Report: 95% of Baby Foods Contain Dangerous Levels of Heavy Metals

FDA's lax regulations leave infants exposed to brain-damaging contaminants

This investigative report examines the widespread contamination of baby foods and infant formulas with toxic heavy metals including lead, arsenic, cadmium, and mercury. Through analysis of industry testing data, government reports, scientific studies, and expert interviews, we uncover how these dangerous contaminants enter the food supply, why current regulations fail to protect children, and what parents can do to reduce their babies’ exposure.

By the end of this report, you will learn about the health risks these metals pose to developing brains, the inadequacy of current safety standards compared to other countries, and the systematic regulatory failures that have allowed this problem to persist despite years of scientific warnings.

The jars and pouches of baby food that parents trustingly feed their infants harbor a disturbing secret: dangerous levels of toxic heavy metals that can permanently damage developing brains. Despite mounting scientific evidence of the dangers, federal regulators continue allowing these contaminants in foods specifically marketed for babies and young children.

• Many popular baby foods contain alarming levels of toxic heavy metals that can harm neurological development.
• America’s food safety system fails to protect its most vulnerable consumers through outdated standards and inadequate testing requirements.
• Major food manufacturers have known about these contaminants for years but continue selling products with dangerous levels of lead, arsenic, and cadmium.

The Poisoned Pantry

When Stacey Guzman, a mother of two from Seattle, sent samples of her children’s favorite snacks and baby foods to a private laboratory for testing in 2022, she was horrified by the results.

“The rice puff snacks my daughter loved tested at 580 parts per billion of arsenic – that’s nearly six times what the FDA allows in bottled water,” Guzman said. “How is this legal in food specifically marketed for babies?”

Guzman’s question points to a troubling reality. A 2021 Congressional report revealed that commercial baby foods are tainted with significant levels of toxic heavy metals, including arsenic, lead, cadmium, and mercury.

The investigation found these metals present at levels far exceeding what’s allowed in bottled water (10 ppb arsenic, 5 ppb lead, 5 ppb cadmium), the closest regulatory comparison since specific limits for baby food don’t exist for most metals.

The report’s findings:

The Congressional report examined internal documents and test results from seven of the largest U.S. baby food manufacturers: Nurture (HappyBABY), Beech-Nut, Hain (Earth’s Best Organic), Gerber, Campbell (Plum Organics), Walmart (Parent’s Choice), and Sprout Organic Foods.

Four of these companies provided internal testing data showing concerning levels of toxic metals in their finished products.

These findings weren’t anomalies. In October 2019, a report published by the nonprofit Healthy Babies Bright Future (HBBF) tested 168 baby food products from 61 brands. Lead was detected in 90% of manufactured baby foods and 80% of homemade purees and mixtures. Arsenic appeared in 65% of store-bought products tested.

Rice-based products showed particularly high contamination levels – arsenic is readily absorbed by rice plants from soil and water. Baby rice cereals, puff snacks, and teething biscuits consistently ranked among the most contaminated products.

Why should parents worry? The neurotoxic effects of heavy metals are well-documented and particularly damaging to developing brains. Even low-level exposure during critical developmental windows can lead to permanent IQ loss, attention problems, learning disabilities, and behavioral issues.

Dr. Philip Landrigan, pediatrician and Director of the Program for Global Public Health at Boston College, explains: “Children’s developing brains are incredibly vulnerable to toxic chemicals. Exposure to heavy metals during the first years of life can cause brain damage, lowered IQ, and behavioral problems that may be irreversible.”

​Arsenic, lead, cadmium, and mercury are toxic metals harmful to human health. Arsenic exposure can lead to skin disorders and increased cancer risks. Lead is particularly dangerous for children, affecting brain development. Cadmium exposure may cause kidney damage and bone disease. Mercury toxicity can harm the nervous system, especially in pregnant women and young children. ​

A Legacy of Lead: History Repeating Itself

This isn’t America’s first toxic metal crisis. In the 1970s, research confirmed lead paint was poisoning children across the country. Despite industry resistance, regulations eventually prohibited lead in paint and gasoline, resulting in dramatic health improvements for American children.

With food, however, progress has stalled. The FDA’s standards for toxic elements in food date back decades and fail to reflect current scientific understanding of how even tiny amounts of these metals can harm developing brains.

