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

ADHD and Heavy Metals in Baby Foods

Assisting Clients With Filing Lawsuits Involving Heavy Metals in Baby Food

Exposure to toxic heavy metals—including arsenic, cadmium, lead, and mercury—has repeatedly been associated with the development of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and attention-deficit disorder (ADD) in children. Even in small amounts, toxic metals are capable of harming neurological development.

This association is troubling because baby foods contain “dangerously high levels” of toxic heavy metals, according to a 2021 report from the U.S. House Oversight and Reform Subcommittee on Economic and Consumer Policy.

The national law firm of Wisner Baum is pursuing justice against companies that manufacture baby food products tainted with dangerous levels of toxic metals. Our attorneys represent over 6,000 families across the nation in this litigation, making us one of the largest firms handling baby food cases.We are filing lawsuits alleging that exposure to heavy metals in baby foods caused children to develop autism or attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).

Recent Research on Heavy Metals and ADHD Risk

Recent, authoritative research highlights the ongoing concern regarding heavy metals and childhood ADHD:

“Lead exposure consistently increases the risk of ADHD in children [...] children with higher blood lead levels exhibit a higher probability of ADHD diagnosis.” — 2024 Meta-analysis involving 31 studies, 25,000+ children

“Exposure to heavy metals has been associated with affecting children’s neurodevelopment, particularly increasing the risk of developing attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD)...This exploratory study provides preliminary valuable evidence, suggesting potential associations between environmental factors, such as metal exposure, with ADHD in school-aged children. — 2025 Journal of Attention Disorders

Studies from Chile, Japan, China, the U.S., and Europe repeatedly confirm the link between blood levels of lead, mercury, and arsenic and ADHD risk, even at levels previously considered safe.

What is ADHD?

ADHD stands for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, one of the most commonly diagnosed neurodevelopmental disorders in children. A person with ADHD has different brain activity that affects attention, hyperactivity, and self-control.

For many children, trouble focusing and behaving at one time or another is normal. However, children with ADHD do not simply grow out of these behaviors. The symptoms persist, can be severe, and can cause difficulty in all aspects of life, including at home, school, and future employment prospects. According to the U.S. National Institute for Mental Health (NIMH), roughly one-third of children diagnosed with ADHD retain the diagnosis into adulthood.

Types of ADHD

The three types of ADHD are associated with the predominant symptom (or symptoms):

  • Inattentive Presentation: Kids presenting with inattentiveness have trouble with organization and struggle to finish tasks and/or pay attention to details. They can also find it difficult to follow directions or fully comprehend conversations. A child in this category is easily distracted or forgets details of daily routines.
  • Hyperactive-Impulsive Presentation: Kids presenting with hyperactivity-impulsion often fidget, talk a lot, and have trouble waiting for their turn. Some find it hard to sit still for mealtime or while doing homework. Younger children may show signs of restlessness, often wanting to run, jump, or climb constantly. An impulsive individual may interrupt frequently, take things from others, or speak at inappropriate times. A child in this category usually has more accidents and injuries than others.
  • Combined Presentation: Symptoms of the above two types are equally present.

When is ADHD Diagnosed?

ADHD is usually first diagnosed in childhood, though the diagnosis often lasts into adulthood. Parents and teachers may notice signs of ADHD when a child is very young. While it is normal for young children to be distractible, impatient, impulsive, or restless, some kids do not get much better at following directions, paying attention, settling down, listening, or waiting. When these issues persist and cause problems at school, at home, and with peers, it may be time to schedule an appointment with your child’s doctor to diagnose ADHD.

How is ADHD Diagnosed?

To diagnose ADHD, your child’s doctor will first perform a check-up, including vision and hearing, to ensure that something else is not the cause of any suspicious symptoms. If needed, your child’s doctor can refer you to a child psychologist or psychiatrist for diagnostic purposes.

Health care professionals use guidelines set by the American Psychiatric Association’s (AMA) Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, Fifth Edition (DSM-5) to diagnose ADHD. As part of the diagnosis, the physician may start by asking about your child's activity, behavior, and overall health. Parents should be as detailed as possible about the causes for concern that led to the office visit.

