← All posts

Blog

World of Baby Food

Infant Formula and Heavy Metals in 2026: What FDA's 312-Sample Testing and Consumer Reports Found

Infant formula has had more contaminant testing in the past 18 months than in the previous decade. Consumer Reports published two rounds of formula tests, in March 2025 and March 2026. FDA released the largest federal formula survey it has ever run in April 2026, then added a public dashboard on October 29, 2026. The headlines can sound contradictory: "the supply is safe" from one, "concerning levels in 26 of 49" from the other.

They are measuring different things in different ways. This guide sets out what each source actually reported, why the numbers cannot be lined up side by side, and which practical steps every source agrees on. All figures are quoted from the linked sources; we have not added or estimated any lab values.

Why formula sits in its own category

Formula is regulated and disclosed differently from jarred and pouched baby food. California's AB 899, which requires monthly heavy-metal testing and public disclosure of results for baby food, explicitly does not cover infant formula (Consumer Reports AB 899 review). FDA's new draft cadmium action levels for baby food also exclude formula (FDA draft guidance); see our explainer on FDA's draft cadmium limits.

So for formula, parents have to rely on independent and government testing rather than a brand's lot-by-lot disclosures. That is why the formula entries in our rankings carry Consumer Reports citations rather than AB 899 disclosure grades, as explained in our methodology.

What FDA found: 312 samples, 16 brands

FDA tested 312 infant formula samples covering 16 brands, with multiple lots per brand: 278 powdered, 11 concentrated liquid and 23 ready-to-feed. By protein source, 258 were cow's-milk-based, 44 soy-based and 10 amino-acid-based. Results are reported as concentrations in formula as prepared for feeding (FDA testing results).

Element Not detected Range 95% of samples below Median
Lead 61 of 312 (20%) ND – 1.1 ppb 0.5 ppb 0.2 ppb
Cadmium 106 of 312 (34%) ND – 1.5 ppb 1.1 ppb 0.2 ppb
Arsenic 18 of 312 (6%) ND – 4.7 ppb 2.0 ppb 0.5 ppb
Mercury 296 of 312 (95%) ND – 0.3 ppb not calculated not calculated

FDA notes that in a subset of samples tested further, arsenic, when present, was in its inorganic form (the form CR describes as more concerning). Beyond metals, 309 of 312 samples (99%) had no detectable pesticides, and glyphosate and glufosinate were not detected in any sample. Of 30 PFAS compounds tested, 25 were not found in any sample; PFOS was the most common, found in half of samples at 0.51–6.0 parts per trillion (FDA testing results).

FDA's conclusion is that "an overwhelming majority of samples had undetectable or very low levels of contaminants." It also says it is following up with additional testing and is "working to establish action levels for contaminants in infant formula" (FDA press release). There are no FDA heavy-metal action levels for formula today.

FDA is also clear about the limits of a market-basket survey: it is "a snapshot of products available at retail at a specific point in time," and it does "not capture the full range of variability that may occur across different production lots of the same product." On October 29, 2026, the agency published new results and launched an Infant Formula Chemical Contaminants Dashboard so the data are easier to search (Operation Stork Speed; FDA-TRACK dashboard).

What Consumer Reports found: round one (41 powdered formulas, 2025)

In March 2025, CR tested 41 powdered formulas from established brands, startups, store brands and imports (CR press release, 2025):

  • Inorganic arsenic: highest in Abbott's EleCare Hypoallergenic (19.7 ppb), second-highest in Similac Alimentum (15.1 ppb). Seven formulas were over CR's risk level and two more were very close; most were below.
  • Lead: detected in 34 of 41 formulas, from 1.2 to 4.2 ppb, highest in Enfamil Nutramigen. None exceeded California's Maximum Allowable Dose Level, though 18 were at 50–100% of it.
  • BPA and acrylamide: found in just one formula, Enfamil Nutramigen.

Our product pages for EleCare Hypoallergenic, Similac Alimentum and Enfamil Nutramigen cite those figures directly.

Round two (49 more formulas, 2026)

In March 2026, CR tested 49 more formulas, this time including ready-to-feed, concentrated, hypoallergenic, soy- and goat-milk-based and other specialty products. It found contaminants "at potentially concerning levels in 26 of the 49." It also reported that none of the 49 were above its level of concern for lead, that one-third of the liquid and ready-to-feed formulas made its top-choices list, and that over half of the powdered formulas did (CR, 2026).

Three findings from that round are worth knowing:

  1. The goalposts moved. CR explains that the EPA's updated toxicology review of inorganic arsenic, and its new reference dose, changed what CR counts as a "level of concern." So round two can look worse than round one partly because the bar is stricter.
  2. Everything was under EU limits. FDA does not set arsenic limits for formula, but the European Union does: 20 ppb inorganic arsenic for powdered formula and 10 ppb for liquid. CR says all the formulas in its round-two tests fell below those limits.
  3. Hypoallergenic formulas skewed higher. CR's experts suggest this may be because they tend to contain more plant-based ingredients, which can pick up heavy metals from soil and water.

CR also stresses that "all the formulas we tested are safe to feed your baby," and that its tiers are about comparative contaminant levels.

Why the FDA and CR numbers don't line up

It is tempting to put FDA's arsenic maximum of 4.7 ppb next to CR's 19.7 ppb and conclude one of them is wrong. That comparison doesn't hold, for three reasons drawn from the sources themselves:

  • Different measurement basis. FDA reports concentrations in formula as prepared for feeding. CR set different inorganic-arsenic testing thresholds for powdered (3.62 ppb), concentrated (0.81 ppb) and ready-to-feed (0.50 ppb) formulas (CR, 2026), which tells you its figures are not on a single as-fed scale.
  • Different questions. FDA asks whether the overall supply is safe and where it needs to follow up. CR asks which products have comparatively more contaminants, judged against the most health-protective benchmarks it can find.
  • Different samples. FDA's survey spans multiple lots of 16 brands bought at retail; CR's tests are a set of named products. Both are snapshots, and lots vary.

Read together, they mostly agree. Most formula is low in heavy metals, a minority of products carry more, and hypoallergenic and specialty formulas deserve a closer look.

Practical guidance

  • Don't switch formula on your own. CR's advice is to talk to your pediatrician first if test results worry you (CR press release, 2025). Hypoallergenic and amino-acid formulas are often prescribed for medical reasons.
  • Check your water. CR notes that private well water is not regulated by the EPA and recommends testing it for heavy metals and PFAS before mixing powdered formula.
  • Be careful with imports. CR marks several formulas in its tests as not registered with FDA and notes that shopping for overseas formulas introduces risks around tracking expiration dates, safety alerts or recalls, storage and potential tampering (CR best formulas guide).
  • Keep perspective on breast milk. FDA also tested 110 donor human milk samples from a single state milk bank and found at least one detectable contaminant in 85%. It cautions that this limited sample cannot be generalized and that breast milk "remains the optimal source of nutrition for infants whenever possible" (FDA testing results).

We update the formula entries in our rankings when new independent results are published. For how we treat formula versus AB 899-covered foods, see the FAQ.

Sources