Blog
World of Baby Food
AB 899 Baby Food Test Results: Public Pages vs Lot-Code Lookups, Explained
The short answer
California's AB 899 requires baby food makers to test finished products monthly for arsenic, cadmium, lead and mercury and, since January 1, 2025, to post the results on their own websites [1]. Brands interpret that differently: Unleaded Kids counts 22 of 39 brands with publicly browsable results and 17 that require a lot code [2]. Public pages let you compare before you buy; lot-code lookups need the package in hand [3].
If you have ever scanned a QR code on a pouch and been asked for a lot number, a best-by date or a UPC, you have met the split this guide is about. Below we explain what the law actually requires, how the two disclosure styles differ in practice, which brands sit on each side according to independent trackers, and how to read the numbers once you find them. We quote the trackers' own counts and dates; brands change their pages, so always check the current version.
What does California's AB 899 require baby food brands to publish?
AB 899 requires testing and disclosure, not limits. According to the California Department of Public Health (CDPH), manufacturers must test a representative sample of each final baby food product for arsenic, cadmium, lead and mercury at least once a month starting January 1, 2024, and from January 1, 2025, disclose on their website the level of each element "present in each production aggregate" plus descriptive information such as product name, UPC, size, lot or batch numbers [1].
Key points from CDPH's FAQ [1]:
- Who is covered: all manufacturers, "irrespective of sales volume."
- What counts as baby food: food in jars, pouches, tubs and boxes for children under two. Infant formula is excluded, but toddler formulas marketed for children under two are included.
- Where results go: on the manufacturer's own website; third-party hosting instead of the company site is not allowed.
- Lab standards: an ISO/IEC 17025-accredited lab able to quantify each element to at least 6 µg/kg (6 ppb).
- No limits: the law "does not establish limits" on toxic elements; it requires testing and disclosure.
Consumer Reports adds that results must stay available for one month past the product's shelf life [3].
What is the difference between public results and a lot-code lookup?
A public page lists results you can browse without the product; a lot-code lookup shows only one batch after you type in a code from the package. In the Consumer Reports and Unleaded Kids transparency review, the top rating went to brands where "a consumer can easily find all test results for products on the brand's website," while lower ratings went to brands where a consumer "must locate and enter a lot code, best-by date, or batch number" and then sees only that lot [3].
| Public results page | Lot-code / UPC / best-by lookup | |
|---|---|---|
| Need the product in hand? | No | Usually yes |
| Compare across lots or brands before buying? | Yes | Difficult |
| Shows | All tested products and lots | One lot at a time |
| Error risk | Low | Higher (long codes, date pickers) |
| Example CR cited | Cerebelly results chart | Beech-Nut asks for UPC, lot number and best-by date |
Sources: Consumer Reports AB 899 transparency ratings [3].
CR explains why it rated lookups lower: entering long codes "introduces a higher risk of mistakes," and date pickers make comparing lots difficult [3]. Some brands told CR that lot-specific lookups are more precise because metal levels vary between ingredient lots [3]. Both styles can be legal in CDPH's reading; the difference is convenience and comparability.
Which baby food brands publish results openly and which require a lot code?
Unleaded Kids' tracker, last updated March 14, 2026, lists 22 brands with publicly available results and 17 that require a lot code, covering 1,146 products in total [2].
| Publicly available (22) | Lot code required (17) |
|---|---|
| Brainiac, Cerebelly, Earth's Best Organic, Fresh Bellies, Gerber, Happy Family Organics, Holle Organic, Kekoa Foods, Kendamil Nutricare, Lil' Gourmet, Loco Bebe, Mission MightyMe, Nestum/Cerelac, Nurture Life, Once Upon a Farm, Piko Provisions, Plum Organics, Pumpkin Tree, Serenity Kids, Square Baby, Stonyfield Organic, White Leaf Provisions | Amara Nutrition, Babylife Organics, Baby Mum-Mum, Beech-Nut, Else Nutrition, Good & Gather Baby (Target), Little Bellies, Little Journey Organics (Aldi), Little Spoon, Love Child Organics, O Organics (Albertsons), Parent's Choice (Walmart), Puffworks, Ready Set Food!, Simple Truth (Kroger), Sprout Organics, Yumi Nutrition |
Source: Unleaded Kids transparency tracker [2].
Lists move. Unleaded Kids moved Piko Provisions and Loco Bebe to public in March 2026 and Kekoa Foods in October 2025 [2]. Consumer Reports, in its September 2026 update, says Little Spoon, Loco Bebé and Piko Provisions have taken steps such as "removing the need for a lot code" since its ratings, which reflect evaluations as of 2025 [3]. Treat the table as a starting point, not a verdict.
