Pennsylvania and New York lawmakers are considering new restrictions on heavy metals in baby food that would add to a growing patchwork of state requirements.
Pennsylvania's HB 507 would establish specific numerical limits for arsenic, lead, cadmium, and mercury in baby food. New York's A9026A would take a different approach, authorizing state regulators to establish acceptable levels of toxic heavy metals and extending testing and disclosure requirements to infant formula.
The proposals come as several states have already enacted laws governing heavy metals in baby food, leaving manufacturers, retailers, and private-label sellers with a growing number of differing state requirements.
Proposed Laws Would Add New Approaches
Pennsylvania. HB 507, the proposed Baby Food Protection Act, would prohibit the sale or distribution of baby food containing more than 10 parts per billion (ppb) of total arsenic, 5 ppb of lead, 5 ppb of cadmium, or 2 ppb of mercury. If the FDA establishes a lower limit for one of those metals, the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture would be required to adopt it.
The bill would also require the Department of Agriculture to test a representative sample of each batch of baby food manufactured in Pennsylvania for the four specified metals and other toxic heavy metals. Tested baby food would have to carry a label identifying the levels of total arsenic, lead, cadmium, and mercury found in the sample, as well as the presence of any other toxic heavy metals.
The bill also provides that its requirements would expire to the extent they are determined by the secretary of agriculture to be substantially similar to subsequently enacted federal legislation governing heavy-metal testing, labeling, or limits in baby food.
New York. A9026A, the proposed Baby Food and Infant Formula Safety and Transparency Act, would require manufacturers of baby food and infant formula to test representative samples of each production aggregate for toxic heavy metals at least monthly and publicly disclose the results. Products tested for heavy metals subject to state-established action levels, regulatory limits, or tolerances would also be required to carry QR codes providing consumers access to testing information.
Unlike Pennsylvania, New York would not set fixed numerical limits in the statute. Instead, the Department of Agriculture and Markets, in collaboration with the Department of Health, would establish acceptable heavy-metal levels by regulation. Those regulations could incorporate FDA limits, action levels, tolerances, or guidance, and baby food or infant formula exceeding the state standards could not be sold in New York.
New York's express inclusion of infant formula also sets it apart from existing laws in states like California and Maryland, which exclude infant formula from their baby-food requirements.
Several States Have Already Enacted Testing and Disclosure Requirements
California. AB 899 requires manufacturers of baby food sold in California to test representative samples of their final products at least monthly for arsenic, cadmium, lead, and mercury and to publicly disclose specified results. Certain products must also carry a QR code or other machine-readable code directing consumers to testing information. Infant formula is expressly excluded, and the law does not set its own maximum allowable concentrations for the four covered metals.
Maryland. Rudy's Law imposes similar monthly testing and disclosure requirements on each production aggregate. Maryland goes further by prohibiting baby food containing covered heavy metals above limits established by the FDA, except baby food manufactured before January 1, 2026. Notably, FDA has established nonbinding action levels for certain heavy metals in baby food, but those action levels do not themselves constitute enforceable federal regulatory limits. Infant formula is excluded.
Virginia. Virginia's Baby Food Protection Act, which took effect January 1, 2026, likewise requires testing, public disclosure, and QR-code labeling for certain products. As in Maryland, Virginia prohibits baby food containing covered heavy metals above applicable FDA limits.
Illinois. Illinois has required monthly testing of each production aggregate since January 1, 2026. Beginning January 1, 2027, manufacturers must also make specified testing information publicly available and provide QR-code access for certain products. Illinois does not set its own numerical limits.
Vermont. Vermont enacted H.536, now Act 110, in May 2026. Starting January 1, 2027, the law will require monthly testing, public disclosure, and QR codes on certain products, and it will prohibit the sale of baby food containing a covered heavy metal above applicable FDA regulatory limits.
Products sold online to Vermont consumers must include a clearly labeled link to the required information. The law also provides that its requirements will extend to infant formula once California or two other states have laws in effect with substantially comparable requirements for heavy-metal limits, testing, labeling, and disclosure. Because FDA has not established enforceable heavy-metal limits for infant formula, and its existing action-level guidance expressly excludes infant formula, the prohibition would have no federal benchmark unless FDA acts.
Violations of Vermont's requirements would also constitute violations of the state's Consumer Protection Act, potentially exposing manufacturers and other covered businesses to private litigation in addition to government enforcement. The law expressly preserves the rights and remedies available to private parties under the Consumer Protection Act.
Government Enforcement and Private Plaintiffs Have Already Targeted Heavy Metals in Baby Food
Heavy metals in baby food have been the subject of government enforcement and private litigation over the past several years. Most recently, in October 2026, the Texas attorney general sued Gerber Products Company and Nestle USA, Inc. under the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act. The suit alleges that the defendants marketed their baby food as safe and rigorously tested, even though their own testing showed elevated levels of arsenic and lead. The state seeks injunctive relief and civil penalties, along with attorneys' fees and other relief.
This lawsuit followed a broader Texas investigation into heavy metals in baby food. That investigation began in August 2025, when the attorney general issued civil investigative demands to Gerber and Plum Organics. It has already produced an agreement with Plum, filed in Collin County District Court on September 4, 2026, and announced on September 29, 2026. Under the agreement, Plum will follow FDA guidance for lead, EU guidance for cadmium and inorganic arsenic where FDA action levels are absent, and a 10 ppb internal standard for mercury. Plum will also refrain from shipping products from lots exceeding the applicable standards and continue publishing heavy-metal test results for covered products sold in Texas. Earlier, in June 2021, New Mexico sued several baby-food makers and retailers, alleging that their products contained dangerous levels of arsenic, lead, mercury, and cadmium.
Private plaintiffs have brought similar claims under state consumer-protection laws. In In re Plum Baby Food Litigation, No. 24-2766, consumers alleged that Plum violated California's CLRA and UCL by failing to disclose on its labels that its products may contain heavy metals and perchlorate. The Ninth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for Plum, concluding that the plaintiffs had not established an actionable duty to disclose under California law. 2025 WL 1200700 (9th Cir. Apr. 25, 2025). In In re Hain Celestial Heavy Metals Baby Food Litigation, No. 21-CV-00678, 2024 WL 5239510 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 27, 2024), the court denied Hain's motion to dismiss claims arising from the alleged presence of arsenic in its baby food but dismissed claims arising from lead, cadmium, mercury, and other substances. And in Cantor v. Beech-Nut Nutrition Co., No. 25-821-cv (2d Cir. Feb. 5, 2026), the Second Circuit vacated the dismissal of putative consumer class actions for lack of Article III standing and remanded for further proceedings. The plaintiffs allege that Beech-Nut sold baby food containing harmful levels of heavy metals while misrepresenting the products as safe and healthy.
As states enact new testing, disclosure, labeling, and heavy-metal limits, these requirements may provide additional bases for government enforcement and private litigation.
New State-Level Approaches Require Differentiated Review, Analysis, and Compliance
The differences among these laws are significant for companies selling baby food nationwide. Depending on the state, companies may need to track testing requirements, disclosures, labeling, covered products, and federal or state-specific heavy-metal limits. Venable can assist manufacturers, retailers, and other businesses in monitoring and complying with these evolving requirements governing heavy metals in baby food and infant formula.