Research indicates that heavy metal exposure may have adverse health effects in infants and children. Currently, there is no comprehensive federal law requiring baby food manufacturers to test finished products for heavy metals, including arsenic, cadmium, lead, and mercury, or to publicly disclose internal testing results. In the absence of federal requirements, several states have enacted testing and disclosure laws for heavy metals in baby food products.
The states that have enacted such laws include California, Maryland, Virginia, and Illinois. This article will detail the heavy metal testing laws each state has enacted and what they mean for consumers.
After reports raised concerns about heavy metals in baby food, several states acted to increase transparency and give consumers more information. These state laws generally require monthly testing by a qualified or proficient laboratory, though the precise requirements vary from state to state. In these laws, “baby food” generally refers to food intended for children under age 2, excluding infant formula.
As explained by Food Navigator, states share a common goal in making heavy metal test results available to consumers. These laws are intended to increase transparency and help consumers make more informed choices. These laws mandate that baby food manufacturers test for common heavy metals, including arsenic, cadmium, lead, and mercury. Disclosure requirements state that results from these tests must be made public.
On October 10, 2023, Governor Gavin Newsom signed into law first-of-its-kind legislation that established new testing and disclosure requirements for baby food products. The bill implemented recommendations from a 2021 investigation by the U.S. House Oversight Subcommittee on Economic and Consumer Policy, which found that products from several major baby food manufacturers contained significant levels of toxic heavy metals.
As a result of its passage, Assembly Bill 899 required that, beginning January 1, 2024, any manufacturer test a representative sample of their product monthly for toxic elements. Toxic elements were defined by the law as cadmium, arsenic, lead, and mercury.
The law also requires manufacturers to publicly disclose the results of their testing beginning January 1, 2025. The results of heavy metal testing of baby food products must be published on the company’s website.
California’s AB 899 is unique in that it focuses on manufacturers meeting testing and disclosure requirements, rather than on whether products have levels below a particular limit. Unlike states that enacted laws after the passage of AB 899, it does not ban a product from sale due to a particular test result.
In March 2026, California Attorney General Rob Bonta issued an enforcement advisory letter reminding baby food manufacturers of their disclosure obligations. The letter came after several companies were accused of making it difficult for consumers to find testing results.
California’s law set the framework for future state legislation, including the laws passed in Maryland, Virginia, and Illinois.
In 2024, Maryland became the second state to enact heavy metal testing and disclosure requirements for baby food manufacturers. The law, House Bill 97, also known as , requires manufacturers to begin testing finished products for heavy metals on January 1, 2025, and to make results public beginning January 1, 2026. The law is named for Rudy Callahan, a young child who was reportedly harmed after consuming contaminated applesauce pouches.
One distinguishing feature of Maryland’s law is its QR code requirement. The law requires that foods subject to an actionable heavy-metal limit contain a scannable QR code on their label.
Additionally, Maryland prohibits manufacturers from selling baby food products that exceed the FDA heavy metal limits. As a result of the regulation, parents now have a way to report products to the state health department that they believe exceed regulatory limits. Maryland and other states have continued to build upon the heavy metal testing framework established by California.
In 2025, Virginia became the third state to enact legislation requiring baby food manufacturers to test products for heavy metals and disclose results publicly. The Baby Food Protection Act (House Bill 1844 and codified at Va. Code section 3.2-5125.1) became effective January 1, 2026.
The law requires testing and disclosure requirements similar to those in California and Maryland. It also includes a QR code requirement and prohibits the sale of baby food products that exceed FDA action levels. While Maryland was the first to impose this limitation, Virginia’s ban received significant attention.
The ban applies to food marketed to babies and children under the age of two. The FDA has set action levels for lead in fruits, vegetables, mixtures, custards, puddings, dry infant cereals, and meats. It has also set limitations for arsenic in apple juice. Baby food products that exceed these levels may be barred from sale in Virginia under the new law.
Illinois became the fourth state to enact such legislation by passing Senate Bill 73, now Public Act 104-0345. The law amends the Illinois Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to require baby food manufacturers to begin monthly testing of their products on January 1, 2026.
As of that date, baby food that exceeds FDA action levels may not be sold, distributed, or offered in Illinois, similar to the laws passed in Maryland and Virginia.
Under the law, beginning January 1, 2027, baby food manufacturers must make testing results publicly available. Parents may also report baby food products that they believe exceed FDA heavy metal regulations and limits to the Department of Public Health.
In April 2026, Congressman Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-IL) reintroduced the Baby Food Safety Act of 2026. If passed, the legislation would establish enforceable heavy metal limits in infant and toddler foods, strengthen testing requirements for manufacturers, and impose transparency requirements similar to those enacted at the state level. Until Congress enacts a law or the FDA adopts enforceable requirements, there is no comprehensive federal testing-and-disclosure mandate for baby food manufacturers.
While the FDA announced its Closer to Zero initiative in April 2021, its action levels function as non-binding guidance rather than enforceable requirements. To date, the FDA has only finalized action levels for lead in processed baby food, inorganic arsenic in apple juice, and infant rice cereal. The agency has not set action levels for cadmium or mercury, and none of these guidance levels requires manufacturers to test finished products or publicly disclose results. In the absence of federal action, states have enacted their own legislation to increase transparency for parents when it comes to heavy metals in baby food products.
With these state requirements, parents may be able to visit a company’s website or scan a QR code on the label to view testing information for baby food products. The information allows parents to make more informed decisions about what they feed their children. Some disclosures include links to FDA guidance on how heavy metal exposure may affect infants and children.
Across the country, parents have filed lawsuits against major baby food manufacturers, alleging their children were harmed after consuming products contaminated with toxic heavy metals. Parents may learn more about the Baby Food Products Liability litigation and whether they may be eligible to take legal action.
Wisner Baum continues to investigate toxic baby food claims and represents families nationwide in this ongoing litigation. Parents who are concerned that their child may have been harmed by heavy metal exposure can contact the firm at (310) 207-3233 for a free, confidential consultation.
"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.*"
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 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.
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.
