Good Start Toddler Formula Lawsuit Over Misleading Nutritional Claims To Move Forward Against Gerber

A federal judge has cleared the way for a Gerber toddler formula lawsuit to proceed, involving allegations that the manufacturer misled consumers by advertising that its Good Start Grow Stage 3 baby food was nutritionally appropriate.

The class action complaint (PDF) was filed earlier this year by Rossy Gavilanes, alleging that false and misleading statements were provided about the benefits pf Gerber Good Start Grow baby formula, indicating it does not provide the nutrition necessary for children between the ages of 12 and 24 months.

The lawsuit claims Good Start toddler formula cannot match the nutrition of milk, water and healthy food, which are part of a toddler’s recommended balanced diet. The Gerber formula also includes 15 grams of added sugar, which the lawsuit notes child nutrition experts universally oppose adding to any food consumed by children between one a two years of age.

Gerber challenged the lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, the complaint failed to state a valid a cause of action, calling for it to be dismissed.

On November 1, Senior U.S. District Judge Frederic Block issued a court opinion (PDF) which cleared the Gerber Good Start class action lawsuit to proceed. He ruled that, under New York consumer laws, the manufacturer does not have to make an affirmative misrepresentation, like saying the food includes something it does not or that it does not include an ingredient that it actually does, in order for a plaintiff to bring a misrepresentation claim.

Gerber challenged all of the claims made in the lawsuit, but Judge Block ruled most of them, except one claim under the Magnuson Moss Warranty Act, could proceed, allowing the lawsuit to move forward.

The lawsuit is one more challenge to Gerber and other baby food manufacturers over the quality of the products they produce to feed some of the nation’s most vulnerable citizens. However, most of the concerns raised in recent months have focused on toxic heavy metals and not the foods’ nutritional value.

Since a Congressional subcommittee reports was released earlier this year, manufacturers have faced a growing number of toxic baby formula lawsuits filed in federal courts nationwide.

In March, an Arizona mother of three minor children, Valencia Gibson, filed a baby food lawsuit against Gerber Products Company; Nurture, Inc.; Beech-Nut Nutrition Company; Plum, PBC; Hain Celestial group, Inc., and Sprout Foods Inc, saying that high levels of toxic metals recently found in their products caused her three children to each develop autism.

In April, New York Attorney General Letitia James issued a press release announcing a probe into Gerber, Beech-Nut, Hain (Earth’s Best Organic), and Nurture (HappyBABY); sending letters to each of the baby food manufacturers asking for additional information about levels of arsenic found in their products, as well as advertising and promotional techniques.

Although the manufacturers claim their products are safe and appropriately labeled, the FDA and U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) have long maintained that exposing infants and children to toxic heavy metals can cause a permanent decrease in IQ, an increased risk of future criminal and antisocial behavior, and untreatable and frequently permanent brain damage.

Heavy metal exposure to infants is a serious concern. Lead exposure at any level is extremely unsafe for children. Prior studies have linked heavy metal exposure to behavioral impairments, brain damage, damage to the nervous system, seizures, growth impairments, and even death.

Lawsuits Over Toxic Baby Formula

In addition to claims over heavy metals in certain infant foods sold in recent years, toxic baby formula lawsuits are also being pursued by families of premature infants diagnosed with necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC).

The Similac lawsuits and Enfamil lawsuits allege that the makers knew or should have known about the toxic side effects for premature babies, yet continued to market their products for use among preterm infants.