The physician may ask you to complete an evaluation form on your child's behavior. They may also ask your child's teacher to complete an additional evaluation to gain more insight into the child’s behavior in different environments.

After gathering all of the necessary information, a doctor may diagnose ADHD if:

  • The child’s hyperactivity, impulsivity, or distractibility is disruptive and inappropriate relative to the child’s developmental level.
  • The child’s hyperactivity, impulsivity, or distractibility have been ongoing for at least six months.
  • The child’s hyperactivity, impulsivity, or distractibility occurs at school and in the home.
  • A health check shows that another health or learning issue isn't causing the problems.

Some children with ADHD also deal with learning disabilities, mood and anxiety issues, or defiant and oppositional behaviors. These symptoms are usually treated along with ADHD.

Roughly one in four children with an ADHD diagnosis also have low-level signs of autism or autism spectrum disorder (ASD). In fact, ADHD is the most common coexisting condition in children with autism.

Studies Linking Heavy Metals and ADHD

The scientific literature has repeatedly associated exposure to toxic metals with the development of ADHD in children.

Heavy metals, including lead, “interrupt the dopamine pathway, which is one of the major neurotransmitter pathways that is involved in ADHD, resulting in dopaminergic neuron damage and the disruption of the homeostasis of calcium-dependent neurotransmitters,” according to the scientific literature.

Additionally, research has uncovered a potential enzymatic route for the development of ADHD following exposure to heavy metals, with mercury “exert[ing] detrimental effect on enzymes, cellular membrane function, and neurotransmitter levels.”

Below are several of the leading studies linking heavy metals to ADHD:

Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and its association with heavy metals in children from northern Chile: This study conducted by Chilean researchers analyzed data of 2656 children between the ages of 3 and 17 to determine the association between the presence of blood lead and urinary arsenic and ADHD. After adjusting for confounding variables, the authors observed a more than doubling of the risk for ADHD in children with blood lead concentrations ≥5 μg/dl, and a similar doubling of the risk of ADHD in children exposed to arsenic. According to the authors, the study “provides additional evidence to existing literature regarding the potential role of toxic metals such as lead and arsenic in children’s behavior.”

A meta-analysis of the evidence on the impact of prenatal and early infancy exposures to mercury on autism and attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder in the childhood: This 2014 meta-analysis from Japan observed a doubling of the risk for the association between exposure to mercury and the development of ADHD, with the results remaining similar even after excluding studies not adjusted for confounders.

The Association between Lead and Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder: A Systematic Review: A 2019 meta-analysis conducted by researchers from Spain reviewed 17 studies on lead exposure and diagnosis of ADHD. Out of the 17 studies, 12 showed positive associations between exposure to lead and ADHD, with lead blood levels of 5-10 μg/dL associated with a 66% increased risk of ADHD, demonstrating a dose-response association. According to the study authors, “the evidence from the studies allowed us to establish that there is an association between lead and ADHD and that even low levels of lead raise the risk” (emphasis added).

Lead and Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) symptoms: a meta-analysis: A large 2013 U.S. meta-analysis, published in the prestigious Clinical Psychology Review, reviewed studies published between 1972 and 2010 involving 10,232 children and adolescents, examining the association between exposure to lead and ADHD. The analysis observed an association between inattention symptoms and lead exposure as well as a similar association between hyperactivity/impulsivity symptoms and lead exposure. Overall, the authors concluded that “the relation between lead exposure and ADHD symptoms was similar in magnitude to the relation between lead exposure and decreased IQ and between lead exposure and conduct problems.” Decreased IQ and conduct problems are two well-established adverse effects associated with lead exposure.

