Baby Food Heavy Metals Lawsuits (MDL 3101): What the Record Shows

Baby food heavy metals lawsuits are consolidated in one federal proceeding, MDL No. 3101, In re: Baby Food Products Liability Litigation, before Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley in the Northern District of California. The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation created it by a transfer order filed April 11, 2024, and the Panel’s statistics report for October 1, 2026 lists 497 actions pending out of 514 filed. The plaintiffs are minors who allege that they were exposed to elevated quantities of toxic heavy metals (arsenic, lead, cadmium and mercury) by eating the defendants’ baby food products, and that this caused brain injury that manifested in diagnoses of autism spectrum disorder or attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. No court has found that any product caused any child’s condition, and the documents reviewed here record no settlement.

What is established vs. what is alleged

Established by the documents reviewed here: the identity of MDL No. 3101, its transfer order of April 11, 2024, and its assignment to Judge Corley on master docket 3:24-md-3101; the Panel’s pending-case count of October 1, 2026; the action levels the FDA has set for lead in processed food intended for babies and young children and for inorganic arsenic in infant rice cereal; and the procedural steps recorded in the Northern District of California, including a hearing on the defendants’ motion for summary judgment on August 13, 2026, an order granting the plaintiffs’ second motion to remand on August 19, 2026, an order dismissing one action for lack of federal jurisdiction on October 13, 2026, and Pretrial Order No. 23 of October 14, 2026.

Alleged, and not decided: that the products contained heavy metals at levels that mattered; that the defendants knew or should have known of the presence of those metals; that eating the products caused any plaintiff’s diagnosed condition; and that the defendants’ warnings were inadequate. The Panel recorded each of those as the plaintiffs’ allegations, not as findings. Causation, in particular, is contested: the Panel’s order lists “whether the presence of these heavy metals could have caused plaintiffs’ alleged injuries” as a common question, which means it has not been answered.

Where the claims stand procedurally

MDL No. 3101 is a consolidation for pretrial proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 1407. The transfer order moves ten actions pending in six districts to the Northern District of California and assigns them to Judge Corley, and it records related actions elsewhere. Centralization of that kind pools discovery and pretrial motions; it does not merge the individual claims into one lawsuit or decide whether any claim has merit. The Panel’s docket summary listing for October 1, 2026 gives the master docket as 3:24-md-3101 and the transferee district as the Northern District of California.

The case is active, and the Panel’s conditional transfer orders continue to add actions. Pretrial Order No. 1, entered April 15, 2024, opened the proceeding with an initial case management conference. More recently the court heard argument on the defendants’ motion for summary judgment and on the plaintiffs’ second motion to remand at a hearing on August 13, 2026, and it granted the second motion to remand on August 19, 2026.

Pretrial Order No. 22, signed August 14, 2026, followed that hearing. It directed the plaintiffs to give the defendants a list of cases in which they have alleged injuries beyond the development of autism spectrum disorder or ADHD, and cases in which the plaintiff alleged injury from consuming infant formula. The order also provided that, one week before the next case management conference, the parties would file an updated joint statement that “includes a list of cases for which summary judgment, and partial summary judgment, will be granted.” It set a briefing schedule on federal question jurisdiction in VanOstrand v. Beech-Nut, No. 25-cv-02853.

That jurisdictional question was decided on October 13, 2026. In an order on subject matter jurisdiction, the court dismissed VanOstrand without prejudice, holding that it lacked federal question jurisdiction: “As there is no diversity or federal question jurisdiction, this action is DISMISSED without prejudice.” The court reasoned that a state-law negligence per se claim resting on alleged violations of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act does not raise a substantial federal issue, relying on Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Thompson and Grable & Sons Metal Products, Inc. v. Darue Engineering & Mfg.

