Blog
World of Baby Food
Baby Food Heavy Metal Laws by State (2026): What Parents Should Know
The short answer
Five states have enacted baby-food heavy-metal laws: California, Maryland, Virginia, Illinois and Vermont [1]. Most require monthly testing for arsenic, cadmium, lead and mercury and public test results, often behind a QR code [1][2]. Pennsylvania's HB 507 would set its own numeric limits, and New York's A9026A would also cover infant formula; both are still proposals [1][3]. Federal FDA action levels remain non-binding guidance [1][4].
This is general information, not legal or medical advice.
Which states already have baby food heavy metal laws?
California, Maryland, Virginia, Illinois and Vermont, according to a November 9, 2026 legal analysis by Venable LLP [1]. The laws share a core idea (test the finished food and tell parents the results) but differ on timing and on whether they ban products above federal limits [1].
| State | Law | Testing and disclosure | Sales limit | Infant formula |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| California | AB 899 | Monthly testing of final products; public results; QR code on certain products [1][2] | No state numeric limits [1] | Excluded [1] |
| Maryland | Rudy's Law | Monthly testing of each production aggregate; disclosure [1] | Bans baby food above FDA-established limits (except food made before January 1, 2026) [1] | Excluded [1] |
| Virginia | Baby Food Protection Act (effective January 1, 2026) | Testing, public disclosure, QR codes [1] | Bans baby food above applicable FDA limits [1] | Not stated in source |
| Illinois | Testing law | Monthly testing since January 1, 2026; public results and QR codes from January 1, 2027 [1] | No state numeric limits [1] | Not stated in source |
| Vermont | Act 110 (H.536, enacted May 2026) | Monthly testing, disclosure, QR codes from January 1, 2027; online sellers must link to results [1] | Bans baby food above applicable FDA regulatory limits [1] | Extends to formula once California or two other states have comparable formula laws [1] |
For how California's disclosure works in practice, including brands that require a lot code before showing results, see AB 899: public results vs lot-code lookups.
What would Pennsylvania's HB 507 change?
It would be the first of these laws to write its own numbers into the statute [1]. The proposed Baby Food Protection Act would ban baby food above these levels [1]:
| Metal | Proposed Pennsylvania HB 507 limit |
|---|---|
| Total arsenic | 10 ppb |
| Lead | 5 ppb |
| Cadmium | 5 ppb |
| Mercury | 2 ppb |
If FDA set a lower limit for one of those metals, Pennsylvania's Department of Agriculture would have to adopt it [1]. The bill would also have the department test a representative sample of each batch made in Pennsylvania and require labels listing the measured arsenic, lead, cadmium and mercury [1]. Its requirements would lapse to the extent later federal law is found substantially similar [1].
For comparison, FDA's final lead action levels for processed baby food are 10 ppb for most fruits, vegetables, mixtures, yogurts, custards and single-ingredient meats, and 20 ppb for single-ingredient root vegetables and dry infant cereals [4]. We compare those with FDA's draft cadmium numbers in FDA lead vs cadmium action levels.
Would New York's bill cover infant formula?
Yes. A9026A, the Baby Food and Infant Formula Safety and Transparency Act, would require makers of both baby food and infant formula to test representative samples at least monthly and publish the results [1]. The New York State Assembly announced on June 11, 2026 that it had passed the bill; the Assembly's summary says labels would need a QR code linking to results and FDA guidance [3]. As of Venable's November 9 analysis it had not become law [1].
Instead of fixed numbers, New York's Department of Agriculture and Markets, working with the Department of Health, would set acceptable levels by regulation, and products above them could not be sold in the state [1][3]. Covering formula sets it apart from California and Maryland, which exclude formula [1]. FDA's baby-food action levels also exclude infant formula [1]; for what federal testing of formula has found so far, see infant formula heavy metals: FDA and Consumer Reports.
What has Texas done?