Heavy Metals’ Effect on Susceptibility to Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder: Implication of Lead, Cadmium, and Antimony: In 2018, researchers examined the association between exposure to cadmium, lead, and mercury and ADHD in school children. After analyzing the results from 29 patients with ADHD inattentive type, 47 patients with ADHD hyperactivity/impulsivity type, and 46 healthy control children, the authors concluded that “lead and cadmium were associated with susceptibility to ADHD and symptom severity in school-age children. Eliminating exposure to heavy metals may help to prevent neurodevelopmental disorders in children.”

S100β in heavy metal-related child attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder in an informal e-waste recycling area: This 2014 study examined the relationship between exposure to lead and ADHD among 240 kindergarten children between the ages of three and seven. The authors observed that child blood levels of lead and cadmium correlated with certain behavioral abnormalities, including conduct problems and antisocial behavior. The study authors noted that “[e]xposure to lead even at low levels correlates with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). However, lead-contaminated environments are often contaminated with other heavy metals that could exacerbate lead-induced ADHD” (emphasis added).

Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder and Blood Mercury Level: a Case-Control Study in Chinese Children: A 2006 study examined the association between blood mercury levels and ADHD. Researchers observed a significant difference in blood mercury levels between cases and controls, which persisted after adjustment for age, gender, and parental occupational status. Notably, the authors concluded that children with blood mercury levels above 29 nmol/L had a 9.69 times higher risk of having ADHD after adjustment for confounding variables.

Does My Child Qualify for a Baby Food ADHD Lawsuit?

To qualify for a legal claim, courts and attorneys commonly look for these factors.

Eligibility Criteria

  • Age of Child: Most lawsuits require the child was born after 2007
  • Diagnosis Timing: ADHD (or ASD) diagnosis before age 14 (cases are typically excluded if diagnosed later)
  • Exposure Period: Regular consumption of implicated baby foods for a minimum of 6 months—especially during infancy and toddlerhood
  • Medical Exclusions: Children born prematurely, with significant birth complications, diagnosed genetic syndromes, or a strong family history of ADHD/autism are less likely to qualify (due to alternative causes)
  • Brand Involvement: Consumption of baby foods from brands known to have elevated heavy metals (Beech-Nut, Gerber, Earth’s Best, Happy Baby, Plum Organics, Sprout Foods, Parent’s Choice, etc.)

Disqualification Factors

  • ADHD or ASD diagnosis after age 14
  • Premature birth (<37 weeks), very low birth weight, severe birth trauma
  • Confirmed genetic syndromes linked to neurodevelopmental disorder
  • Previous documented ADHD/ASD in immediate family

What Documentation Is Needed to Support a Legal Claim?

Building a solid case requires detailed, organized documentation to prove both exposure and injury:

  1. Medical Records: Formal diagnosis of ADHD (or autism) documented by a qualified healthcare provider such as a child neurologist, psychiatrist, or psychologist. Behavioral/developmental evaluations, teacher assessments, and DSM-5 diagnostic checklists. Records of co-occurring conditions such as learning disabilities, mood disorders, or ASD.
  2. Heavy Metal Exposure Testing: Laboratory test results showing elevated heavy metals (lead, arsenic, cadmium, mercury) in blood, urine, or hair samples. Reports that specify timing, method, and lab accreditation.
  3. Purchase and Consumption History: Receipts, loyalty program records, or online purchase records for implicated baby food products. Feeding logs, photos, or affidavits indicating the child’s regular, prolonged consumption of the contaminated brands.
  4. Expert Evaluations: Expert medical or toxicological opinions linking heavy metal exposure from baby food to the child’s ADHD diagnosis or behavioral condition. Reports excluding other potential causes like genetics or other environmental exposures.
  5. Other Relevant Documents: Birth certificate verifying child’s age and confirming eligibility window. Well-child pediatrician records showing normal birth and developmental milestones before symptom onset.

 

As you can see, the evidence needed to prove liability in a baby food ADHD claim is robust. That’s why you need an experienced legal team by your side to help you obtain what you need to build the strongest possible case. 

