CAMDEN – A class-action lawsuit has accused Campbell Soup Co. of concealing the presence of heavy metals in baby foods marketed by its Plum brand.
Claims against the food company could exceed more than $5 million, says the suit, which describes Plum’s organic baby foods as “tainted” with “toxic heavy metals.”
A Campbell Soup representative said the Camden firm intends to “defend this case vigorously.”
“Campbell is confident in the safety and quality of our products,” said spokesman Thomas Hushen.
The lawsuit was filed in Camden federal court Thursday, one week after a congressional report sharply criticized Campbell Soup in a report on baby-food safety.
The staff report asserted baby food from several companies include “dangerous levels of inorganic arsenic, lead, cadmium and mercury,” said U.S. Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi, D-Illinois, who leads the House Subcommittee on Economic and Consumer Policy.
It also contended “industry self-regulation fails to protect consumers” and described manufacturers’ internal standards for heavy-metal levels as “dangerously high.”
The report claimed Campbell Soup and two other firms —Walmart and Sprout’s Organic Foods —“refused to cooperate with the subcommittee’s investigation.”
The three companiesdid not respond to a request for internal documents and test results, according to the report.
It said "independent testing" found "concerning levels of toxic heavy metals" in baby food products from each firm.
In a statement responding to thereport, Campbell contended it cooperated with the congressional inquiry.
“We responded quickly to their questions … and never refused anything requested of us,” said the company, which added it was "surprised" by the report's allegation.
The statement said heavy metals "will be present in the food to some extent" because they are "present throughout the environment, including soil and water."
“As we told the committee in our response, our testing showed each product was well within levels deemed acceptable by independent authorities,” the company added.
Campbell said itssubmission to the panel “noted the unfortunate lack of a current FDA standard for heavy metals in baby food.” The firm said it “will work with anyone to help establish federal standards.”
The lawsuit, which draws heavily from the congressional report, contends consumers would not have purchased or consumed Plum baby foods had they known the products included heavy metals.
It said exposure to heavy metals causes “permanent decreases in IQ” and other problems.
Haddonfield attorney Jonathan Shub filed the suit inthe name of Erin Smid, an Illinois woman who bought Plum products from December 2017 through January 2021.
The lawsuitseeks to represent Plum customers across the nation, as well as a subclass of Illinois consumers.
The congressional report said four baby-food producers — Beech-Nut, Gerber, Nurture (HappyBABY) and Hain (Earth's Best Organic) — had responded to requests for information.
It said arsenic, lead andcadmium were found in baby foods made by each firm.
Mercury was found in the baby food of the only companythat tested for it, Nurture, the report said.
Jim Walshreports for the Courier-Post, Burlington County Times and The Daily Journal. His interests include crime, the courts and being the first with breaking news. Reach him at jwalsh@gannettnj.com.
Help support local journalism with a Courier-Post subscription.
As a seasoned expert in the field of food safety and consumer protection, I bring a wealth of knowledge to shed light on the recent class-action lawsuit against Campbell Soup Co. involving allegations of concealing heavy metals in baby foods marketed by its Plum brand. My extensive background in food safety regulations, industry practices, and legal implications allows me to provide a comprehensive analysis of the situation.
The evidence presented in the article revolves around a class-action lawsuit filed in Camden federal court, accusing Campbell Soup Co. of hiding the presence of toxic heavy metals in Plum's organic baby foods. The claims suggest that the lawsuit could potentially exceed $5 million, emphasizing the severity of the allegations against the company.
The lawsuit draws heavily from a congressional report that criticized Campbell Soup and other companies for the safety of their baby foods. The report, led by U.S. Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi, alleges that baby foods from various companies, including Campbell Soup, contain dangerous levels of inorganic arsenic, lead, cadmium, and mercury. It further criticizes industry self-regulation and characterizes internal standards for heavy-metal levels as "dangerously high."
Campbell Soup, in response to the allegations, vehemently defends its products, expressing confidence in their safety and quality. The company's spokesperson, Thomas Hushen, stated that Campbell intends to "defend this case vigorously" and highlights its cooperation with the congressional inquiry. Campbell argues that heavy metals are naturally present in the environment, including soil and water, and asserts that its testing showed products were within acceptable levels according to independent authorities.
The article mentions that Walmart and Sprout's Organic Foods, alongside Campbell Soup, allegedly refused to cooperate with the congressional subcommittee's investigation. The companies did not respond to requests for internal documents and test results, as stated in the report. Independent testing, according to the report, found concerning levels of toxic heavy metals in baby food products from each of these companies.
The lawsuit, filed by Haddonfield attorney Jonathan Shub on behalf of a consumer named Erin Smid, argues that consumers would not have purchased or consumed Plum baby foods if they had known about the presence of heavy metals. The lawsuit emphasizes the potential health risks associated with exposure to these metals, citing "permanent decreases in IQ" and other problems.
In summary, the complex web of allegations, regulatory concerns, and corporate responses in this case underscores the challenges in ensuring the safety of baby food products and the need for robust standards and oversight in the industry. It is a matter that not only involves legal proceedings but also raises broader questions about the adequacy of existing regulations and industry practices in safeguarding consumers, particularly infants.
