By Tom Neltner of Unleaded Kids and Brian Ronholm of Consumer Reports
What Happened
Starting a year ago, California law (AB-899) began requiring baby food manufacturers to test their products for arsenic, cadmium, lead, and mercury. The law targets foods “specifically for babies and young children less than two years of age,” except for infant formula.
Beginning this year, baby food manufacturers must make the test results for these four toxics publicly available on their website for all products made in 2025 and beyond1.
In anticipation of the disclosure provision going into effect, Consumer Reports and Unleaded Kids contacted 30 baby food manufacturers, including those certified by the Clean Label Project, to inquire about the companies’ plans to disclose these test results, and ensure this information is easy for parents to access and understand. We received 17 responses and are awaiting responses from the others.
Here is what we found:
- Plum Organics, Lil’ Gourmets, Once Upon a Farm, and Square Baby are the only manufacturers that are voluntarily making their 2024 testing results publicly available (excluding those past their shelf life plus one month). The law does not require 2024 test results to be disclosed on the website so providing this additional transparency is a move that builds trust with parents.
- Cerebelly and Little Spoon explained that they were going to post 2024 testing results, but their websites required the user to enter a lot number for the product. This approach is not consistent with the law requiring that the information be publicly available because a consumer must first purchase the product or go to a store and enter each lot number for each product and brand. The complicated process could frustrate consumers.
- Once Upon a Farm voluntarily reported on products not covered by the law, disclosing results for all products, not just those intended for children younger than two. Kabrita, an infant formula manufacturer, voluntarily reported results for its infant formula, which is exempt from the law’s requirements.
- Seven manufacturers—Fresh Bellies, Lil’ Gourmets, Little Spoon, Plum Organics, Ready Set Food, Serenity Kids, and Square Baby—indicated that they sent samples to labs that reported levels 3 parts per billion (ppb) or lower. This is encouraging because these companies are using a reporting level that is well below the 6 ppb limit in the law. As an additional frame of reference, it should be noted that there is no safe level of lead for children to consume.
See the table below for a list of the baby food manufacturers and links to the most relevant webpage for each.
Why it Matters
Arsenic, cadmium, lead, and mercury contaminate baby food from the environment. These four toxics realistically cannot be eliminated from fruits, vegetables, and grains—essential parts of a diet. Therefore, the goal is to drive the levels of these toxics closer to zero.
While mercury is rarely found in baby foods, cadmium and lead are common, especially in root vegetables and some fruits. Cadmium is also common in leafy greens. Inorganic arsenic is common in rice and apples. (See Unleaded Kids’ September 2024 blog explaining FDA’s study showing excessive lead and cadmium in young children’s diets.)
When FDA sets action levels for foods, it balances the health risks to the potential disruptions to the food supply. For most foods, FDA sets action levels so that no more than 5% of the products currently on the market exceed the limit. For baby foods, FDA appears to consider going to 10%.
The agency does not explicitly consider the feasibility of further reductions. Similarly, it does not evaluate whether the products are made using best practices to minimize contamination. And, unlike EPA, FDA does not consider the long-term, socioeconomic benefits of setting tighter action levels.
Because FDA’s action levels prioritize minimizing disruption to food supply, parents may want to seek out products that have the lowest levels of these four toxics. This new California law empowers them to do that by requiring that the testing results be publicly available on the manufacturers website for products made after January 1, 2025.
What Can Parents Do?
- Use the QR Code to find out the test results for the lot of baby food they have already bought or are considering buying. However, note that you should not be required to have the lot number from the package to find the specific results.
- If there is no QR Code, look up the manufacturers web sites from the table below and follow the link to find out the results for the lots. If the manufacturer does not provide the results, contact them and ask for the information. They have been required to test each lot made in 2024 and should be willing to provide the results. If not, or do not have a link below, please contact Tom Neltner at tneltner@unleadedkids.org or Brian Ronholm at bronholm@consumerreports.org.
- Consider the nutritional value of the food, not just the levels for arsenic, cadmium, lead, and mercury, as well as infant food and feeding recommendations by the American Academy of Pediatrics.
What Can Baby Food Manufacturers Do?
