0 Billion Verdict
Personal Injury

In May of 2019, the jury in the case of Pilliod et al. v, Monsanto Company ordered the agrochemical giant to pay $2.055 billion in damages to the plaintiffs, Alva and Alberta Pilliod, a Bay Area couple in their 70s. R. Brent Wisner served as co-lead trial attorney for the Pilliods, delivering the opening and closing statements and cross-examining several of Monsanto’s experts. Wisner Baum managing shareholder, Michael Baum and attorney Pedram Esfandiary also served on the trial team in the Pilliod case.

The judge later reduced their award to $87M. Monsanto appealed the Pilliod’s verdict which the California Court of Appeal for the First Appellate District denied on August 9, 2021. Monsanto then requested the California Supreme Court review the appeal’s court decision, which the court denied on Nov. 17, 2021. Monsanto (Bayer) then submitted a petition for a writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court which SCOTUS denied on June 27, 2022, allowing the final judgment of $87M to remain intact.

$289.2 Million Verdict
Personal Injury
$289.2 million jury verdict in Monsanto Roundup trial Wisner Baum co-represented Dewayne “Lee” Johnson in the first Roundup cancer lawsuit to proceed to trial. On Aug. 10, 2018, a San Francisco jury ordered Monsanto to pay $39.25 million in compensatory damages and $250 million in punitive damages to Mr. Johnson, a former groundskeeper who alleged exposure to Monsanto’s herbicides caused him to develop terminal non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Months after the jury verdict, the judge overseeing the trial reduced the punitive damages to $39.25 million. Mr. Johnson decided to accept the remittitur, bringing the adjusted amount awarded to Mr. Johnson $78.5 million. Monsanto (Bayer) appealed the verdict and Johnson cross appealed. On July 20, 2020, the First Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the verdict against Monsanto but reduced Mr. Johnson’s award to $20.5 million. The company chose not to take the case to the U.S. Supreme Court, ending the litigation.
$289.2 million jury verdict in Monsanto Roundup trial Wisner Baum co-represented Dewayne “Lee” Johnson in the first Roundup cancer lawsuit to proceed to trial. On Aug. 10, 2018, a San Francisco jury ordered Monsanto to pay $39.25 million in compensatory damages and $250 million in punitive damages to Mr. Johnson, a former groundskeeper who alleged exposure to Monsanto’s herbicides caused him to develop terminal non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Months after the jury verdict, the judge overseeing the trial reduced the punitive damages to $39.25 million. Mr. Johnson decided to accept the remittitur, bringing the adjusted amount awarded to Mr. Johnson $78.5 million. Monsanto (Bayer) appealed the verdict and Johnson cross appealed. On July 20, 2020, the First Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the verdict against Monsanto but reduced Mr. Johnson’s award to $20.5 million. The company chose not to take the case to the U.S. Supreme Court, ending the litigation.
Continue Reading
$289.2 Million Verdict
Personal Injury

$289.2 million jury verdict in Monsanto Roundup trial

Wisner Baum co-represented Dewayne “Lee” Johnson in the first Roundup cancer lawsuit to proceed to trial. On Aug. 10, 2018, a San Francisco jury ordered Monsanto to pay $39.25 million in compensatory damages and $250 million in punitive damages to Mr. Johnson, a former groundskeeper who alleged exposure to Monsanto’s herbicides caused him to develop terminal non-Hodgkin lymphoma.

Months after the jury verdict, the judge overseeing the trial reduced the punitive damages to $39.25 million. Mr. Johnson decided to accept the remittitur, bringing the adjusted amount awarded to Mr. Johnson $78.5 million.

Monsanto (Bayer) appealed the verdict and Johnson cross appealed. On July 20, 2020, the First Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the verdict against Monsanto but reduced Mr. Johnson’s award to $20.5 million. The company chose not to take the case to the U.S. Supreme Court, ending the litigation.

$265 Million Settlement
Fatal Train Crash
In 2016, Wisner Baum attorney Timothy A. Loranger and six other attorneys in the Plaintiffs’ Management Committee were able to secure a $265 million settlement for victims of the 2015 Amtrak 188 derailment in Philadelphia, one of the largest in the U.S. for 2016.
In 2016, Wisner Baum attorney Timothy A. Loranger and six other attorneys in the Plaintiffs’ Management Committee were able to secure a $265 million settlement for victims of the 2015 Amtrak 188 derailment in Philadelphia, one of the largest in the U.S. for 2016.
Continue Reading
$265 Million Settlement
Fatal Train Crash

In 2016, Wisner Baum attorney Timothy A. Loranger and six other attorneys in the Plaintiffs’ Management Committee were able to secure a $265 million settlement for victims of the 2015 Amtrak 188 derailment in Philadelphia, one of the largest in the U.S. for 2016.

When companies choose profit over people, we fight. Wisner Baum exposes injustice, demands accountability, and delivers real results for real people. Your Path to Justice Starts Here.
Los Angeles
11111 Santa Monica
Blvd Suite 1750
Los Angeles, CA 90025
Get Directions
Bay Area
100 Drakes Landing Road
Suite 160
Greenbrae, CA 94904
Get Directions
Washington, D.C.
2101 L St NW 

Suite 800
Washington, DC 20037
Get Directions
Los Angeles
11111 Santa Monica
Blvd Suite 1750
Los Angeles, CA 90025
Get Directions
Bay Area
100 Drakes Landing Road
Suite 160
Greenbrae, CA 94904
Get Directions
Washington, D.C.
2101 L St NW 

Suite 800
Washington, DC 20037
Get Directions
The information on this website is for general information purposes only. Nothing on this site should be taken as advice for any individual case or situation. This information is not intended to create, and receipt or viewing does not constitute a client relationship.
Send Us Your Case Details
We’ll respond and let you know the best way to proceed with your case.
crossarrow-up linkedin facebook pinterest youtube rss twitter instagram facebook-blank rss-blank linkedin-blank pinterest youtube twitter instagram