Several snack makers sit on the lot-code side, including Baby Mum-Mum and Parent's Choice [2], whose rice-based teething snacks measured the highest inorganic arsenic among snacks in CR's 2026 tests [5]; see why rice snacks test higher for arsenic.
How do I look up results for a product that needs a lot code?
Find the code on the package, then enter it on the brand's results page. Depending on the brand, the lookup may ask for a lot number, a best-by date, a UPC or a combination; CR found the location of these codes can differ between jars and pouches for the same brand [3].
- Scan the QR code on the package if there is one, or search the brand's site for "test results" or "AB 899."
- Enter the lot code, best-by date or UPC exactly as printed.
- Screenshot or note the result so you can compare it with the next pack you buy.
If a brand has no results page at all, CDPH accepts reports through the complaint form on its website [1]. In March 2026, California Attorney General Rob Bonta also sent an enforcement advisory letter reminding baby food makers and retailers of their AB 899 obligations [3].
How should I read the numbers on an AB 899 results page?
Read each figure as the concentration of one element in one tested batch, usually in ppb (µg/kg). AB 899 requires the "name and level" of each of the four elements per production aggregate [1], so a single number tells you about that batch, not the brand overall.
Three practical checks help:
- "ND" or a "less than" value usually means the element was below what the lab could measure in that test. AB 899 labs must be able to quantify down to 6 ppb [1], so compare reporting limits between brands before treating ND results as equal. CR found one brand reporting non-detects for lead only down to 10 ppb [3].
- Compare lead against FDA's final action levels: 10 ppb for fruits, vegetables (excluding single-ingredient root vegetables), mixtures, yogurts, custards/puddings and single-ingredient meats; 20 ppb for single-ingredient root vegetables and dry infant cereals [4].
- Look across several lots if the page allows it. One result is a snapshot; levels can vary between ingredient lots [3].
CR also bought products in California and compared its own lab tests with what companies publicly reported, finding them "generally consistent" [3].
Why doesn't every baby food package have a QR code?
Because, per CDPH, the QR code and the statement "For information about toxic element testing on this product, scan the QR code" are required only when an FDA action level, regulatory limit or tolerance exists for that toxic element and product type [1]. CDPH's current list is rice cereal; apple juice; fruits, vegetables, mixtures, yogurts, custards/puddings and single-ingredient meats; single-ingredient root vegetables; and dry infant cereals [1].
The online disclosure requirement is broader than the QR requirement [1]. Even so, CR found some packages "lacked the required QR code" [3]. No QR code does not mean no results; check the brand's website.
What AB 899 does not tell you
AB 899 is a transparency law, not a safety standard. It sets no limits [1], tests only finished products [3] and excludes infant formula [1]. For formula, see our guide to heavy metals in infant formula.
Disclosure also does not rank brands for you. In our rankings we weigh how openly a brand shares results alongside the results themselves; see our methodology and brand pages such as Cerebelly, Plum Organics, Beech-Nut and Sprout Organics. Similar laws have passed in Maryland, Virginia and Illinois [5], so more brands may publish results nationally.
This article is for information only and is not medical advice. If you are worried about your baby's exposure, talk to your pediatrician.
FAQ
Is a lot-code lookup a sign that a brand has something to hide?
No. CR rated lot-code lookups lower for convenience, not for results, and some brands say lot-level data is more precise [3]. It does make comparing brands before you shop harder.
Does AB 899 apply outside California?
The law covers baby food sold in California, regardless of company size [1]. Because brands post results on their websites, anyone can read public pages; Maryland, Virginia and Illinois have passed similar laws [5].
Does AB 899 cover infant formula?
No. Infant formula is excluded, but toddler formulas marketed for children under two are covered [1].
What if a brand has no AB 899 results page?
CDPH says non-compliance can be reported through the complaint form on its website, and it can embargo misbranded products and issue penalties [1].
References
- California Department of Public Health, AB 899 Frequently Asked Questions.
- Unleaded Kids, Lead in Baby Food: Transparency Update on 39 Baby Food Brands (updated Mar 14, 2026).
- Consumer Reports, Best Baby Food Brands for Reporting Heavy Metals: California AB 899 (updated Sep 24, 2026).
- U.S. FDA, Guidance for Industry: Action Levels for Lead in Processed Food Intended for Babies and Young Children (Jan 2025).
- Consumer Reports, We Tested 48 Baby Foods for Heavy Metals and Microplastics (Sep 17, 2026).