- Make the test results publicly available as required by the law and not force consumers to first purchase or physically find the product and then input a lot number for each product. Consumers should be able to see this information first before making a purchase. This is particularly important for consumers who are purchasing these products online and so cannot pick up the physical product to look for the lot number.
- Rely on labs that could measure levels of the arsenic, cadmium, lead, and mercury below the required 6 ppb. These manufacturers show they value transparency and trust parents to recognize that a level of 3 ppb may be lower than a report of less than 6 ppb.
- Post results for all their products, not just those covered by the California law. These manufacturers recognize that arsenic, cadmium, lead, and mercury can harm older children and that parents may want to make informed decisions for these foods too.
- Avoid attributing the presence of these toxics to it being naturally found in the soil. For lead in particular, contamination is due to past and present use in pesticides, gasoline, paint, plumbing, cables, batteries and other consumer products.
Our Take and Next Steps
As we did a year ago, we applaud Assemblymember Al Muratsuchi and California for enacting AB-899 in 2023 to provide parents with the information that can be used to make purchasing decisions. Maryland passed a similar law in 2024. This type of transparency also provides baby food manufacturers with strong market incentives to do better than FDA’s action levels.
We encourage states to consider applying this approach to other products commonly containing any of these four toxics, especially spices.
As indicated above, we applaud Plum Organics, Once Upon a Farm, and Square Baby for making the testing results publicly available for products made in 2024. This is demonstrating the kind of transparency that builds trust with parents.
Consumer Reports and Unleaded Kids will continue to track the results from the companies and report new findings. After three months of data is posted, we plan to evaluate the information based on Consumer Report’s methodology described in its June 27, 2023, report titled “Are There Still Heavy Metals in Baby Food?” and issue a more detailed report by the middle of this year.
What Baby Food Manufacturers are Disclosing
| SUMMARY OF BABY FOOD MANUFACTURERS REPORTING as of January 2, 2025 | ||
| Brand | Posting 2024 Results | Comments |
| Most Transparent So Far | ||
| Lil’ Gourmets* | Yes | |
| Once Upon a Farm* | Yes, but posting delayed | |
| Plum Organics* | Yes | See pouches & snacks |
| Square Baby* | Yes | |
| Some Transparency | ||
| Cerebelly* | Yes, if made after 7/1/24 | Must have lot number |
| Little Spoon* | Yes | Must have lot number |
| To be Determined | ||
| Beech-Nut* | No | Must have lot number |
| Brainiac Foods | No | No specific webpage found |
| Earth’s Best* | If packaging updated prior to 1/1/25 | Must have lot number |
| Else Nutrition* | No | No specific webpage found |
| Evivio* | No | No specific webpage found |
| Fresh Bellies* | No | Webpage available 1/6/25 |
| Gerber* | No | No specific webpage found |
| Happy Family* | No | |
| Mission Mighty Me | No | |
| Ready, Set, Food!* | No | Must have lot number |
| Serenity Kids* | No | Must have lot number |
| No Response to Inquiries | ||
| Amara | Unknown | No specific webpage found |
| Baby’s Only | Unknown | No specific webpage found |
| Baby Gourmet Organic | Unknown | No specific webpage found |
| Bubs | Unknown | No specific webpage found |
| Holle Baby Food | Unknown | No specific webpage found |
| Little Bellies | Unknown | No specific webpage found |
| Love Child Organics | Unknown | No specific webpage found |
| Nature’s Path Organic | Unknown | No specific webpage found |
| Piko Provisions | Unknown | No specific webpage found |
| Tally | Unknown | No specific webpage found |
| The a2 Milk Company | Unknown | No specific webpage found |
| Vinamilk | Unknown | No specific webpage found |
| YUMI | Unknown | No specific webpage found |
| * Responded to inquiries from Unleaded Kids and Consumer Reports | ||
- In its FAQs for AB-899, the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) says this disclosure is only required for products packaged in 2025, even though the law requires testing in 2024. ↩︎
One thought on “Lead in Baby Food: California Requires Companies to Disclose Heavy Metal Levels”
Thank you for sharing this extremely important information!! 👏🫡