Heavy Metals in Baby Food and ADHD: Know Your Legal Options

The baby food attorneys at Wisner Baum believe the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has not done enough to protect the nation’s most vulnerable – our children. For years, the FDA has allowed baby food companies to self-regulate and set their own standards for heavy metals in their products. In the absence of strong federal regulations, these manufacturers have filled supermarket shelves with tainted food.

In September of 2021, we filed a first-of-its-kind lawsuit alleging several major baby food manufacturers knowingly sell products that contain dangerously high levels of arsenic, lead, cadmium, and mercury. Our clients, Lorenzo and Melissa Cantabrana, allege their seven-year-old son, Noah, was diagnosed with ASD and ADHD after consuming substantial quantities of baby food products from the following companies:

If your child meets the eligibility criteria and you have (or can collect) relevant documentation, you may qualify for a baby food ADHD lawsuit. Contacting a firm like Wisner Baum for a free case consultation can help determine your specific options.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

Q: Can baby food cause ADHD in children?

Baby food itself is not a direct cause of ADHD, but many popular baby foods have been found to contain harmful levels of heavy metals like lead, arsenic, and mercury. Exposure to these metals during critical stages of brain development can increase the risk of neurodevelopmental disorders, including ADHD. Lawsuits are ongoing against manufacturers whose products are linked to such outcomes.

Q: What kind of baby food is linked to ADHD lawsuits?

Lawsuits generally target major baby food brands whose products have tested positive for elevated heavy metal levels. These include companies such as Gerber, Beech-Nut, Earth’s Best Organic, Plum Organics, Happy Family Organics, Sprout Foods, and Parent’s Choice (Walmart). The lawsuits often involve products consumed regularly by infants and toddlers over at least six months.

Q: How do I prove baby food caused my child’s ADHD?

Building a legal claim typically requires:

  • A formal ADHD diagnosis from a qualified medical professional
  • Medical records showing developmental delays or behavioral issues consistent with ADHD
  • Laboratory test results confirming elevated heavy metal levels in your child (e.g., blood, urine, or hair analysis)
  • Documentation of your child’s consumption of implicated baby food products
  • Expert testimony linking the heavy metal exposure to your child’s neurodevelopmental condition

Q: Can I sue if my child only has symptoms but no ADHD diagnosis yet?

Wisner Baum accepts cases that meet our criteria, which includes ADHD diagnosis accompanied by evidence of heavy metal exposure. If you are unsure whether or not you qualify, contact us today for a free and confidential case evaluation.

Q: How long do baby food ADHD lawsuits take?

Lawsuit timelines vary depending on the complexity of each case, court schedules, and ongoing multidistrict litigation (MDL) proceedings. Cases related to heavy metals in baby food have been moving through the judicial process since 2021, with key hearings and expert report deadlines scheduled through 2025 and beyond. Outcomes can take months to years.

Q: What documentation do I need to support a baby food ADHD lawsuit?

Essential documentation includes:

  • Medical records and reports confirming ADHD diagnosis and developmental assessment
  • Test results showing elevated heavy metal concentrations
  • Purchase records or other proof of use of implicated baby food brands
  • Expert medical or toxicological evaluations relating your child’s condition to heavy metal exposure

You may be wondering whether you need all of the above to be eligible for an ADHD baby food lawsuit. While having the above strengthens your case and helps our legal team, not having them readily available does not necessarily disqualify you. Get in touch with us today to learn more about your legal rights. 

Q: Is reducing heavy metal exposure important for children at risk?

Yes. Scientific studies confirm that reducing exposure to heavy metals during pregnancy and early childhood can lower risks of ADHD, autism spectrum disorder (ASD), and other neurodevelopmental challenges. Parents should consult pediatricians about safe feeding practices and consider testing if concerned about exposure.

Q: How can Wisner Baum help with baby food ADHD lawsuits?

The nationally recognized law firm, Wisner Baum specializes in representing families affected by toxic baby food exposure. We help parents understand their legal rights, evaluate claim eligibility, gather necessary documentation, and aggressively pursue compensation against negligent manufacturers. Wisner Baum offers free consultations and does not charge upfront fees. Contact us today to see if your child qualifies. 

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