Jane Houlihan, Research Director at Healthy Babies Bright Futures, notes that while other toxins have received regulatory attention, heavy metals in food have remained largely overlooked. “We’ve made progress with lead paint, air pollution, and drinking water. But food, which represents a significant source of toxic metal exposure for children, has somehow slipped through regulatory cracks,” she explained.

The FDA’s current action levels reflect this neglect.

• For lead in fruit juice, the standard allows up to 50 parts per billion – ten times higher than the 5 ppb limit for bottled water.

• For infant rice cereal, the FDA set an action level of 100 ppb for inorganic arsenic in 2016, yet many health experts argue this level remains far too high.

The FDA’s “Closer to Zero” program, announced in April 2021 after the congressional report’s release, promises to reduce toxic elements in foods consumed by babies and young children. But the initiative’s timeline stretches years into the future, with final action levels for lead not expected until 2024, arsenic in 2025, and cadmium and mercury even later.

The Industry’s Open Secret

Internal documents revealed in the congressional investigation showed that baby food manufacturers have long known about the metal contamination in their products.

• Nurture (HappyBABY) sold finished baby food products containing as much as 180 ppb of lead – over 1,200 times the level requiring disclosure under California’s Proposition 65 toxic warning law. Documents showed the company approved ingredients containing as much as 913 ppb lead and 309 ppb arsenic.
• Beech-Nut used ingredients containing up to 886.9 ppb of lead and had only limited testing requirements for finished products.
• Hain (Earth’s Best Organic) used ingredients containing as much as 352 ppb lead and routinely used high-arsenic ingredients.

Most troubling, these companies set their own internal standards for contamination – standards far higher than those established for other products—and sometimes sold products that exceeded even those lenient internal limits.

When confronted with testing data, companies typically emphasize that metals occur naturally in soil and water, making some contamination unavoidable. The Baby Food Council, an industry group formed in 2019, claims member companies are working to reduce heavy metals “to as low as reasonably achievable.”

However, industry efforts remain voluntary, with companies determining their own definitions of “reasonably achievable” levels.

Infant Formula: Not Immune to Contamination

While much of the attention has focused on solid baby foods, infant formulas – the primary nutrition source for many babies from birth – aren’t immune to heavy metal contamination.

A recent (March 2025) study by Consumer Reports tested 41 infant formulas sold in the United States and found that about half of the samples they tested contained potentially harmful levels of at least one contaminant.

Here’s a table with the Worst Infant Formula Choices as found in the Consumer Reports study:

without the Brand and Variant columns:

The test found that:

• Arsenic was detected at concerning levels in some formulas. The highest inorganic arsenic levels were found in Abbott Nutrition’s EleCare Hypoallergenic (19.7 ppb) and Similac Alimentum (15.1 ppb). Seven of the 41 formulas exceeded CR’s “hazard quotient” for arsenic, with two others nearly reaching that limit. For comparison, the EPA limits arsenic in drinking water to 10 ppb.
• Lead was found in almost all formulas tested, with levels ranging from 1.2 to 4.2 ppb. While these levels are below the FDA’s “Closer to Zero” goals for baby foods, CR’s experts believe they’re still too high. In 18 formulas, the lead intake for an average 3-month-old would reach between 50-100% of California’s more conservative safety limit.
• PFAS (“forever chemicals”) were detected in almost all formulas tested, though detailed results weren’t included in the report. The specific compound PFOS was found in several products.
• BPA and acrylamide were found in just one formula – Enfamil’s Nutramigen, though the manufacturer disputed this finding.

Dr. David Carpenter stated there is “no excuse for having arsenic in baby food or formula,” while other experts noted that heavy metals and PFAS are difficult to completely eliminate from food products due to their prevalence in the environment.

The source of these contaminants varies. Some come from the milk or soy base ingredients, others from added minerals and nutrients, and some may result from manufacturing processes or packaging materials.

As with solid foods, international standards for formula safety are often stricter than U.S. requirements. The European Union mandates testing for a wider range of contaminants and sets lower maximum levels for many heavy metals in infant formulas.

Regulatory Gaps and Loopholes

America’s fragmented food safety system divides responsibility between multiple agencies, creating regulatory blind spots. The FDA oversees most processed foods, while the USDA regulates meat, poultry, and some egg products.