Pretrial Order No. 23, signed October 14, 2026, confirms matters discussed at a status conference that day. It records that all cases transferred to the MDL since November 21, 2025 are stayed pursuant to stipulation, pending the Ninth Circuit’s resolution of the forthcoming appeal, and it sets further deadlines in October, November and December 2026 for confirming those cases, identifying each one’s jurisdictional basis, and proposing how to proceed. Separately, an order of September 30, 2026 granted some sealing requests and denied others, and directed the parties to refile conforming documents by October 30, 2026.

What the FDA has done

The FDA has not banned these products. It has set action levels, which are guidance about the concentrations at which the agency may treat a food as adulterated.

On August 6, 2020 the agency issued a final guidance setting an action level of 100 micrograms per kilogram (100 parts per billion) for inorganic arsenic in infant rice cereal. It proposed the lead action levels in a draft guidance published January 25, 2023, and announced the final version for processed food intended for babies and young children under two years old on January 7, 2025. The final guidance establishes 10 parts per billion for fruits, vegetables (excluding single-ingredient root vegetables), mixtures including grain-based and meat-based mixtures, yogurts, custards and puddings, and single-ingredient meats; 20 parts per billion for single-ingredient root vegetables; and 20 parts per billion for dry infant cereals. The notice states that, consistent with 21 CFR 109.6, these action levels reflect levels of lead at which the FDA may regard the food as adulterated under section 402(a)(1) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, and that the agency intends to consider them, among other factors, in deciding whether to bring an enforcement action.

Key dates

• August 6, 2020: the FDA issues final guidance setting an action level of 100 parts per billion for inorganic arsenic in infant rice cereal (85 FR 47797).
• January 25, 2023: the FDA proposes lead action levels in a draft guidance (88 FR 4797).
• January 4, 2024: the Panel docket for the proceeding is opened (Panel docket summary listing).
• April 11, 2024: the Panel files the transfer order creating MDL No. 3101 and assigning it to Judge Corley in the Northern District of California (JPML transfer order).
• April 15, 2024: the district court enters Pretrial Order No. 1 and sets the initial case management conference (district court docket).
• January 7, 2025: the FDA announces the final lead guidance for processed food intended for babies and young children (90 FR 1135).
• June 18, 2026 to September 29, 2026: conditional transfer orders CTO-14 through CTO-25 continue to add actions to the MDL (district court docket).
• August 13, 2026: the court hears argument on the defendants’ motion for summary judgment and on the plaintiffs’ second motion to remand (district court docket).
• August 14, 2026: Pretrial Order No. 22 sets out the case list and briefing the court asked for (Pretrial Order No. 22).
• August 19, 2026: the court grants the second motion to remand (district court docket).
• September 30, 2026: the court rules on pending sealing motions and sets an October 30, 2026 refiling deadline (sealing order).
• October 1, 2026: the Panel’s statistics report lists 497 actions pending in MDL No. 3101 out of 514 filed (JPML statistics report).
• October 13, 2026: the court dismisses VanOstrand v. Beech-Nut without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction (jurisdiction order).
• October 14, 2026: Pretrial Order No. 23 confirms the status conference, records that cases transferred since November 21, 2025 are stayed pending a Ninth Circuit appeal, and sets deadlines in October, November and December 2026 (Pretrial Order No. 23).

What this does not establish

Nothing in the documents reviewed here shows that any baby food product caused any child’s autism spectrum disorder or ADHD. The Panel’s order states the causation question as an allegation and as a common issue; it does not answer it. The FDA’s action levels are guidance about adulteration thresholds and enforcement, not findings that a particular product harmed a particular person, and a food at or below an action level is not thereby shown to be safe in any individual case. The remand, jurisdiction and sealing orders decide procedure or venue; none decides whether the exposure allegations are true. The documents reviewed here record no trial, no verdict, no certified class, no approved settlement and no admission of liability.

Frequently asked questions

Is there a baby food heavy metals settlement?

No settlement appears in the documents reviewed here. MDL No. 3101 remains in pretrial proceedings, and the most recent orders in this record concern case lists, jurisdictional bases, stays pending an appeal, and a sealing deadline.

Which companies are named in MDL 3101?

