Verified against court and regulatory records · No upfront fees · Your information is never sold
Quick Eligibility Review
Answer one question at a time. This usually takes under 2 minutes.
Check your eligibility — free
Answer 2-3 quick questions to review your potential case.
Free · Confidential · About 2 minutes · A case specialist responds within 1 business day
Your answers are never sold or shared without your consent.
The House Subcommittee on Economic and Consumer Policy, chaired by Representative Raja Krishnamoorthi, spent months gathering internal company documents before publishing its February 4, 2021 report. The subcommittee sent document requests to seven major baby food manufacturers. Four cooperated: Gerber, Beech-Nut, Hain Celestial, and Nurture Inc. Three refused: Walmart, Campbell Soup, and Sprout Organic Foods. Crucially, the four that cooperated produced their own internal testing records — and those records contained some of the most damning evidence the subcommittee had ever seen in a consumer product investigation.
The numbers from the report are staggering in context. The FDA action level for inorganic arsenic in infant rice cereal is 100 ppb — itself criticized by public health experts as too high. The safe drinking water standard for arsenic is 10 ppb. Earth’s Best products tested at 129 ppb total arsenic. HappyBABY products tested at up to 180 ppb. For lead: the FDA action level for bottled water is 5 ppb. Beech-Nut’s internal tests showed lead at up to 886 ppb. These are not rounding errors. They represent a systematic failure by these companies to prioritize the safety of the most vulnerable consumers — infants whose brains were actively developing every day they consumed these products.
In the litigation context, the Congressional report serves multiple functions. It establishes the date of public discovery (February 4, 2021), which is relevant to statute of limitations calculations. It is independently admissible as a government report under the Federal Rules of Evidence. And it contains the defendants’ own internal data — not a plaintiff’s expert’s opinion or an independent lab test, but the companies’ own quality control records. Courts in MDL 3101 have treated the report as establishing a sufficient evidentiary foundation for general causation experts to testify.
FAQ
Frequently Asked Questions
The full investigation