This division creates inconsistencies. For example, while the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) sets limits for arsenic in drinking water at 10 ppb, the FDA allows infant rice cereal to contain up to 100 ppb of inorganic arsenic – a tenfold difference for a product consumed by much more vulnerable individuals.

Unlike pharmaceutical companies, food manufacturers don’t need pre-market approval for most products, operating instead under the “generally recognized as safe” (GRAS) principle. This system relies heavily on self-regulation.

“The FDA’s approach to food safety has always been reactive rather than preventive,” said Thomas Neltner, Chemicals Policy Director at the Environmental Defense Fund. “The agency typically acts only after clear evidence of harm emerges, rather than requiring safety demonstrations before products reach market.”

The 2011 Food Safety Modernization Act aimed to shift toward prevention, but implementation has been slow, underfunded, and incomplete. Heavy metal testing requirements remain minimal, with many companies conducting testing voluntarily rather than due to regulatory mandates.

Bestseller #1

Osumex Heavy Metal Test General Kit for Humans 2 Pack – 8 Range H…

$35.00

Buy on Amazon

Bestseller #2

Doctor’s Data Essential Elements and Heavy Metals Toxicity Test (…

$125.39

Buy on Amazon

Bestseller #3

Liberty Gold Standard© Expanded 13 Heavy Metals Drinking Water Te…

$27.99

Buy on Amazon

When asked why stricter standards haven’t been implemented, an FDA spokesperson who requested anonymity explained resource constraints: “The agency must prioritize acute food safety threats like bacterial contamination that cause immediate illness over long-term chronic exposure issues.”

However, consumer advocates argue this position ignores the clear scientific evidence linking heavy metal exposure to permanent neurological damage.

A Tale of Two Regulatory Systems

The contrast between U.S. standards and those of other developed nations is striking. The European Union applies the precautionary principle, acting to protect consumers before absolute scientific certainty is established.

The European Commission has set maximum levels for lead, cadmium, and mercury in various foods, including specific limits for baby foods. For lead in baby foods, the EU limit is 20 ppb – less than half what the FDA allows in fruit juice consumed by American children.

Similarly, the European Food Safety Authority established a 100 ppb limit for inorganic arsenic in rice-based foods for infants and young children in 2015, a year before the FDA set a similar standard. However, the EU has since moved to strengthen oversight with additional testing requirements and considerations for stricter limits.

Australia and New Zealand have also established specific standards for contaminants in baby foods through their joint Food Standards Code, setting maximum levels for various metals in different food categories.

Why do American babies receive less protection? Critics point to industry influence over the regulatory process, with food manufacturers lobbying against stricter standards by claiming such regulations would increase costs, reduce product availability, or are technically unfeasible.

Campaign finance records show that major food manufacturers contribute significantly to political campaigns and maintain large lobbying operations in Washington. The food and beverage industry spent nearly $30 million on lobbying in 2024 alone, according to Open Secrets.

Testing the Products, Finding the Truth

Independent testing continues to reveal contamination despite industry assurances of improvement. Consumer Reports tested 50 popular baby and toddler foods in 2023, finding detectable levels of at least one heavy metal in all products tested, with 68% containing concerning levels of at least one metal.

Organic products showed no advantage over conventional ones regarding heavy metal contamination. In fact, some organic brown rice products contained higher arsenic levels than their conventional counterparts, challenging the assumption that “organic” equates to “safer.”

Geography matters too. Rice grown in certain regions, particularly parts of the southern United States, tends to have higher arsenic levels due to soil conditions and past use of arsenic-based pesticides in cotton fields later converted to rice production.

Dr. Michael Hansen, senior scientist at Consumer Reports, explains: “Heavy metals are persistent environmental contaminants that don’t break down. They remain in soil for decades or even centuries, especially in areas with industrial or agricultural contamination history.”

The testing methods used also influence results. Many manufacturers test ingredients rather than finished products, potentially underestimating actual exposure levels. Some use methods that don’t distinguish between less toxic organic forms of arsenic and more dangerous inorganic forms.

Parents seeking transparency face significant obstacles. Food labels don’t disclose heavy metal content, and few manufacturers publish detailed testing results. Those who do often present limited data or use formats difficult for average consumers to interpret.

