Gerber and its parent company, Nestlé USA, are facing a lawsuit in Texas over allegations that the baby food manufacturer misled parents about product safety while internal tests identified elevated levels of heavy metals in ingredients used in its products.
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton filed the case under the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, alleging that Gerber’s safety assurances did not adequately reflect concerns raised by its testing. The lawsuit centres on arsenic, lead and cadmium, which can occur naturally in food ingredients but may pose health risks at elevated concentrations.
Brandspur Brand News reports that the legal action also questions how Gerber monitored contamination and communicated testing information to consumers, including parents who rely on packaging claims when choosing food for their children.
According to the Texas Attorney General’s Office, 67 batches of rice flour used by Gerber between 2017 and 2019 contained arsenic levels exceeding nine times the federal limit for the contaminant in bottled water. The petition also alleges that carrots used in its products had cadmium levels up to 17 times that benchmark, while sweet potatoes contained lead levels approaching 10 times the same limit.
The allegations extend to the company’s testing procedures. Paxton’s office claims Gerber rarely tested for mercury and, during much of the period covered by the case, focused on selected ingredients rather than the finished products fed to infants.
The petition further cites tests conducted by Alaska’s state laboratory in 2021, which reportedly found two samples of Gerber rice cereal exceeding the federal arsenic limit.
Gerber’s use of QR codes to provide consumers with testing information has also come under scrutiny. The attorney general’s office argues that making results available through packaging codes does not resolve concerns about the safety assurances displayed prominently on product packaging.
Paxton said the company should be held accountable for its representations to parents. His office also alleges that Gerber continued selling products without issuing a recall or warning specifically addressing heavy metal contamination, despite findings attributed to its internal testing.
Nestlé has rejected the allegations, maintaining that Gerber’s products are safe and nutritious. A company spokesperson said the claims were without merit and that Nestlé had provided extensive information to the attorney general’s office during its investigation.
In a separate statement, Nestlé explained that heavy metals can enter food through environmental exposure as fruits, vegetables and grains grow. The company said Gerber works to reduce their presence through ingredient sourcing, supplier requirements, testing and quality controls.
Nestlé also maintains that Gerber baby foods comply with applicable US federal and state regulations. It says its products undergo testing for more than 500 toxins and contaminants and supports the US Food and Drug Administration’s Closer to Zero Action Plan, which seeks to reduce children’s exposure to environmental contaminants.
The lawsuit follows a wider investigation into the US baby food industry launched by Paxton’s office in 2025. The inquiry covers arsenic, lead, cadmium and mercury in products marketed to infants and young children.
In September, the attorney general’s office reached an agreement with Plum Organics, which committed to stronger heavy metal testing requirements and limits, as well as publishing applicable test results for covered products sold in Texas.
Under that agreement, Plum also committed to a mercury limit of 10 parts per billion and to following relevant US guidance on lead and applicable European Union guidance on cadmium and inorganic arsenic where US action levels are absent.
The attorney general’s office described the agreement as the first of its kind involving a US baby food manufacturer and said the wider investigation remained ongoing.
The case against Gerber now places its testing procedures and consumer safety communications under legal scrutiny. The allegations remain claims in a lawsuit, rather than established findings of wrongdoing