Texas has used consumer-protection law rather than a new statute [1][5][6]:
- Plum agreement (September 29, 2026): Plum agreed to follow FDA guidance for lead, adopt EU guidance for cadmium and inorganic arsenic where FDA has no action level, use a 10 ppb internal standard for mercury in its pouches, not ship lots that exceed those standards, and keep publishing results for products sold in Texas [6].
- Lawsuit against Gerber and Nestlé USA (announced October 14, 2026): The Texas Attorney General alleges the companies misrepresented Gerber baby food as safe and rigorously tested while their own testing showed elevated arsenic and lead [5]. These are allegations in a lawsuit, not court findings [1][5].
Our rankings use published test data and disclosure, not lawsuits; see our methodology and the Plum Organics and Gerber pages.
Do FDA action levels already limit metals nationwide?
Only as guidance. FDA action levels are non-binding: they are levels at which FDA may regard a food as adulterated and consider enforcement [4][7]. Venable notes that this matters for states that ban food "above FDA limits", because FDA's baby-food action levels are not themselves enforceable federal regulatory limits [1]. FDA's draft cadmium action levels for baby food are open for comment until December 22, 2026 [7]; see how to comment on the cadmium draft and the Closer to Zero roadmap.
What can parents do with these laws?
- Scan the QR code or check the brand's results page. California requires published results, and Illinois and Vermont add QR codes from January 1, 2027 [1][2].
- Have the lot code ready. Results are often organized by product, lot or "best by" date; Plum's Texas results, for example, are searchable by UPC, lot number or date [6].
- Read results against a benchmark. FDA's lead action levels are a common reference point [4]; our ranked list shows how brands compare on published data.
- Keep variety. FDA recommends a varied, nutrient-dense diet across the main food groups rather than using action levels to pick foods [4]; see homemade vs store-bought baby food metals.
FAQ
Is there a federal law limiting heavy metals in baby food?
No federal statute sets binding limits. FDA has final action levels for lead in processed baby food and draft levels for cadmium, but action levels are guidance, not enforceable regulatory limits [1][4][7].
Does California's AB 899 ban baby food with heavy metals?
No. It requires testing and public disclosure and sets no state maximum levels [1]. California's Attorney General has warned that baby food not meeting AB 899's requirements cannot be sold in the state [2].
Which states would cover infant formula?
New York's A9026A would cover formula if enacted [1][3]. Vermont's Act 110 extends to formula only once California or two other states have comparable formula laws in effect [1]. California and Maryland exclude formula [1].
Are Pennsylvania's proposed limits stricter than FDA's?
For lead, the proposed 5 ppb is below FDA's 10 ppb and 20 ppb action levels for processed baby food [1][4]. The bill is a proposal and has not become law [1].
Does the Texas lawsuit mean Gerber food is unsafe?
A lawsuit is a set of allegations, not a court finding [1][5]. Check current published results for the products you buy, and ask your pediatrician if you have concerns.
References
- Venable LLP, New York and Pennsylvania Consider New Heavy Metal Requirements for Baby Food (November 9, 2026).
- California Department of Justice, Office of the Attorney General, Attorney General Bonta Warns Companies of Responsibility to Disclose Heavy Metals in Baby Food Products (March 6, 2026).
- New York State Assembly, Assembly Announces Passage of Legislation to Protect Infants from Toxic Chemicals in Baby Products (June 11, 2026).
- U.S. FDA, Guidance for Industry: Action Levels for Lead in Processed Food Intended for Babies and Young Children (January 2025).
- Office of the Texas Attorney General, Attorney General Ken Paxton Sues Major Baby Food Companies Gerber and Nestlé (October 14, 2026).
- Office of the Texas Attorney General, Attorney General Ken Paxton and Plum Enter into Landmark Agreement to Ensure No Dangerous Levels of Heavy Metals in Baby Food (September 29, 2026).
- U.S. FDA, FDA Advances Closer to Zero Initiative to Safeguard Food for Children (October 2026).