The transfer order identifies Beech-Nut Nutrition Company, Campbell Soup Company, Gerber Products Company, Hain Celestial Group, Inc., Nurture, LLC, Plum PBC, Sprout Foods, Inc., Walmart, Inc., Amazon.com Services, LLC and Whole Foods Market Services, Inc. among the defendants in the actions before the Panel. Those are the companies named in the document; the order does not decide any claim against them.

Has a court found that baby food caused autism or ADHD?

No. The Panel recorded the plaintiffs’ theory that exposure to heavy metals in baby food caused brain injury manifesting in those diagnoses. No court has adopted it, and the litigation is still at the pretrial stage.

What are the FDA’s action levels for lead and arsenic in food for young children?

The final lead guidance announced January 7, 2025 sets action levels of 10 parts per billion for most single-ingredient and mixed foods intended for babies and young children under two, 20 parts per billion for single-ingredient root vegetables, and 20 parts per billion for dry infant cereals. A 2020 final guidance sets an action level of 100 parts per billion for inorganic arsenic in infant rice cereal. An action level is not a ban.

Does an MDL make all these cases one lawsuit?

No. An MDL consolidates federal cases for coordinated pretrial proceedings before one judge, but each plaintiff keeps an individual claim unless a class is certified or a settlement resolves the claims together. Background appears in MDLs compared with class actions and in how mass tort litigation works, alongside the product liability hub, the preterm infant formula litigation and the acetaminophen autism litigation.

Sources

1. U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation: “In re: Baby Food Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 3101, Transfer Order (April 11, 2024)” (link, accessed 2026-10-16)
2. U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation: “MDL Statistics Report: Distribution of Pending MDL Dockets by District, Report Date 10/1/2026” (link, accessed 2026-10-16)
3. U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation: “MDL Statistics Report: Docket Summary Listing, Report Date 10/1/2026” (link, accessed 2026-10-16)
4. U.S. Food and Drug Administration (Federal Register): “Action Levels for Lead in Processed Food Intended for Babies and Young Children; Guidance for Industry; Availability, 90 FR 1135 (January 7, 2025)” (link, accessed 2026-10-16)
5. U.S. Food and Drug Administration (Federal Register): “Action Levels for Lead in Food Intended for Babies and Young Children; Draft Guidance for Industry; Availability, 88 FR 4797 (January 25, 2023)” (link, accessed 2026-10-16)
6. U.S. Food and Drug Administration (Federal Register): “Inorganic Arsenic in Rice Cereals for Infants: Action Level; Guidance for Industry; Availability, 85 FR 47797 (August 6, 2020)” (link, accessed 2026-10-16)
7. Free Law Project, RECAP archive of the federal docket: “Docket, In re: Baby Food Products Liability Litigation, No. 3:24-md-03101 (N.D. Cal.), last known filing October 14, 2026” (link, accessed 2026-10-16)
8. U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (RECAP copy): “Pretrial Order No. 22, In re: Baby Food Products Liability Litigation, No. 24-md-03101-JSC (N.D. Cal. August 14, 2026)” (link, accessed 2026-10-16)
9. U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (RECAP copy): “Order Re: Pending Administrative Motions to Seal, In re: Baby Food Products Liability Litigation, No. 24-md-03101-JSC (N.D. Cal. September 30, 2026)” (link, accessed 2026-10-16)
10. U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (RECAP copy): “Order Re: Subject Matter Jurisdiction, VanOstrand v. Beech-Nut, et al., No. 25-cv-02853 (N.D. Cal. October 13, 2026)” (link, accessed 2026-10-16)
11. U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (RECAP copy): “Pretrial Order No. 23, In re: Baby Food Products Liability Litigation, No. 3:24-md-03101-JSC (N.D. Cal. October 14, 2026)” (link, accessed 2026-10-16)

CollectiveClaim.us publishes general legal information. This article is not legal advice and does not create an attorney–client relationship. Court records and agency actions change; verify current status with the court or agency before relying on it.