Welcome to Womble Perspectives, where we explore a wide range of topics, from the latest legal updates to industry trends to the business of law. Our team of lawyers, professionals and occasional outside guests will take you through the most pressing issues facing businesses today and provide practical and actionable advice to help you navigate the ever changing legal landscape.
With a focus on innovation, collaboration and client service. We are committed to delivering exceptional value to our clients and to the communities we serve. And now our latest episode.
Today we’re unpacking a topic that has far-reaching implications for both public health and the food industry alike—lead levels in baby food.
The FDA recently set action levels for lead in baby food, sparking conversations about safety, regulation, and even ongoing litigation.
Together, we’ll break down what these new regulations mean, how they’re connected to the FDA’s wider ‘Closer to Zero’ initiative, and what this might mean for lawsuits already in play. Whether you’re a parent, health professional, or simply someone concerned about food safety, this episode offers insights you won’t want to miss.
To begin, here’s a quick overview of the new FDA action levels for lead in baby food. Last week, the FDA finalized these guidelines, which are essentially the same as those proposed in its draft guidance from a year ago.
The established lead limits vary depending on the type of food. For fruits, vegetables (excluding single-ingredient root vegetables), yogurts, meats, and mixed dishes, the limit is set at 10 parts per billion. Single-ingredient root vegetables and dry infant cereals have a higher action level of 20 parts per billion.
Why does this matter?
Well, lead is notorious for its potential neurological impacts, particularly in young children. Even low exposure can harm brain development, causing issues like learning disabilities, lowered IQ, and behavioral challenges.
According to FDA data that goes back as far as 2014, most baby foods already had lead levels below these thresholds. Root vegetables, for instance, had a mean concentration of just slightly over 10 parts per billion.
The question now is what impact these action levels will actually have—not only on safety recommendations and manufacturing practices but also on legal battles currently underway.
While these new guidelines seem like a step forward, they’ve arrived amidst ongoing lawsuits.
Last year, litigation concerning heavy metals in baby food was centralized into a Multi-District Litigation or MDL in the Northern District of California. Currently, there are 88 cases in play, alleging that exposure to heavy metals, including lead, contributed to neurodevelopmental issues such as autism spectrum disorder or attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder.
The plaintiffs argue that heavy metals in baby food were a substantial contributing factor to these conditions. But as in most cases involving product liability, proving that direct link is challenging.
On the other hand, defendants have leaned on the argument that the plaintiffs can’t definitively prove causation. There’s motion to dismiss pending as we speak, and discovery is underway—so, this litigation is far from over.
The FDA’s updated lead action levels could influence these legal proceedings. On one hand, they provide a benchmark that manufacturers might use as a defense, arguing their products have adhered to what could be deemed 'safe' levels. However, plaintiffs are expected to counter this by focusing on cumulative exposure.
An important question is—how will courts view these action levels? And how will they factor in the ubiquity of heavy metals like lead in the environment?"
"Beyond lead, the FDA’s new action levels are part of its larger 'Closer to Zero' initiative. This multi-phase project aims to reduce exposure to heavy metals like cadmium, arsenic, and mercury in children’s food.
Guidance on cadmium and arsenic is expected later this year, and mercury, often found in seafood, has been a key focus in advice tailored to pregnant women and young children.
For manufacturers, these targets may increase pressure to reformulate or further invest in monitoring systems. But for consumers, it’s equally important to note that heavy metals are present in multiple sources—not just food. This includes environmental factors like soil, water, and even air pollution.
The FDA’s efforts are evidence of progress, but they’re also a reminder of how complex tackling this issue is.
So, what does this all mean moving forward?
The FDA’s action levels provide clearer regulatory guidance for manufacturers, but their broader impacts remain uncertain. From a legal perspective, courts are now tasked with interpreting how these levels influence liability in ongoing MDL cases.
Interestingly, earlier litigations have seen motions to dismiss granted and plaintiffs struggling to pass scientific scrutiny under Daubert standards. If plaintiffs can’t link specific injuries to specific manufacturers, this could become a significant hurdle for their case.
It’s also worth considering public perception. For parents navigating these headlines, clear communication about risks—both from manufacturers and regulators—will be crucial.
And on a broader note, this topic reinforces the importance of continuous monitoring and research. While the FDA’s guidelines provide a starting point, questions around cumulative exposure, environmental factors, and industry accountability still need answers.
Thank you for listening to Womble Perspectives. If you want to learn more about the topics discussed in this episode, please visit The Show Notes, where you can find links to related resources mentioned today. The Show Notes also have more information about our attorneys who provided today's insights, including ways to reach out to them.
Don't forget to subscribe via your podcast player of choice so that you never miss an episode. Thank you again for listening.
