Baby food companies ask judge to dismiss lawsuit over toxic metals

SAN FRANCISCO (CN) — Baby food manufacturers asked a federal judge Thursday to dismiss a lawsuit claiming the companies knowingly sold baby food products containing toxic heavy metals that caused brain damage in children.

U.S. District Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley seemed skeptical of the plaintiffs’ arguments over personal jurisdiction and the liability of manufacturers’ parent companies.

The multidistrict lawsuit against baby food manufacturers began in April 2024, when it was fashioned from 10 pending lawsuits with similar claims and central questions. The plaintiffs, all children with brain injuries or neurodevelopmental harm, claim their conditions are a result of the metal-contaminated baby foods sold by the defendant companies.

“These lawsuits aim to stop defendants from poisoning infants with contaminated baby food. Baby food should be safe. It should not be contaminated with toxic heavy metals. Period,” the plaintiffs say in their lawsuit.

The judge heard multiple motions for dismissal from manufacturers Nestlé USA, Danone North America, Campbell Soup Company, Sun-Maid Growers of California and two of Nestlé’s international subsidiaries.

Corley began the hearing by questioning the plaintiffs’ claim that Nestlé USA is subject to personal jurisdiction because it is involved in the testing of baby food products sold by Gerber, which is owned by Nestlé.

“They are not selling them in California — that is Gerber,” the Joe Biden appointee said. “Put aside Gerber, what is Nestlé USA doing in California?”

Joseph Masterman, an attorney for the plaintiffs, said that Nestlé does not just test products for heavy metals, but they also make the decisions for what goes into the products and set the acceptable levels.

“What we are trying to say is they are just as involved in the defects,” he said.

Corley responded that it would be “unprecedented” for her to say there is personal jurisdiction in the case.

“They are not the manufacturer, and they did not sell it in California,” the judge said. “There is nothing that actually supports that broad theory of jurisdiction.”

However, Corley also doubted Campbell’s argument that it is not liable for the levels of heavy metals in baby food manufactured by Plum Organic Baby Foods, a company it owned until May 3, 2021, when it sold the snack brand to Sun-Maid.

“What Campbell’s did was set ingredient limits for what goes into products,” said Peter Ryan, an attorney for Campbell’s. “It is still Plum that is the manufacturer, the designer, the seller of the product.”

Corley pushed Ryan on whether testimony from the individual in charge of setting ingredient limits for all Campbell’s products could be inferred to have also set the limits for heavy metal levels in Plum baby food.

The plaintiffs have leveled similar accusations against Sun-Maid, claiming that the raisin producer had meetings with Campbell’s about the “day-to-day” running of Plum before taking over ownership of the brand. But Corley wasn’t convinced: “I don’t know if it’s a reasonable inference that Sun-Maid was doing the same as Campbell’s.”

Hope Freiwald, attorney for Sun-Maid, said that there is “nothing” to the claims against the company.

The last claim left for debate was the motion to dismiss filed by foreign defendants Nestlé Enterprises S.A. and Société des Produits Nestlé S.A.

Corley said she saw “no authority” for her to allow the claims against the two companies because they were never served by the plaintiffs. She also questioned the plaintiffs’ personal jurisdiction argument over the international companies in California.

“You have these companies telling manufacturers in the U.S. how to make their baby food, and that baby food is going to people in California,” Masterman argued.

Carmine Zarlenga, an attorney for the two international companies, said he could not do a legal analysis because they were not served properly. “It’s fatal,” he said.

Corley did not indicate when she would rule on the motions to dismiss.

Attorneys for the baby food manufacturers did not immediately respond to a request for comment, nor did attorneys for the plaintiffs.

In April, Corley issued a mixed-bag ruling dismissing certain claims for lack of personal jurisdiction and failure to state a claim, although she allowed the plaintiff children leave to fix their claims.

However, she also denied a collective motion to dismiss from the defendant companies, rejecting their arguments that the plaintiffs needed to state a specific level of metals exposure that would result in autism disorders or ADHD.

Additional baby food manufacturers and sellers involved in the lawsuit include Whole Foods, the Beech-Nut Nutrition Company, Hain Celestial Group, Walmart, Neptune Wellness Solutions and Sprout Foods.

Follow @mhattridge_