The Human Cost

While scientists can measure heavy metals in parts per billion, the impact on children’s development is far more significant and lasting.

Dr. Leonardo Trasande, Director of Environmental Pediatrics at NYU Langone Health, has studied the economic impact of toxic exposures. His research suggests that lead exposure alone costs America $50 billion annually in reduced productivity from IQ loss, with additional billions lost due to arsenic and cadmium exposure.

“These are not just abstract numbers,” Dr. Trasande explains. “Each lost IQ point represents diminished potential—children who might struggle more in school, earn less throughout their lives, and face additional challenges.”

The burden falls disproportionately on disadvantaged communities. Lower-income families often rely more heavily on commercial baby foods, including rice-based products that tend to have higher contamination levels. They also face additional exposure sources through older housing with lead paint and pipes and proximity to industrial pollution.

Families in food deserts have fewer options to avoid problematic products, and the higher cost of safer alternatives creates an economic barrier for many parents.

Sylvia Garcia, a community health worker in Houston, sees these disparities firsthand: “Many families I work with are already facing multiple challenges. When I explain the heavy metal issue, they feel helpless – they can’t afford the most expensive organic options, and they don’t have time to make everything from scratch.”

Solutions on the Horizon?

Pressure for change continues building from multiple directions. Legal action has increased, with several class-action lawsuits filed against baby food manufacturers alleging deceptive marketing practices for products containing heavy metals.

Legislative efforts have emerged at both federal and state levels. The Baby Food Safety Act, introduced in Congress in 2021, would establish maximum levels for toxic heavy metals in baby food and require manufacturers to test finished products rather than just ingredients. Though the bill hasn’t passed, it has raised awareness about the issue.

Some manufacturers have begun responding to consumer pressure. After the congressional report’s release, Beech-Nut announced it would stop selling baby rice cereal in the U.S. market due to difficulty sourcing rice consistently below the FDA’s arsenic limit. Other companies have pledged to increase testing, choose ingredients more carefully, and set stricter internal limits.

Recent government actions show increasing attention to the issue. In late March 2025, U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. announced the “Operation Stork Speed” initiative, focusing on improving the safety and quality of infant formula through comprehensive nutrient reviews and increased testing for contaminants, including heavy metals.

Kennedy’s initiative has garnered support from health advocates concerned about formula safety, though some pediatricians maintain that existing FDA regulations already ensure formula safety. Kennedy has also supported state-level food safety measures, recently praising West Virginia’s legislation banning certain food dyes (Red Dye No. 3. Red Dye No. 40. Yellow Dye No. 5) and restricting the use of food stamps for purchasing soda. These actions signal a potential shift toward stronger regulatory oversight of foods marketed to children.

Innovation may also offer solutions. Researchers at Cornell University have developed growing methods that can reduce arsenic uptake in rice plants. Food scientists are exploring processing techniques to remove metals before products reach consumers.

For parents, the best advice remains mixed. Dr. Tanya Altmann, a pediatrician and author of infant nutrition books, recommends varying food sources: “No single food should dominate a child’s diet. Variety not only provides balanced nutrition but also reduces the risk of concentrated exposure to any single contaminant.”

Specific recommendations include choosing rice grown in areas with lower arsenic levels, such as California, India, and Pakistan; preparing rice with excess water that is poured off before eating; and serving a variety of grains beyond rice, including oats, barley, quinoa, and buckwheat.

The Path Forward

The presence of heavy metals in baby food represents a systemic failure requiring comprehensive solutions. Meaningful progress demands stronger regulations with enforceable limits based on the latest science, not outdated standards or industry convenience.

Regular monitoring and testing of products already on store shelves would provide accountability currently lacking in the system. Greater transparency, including clear labeling and publicly available test results, would empower parents to make informed choices.

Most importantly, the regulatory approach must shift from requiring proof of harm before action to requiring proof of safety before market access—especially for products marketed to the most vulnerable consumers.

As awareness grows and pressure mounts, the toxic metals in children’s food may finally receive the attention this crisis deserves. The question remains whether change will come quickly enough for the next generation of American children.

ℹ️ FoodNourish is reader-supported. When you buy through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission without any surcharge to you.