The Non-Financial Ledger: What a Can of Formula Actually Cost

Tiffany Huggins drove to a Walmart in Sequim, Washington. She picked up a can of Similac. She read the label because she is a good mother who reads labels. The can told her the formula would support her baby’s brain development, immune system, and growth. The can told her it was enriched with key vitamins and minerals. The can told her she could be confident in the nourishment of Similac. She believed it. Why wouldn’t she? This is one of the most recognized names in infant nutrition, a company that has been in business for a century and that calls itself the number one brand fed in hospitals. She bought the formula and fed it to her child, multiple times a day, every day, for roughly a year, from 2021 into 2022.

Lauren Nunez did the same thing in Sylmar, California. She shopped at Target and at Ralph’s. She also read the label on Similac 360 Total Care, which promised immune support, brain development, and digestive health. She also trusted what she read. She fed that formula to her child from March 2023 through December 2023.

Neither of these women knew that the formula they were mixing and warming and feeding their children contained arsenic. They did not know it contained lead. They did not know that the Soy Isomil variety tested at 59.3 ppb of arsenic, nearly six times the limit the EPA sets for drinking water. They did not know that researchers have documented that children aged 0 to 24 months lose more than 11 million IQ points collectively from exposure to arsenic and lead in food. They did not know that the effects of early heavy metal exposure are, in the words of researchers, “impossible to reverse.”

They were not given the chance to know. Abbott made a deliberate decision not to tell them. The company had access to its own testing data showing heavy metals were present. Congress had published two reports in 2021 identifying heavy metals in baby foods at alarming levels. The FDA had released its own study showing the same. Consumer Reports had been writing about it since 2018. Abbott read all of this. Abbott employs scientists and quality assurance teams. Abbott knows what is in its products. Abbott chose silence anyway, because disclosure, in its own words through its industry lobbying group, would cause “fear and panic.”

What Abbott is describing as fear and panic is more accurately described as informed parenthood. The fear of poisoning your child is not irrational. It is the correct response to learning your child has been fed a known neurotoxin at levels exceeding safe limits for adults. Abbott decided parents should not be allowed to feel that fear, because if they felt it, they would stop buying Similac.

Heavy metals do not announce themselves. There is no smell, no visible contamination, no symptom that appears the next morning. The damage accumulates quietly, in developing neurons, in kidney tissue, in the architecture of a brain that is building itself at a rate it will never match again. A child fed contaminated formula across their first year of life does not present to a pediatrician with a diagnosis that says “caused by Abbott Laboratories.” The damage is diffuse, statistical, measured in population-level IQ reductions and elevated rates of ADHD and learning disabilities. It is harm that is designed, by its nature, to be invisible at the individual level. Abbott knew this too.

The company markets itself to parents in one of the most vulnerable moments of their lives. New parenthood is exhausting, anxious, and full of decisions with no clear right answers. Abbott spent decades and enormous resources building a brand that said: you can trust us, we have done the science so you don’t have to, your baby is safe in our hands. That trust was the product Abbott was actually selling. The formula was what they packaged it in.

The Numbers Abbott Hoped You Would Never See

Independent testing and Abbott’s own internal data produced results the company never voluntarily disclosed to any parent. Here is what was found, in black and white.

For comparison: Bobbie Organic Infant Formula, tested by the same lab, returned non-detectable levels across all four heavy metals.

Legal Receipts: What They Said, What It Proves

The following are direct quotes from the lawsuit’s source documents, expert testimony transcripts, and congressional records. These are not allegations; they are statements made on the record by government officials, scientists, and the company’s own trade group.

“There is no known safe level of exposure to these metals for children. Exposure to toxic elements has a disproportionate effect on infants and toddlers because their brains are rapidly developing, especially during their first 1,000 days.” — Dr. Aparna Bole, pediatrician, speaking on behalf of the American Academy of Pediatrics, FDA Public Meeting Transcript, November 18, 2021

• This testimony, given at an FDA public meeting, was part of the official federal record by November 2021. Abbott had access to this information before or by the time most class members were purchasing products covered by this lawsuit.
• The phrase “first 1,000 days” refers to the period from conception through age two, the exact window during which parents use infant formula as a primary or sole food source. This is the population Abbott was serving while making the choice not to disclose.

“Arsenic, cadmium, mercury and lead… do not have any known physiologic essential function in the body and there is no known safe level to our knowledge.” — Dr. Karagas, Professor and Chair, Department of Epidemiology, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth College, FDA Public Meeting Transcript, November 18, 2021

• This statement directly dismantles the industry’s standard defense, which is that trace heavy metals are natural and harmless. None of these four metals serve any biological function. The body has no use for them. Every microgram that enters a baby’s body is purely a liability.
• Dartmouth’s Toxic Metals Superfund Research Program is one of the most cited programs in the country on this subject. Abbott’s scientists would have known this research. This is not obscure academic literature.

“For the contaminants we are discussing today, we have not identified safe levels of exposure for developmental outcomes.” — Conrad Choiniere, Director of the Office of Analytics and Outreach, FDA Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, FDA Public Meeting Transcript, November 18, 2021

• This is the FDA’s own director of analytics saying, on the record, that the agency has found no safe exposure level for developmental harm. This is the regulator of Abbott’s products. Abbott cannot claim ignorance of the FDA’s position.

“No level of exposure to these [heavy] metals has been shown to be safe in vulnerable infants.” — Linda McCauley, Dean of the Nell Hodgson Woodruff School of Nursing, Emory University, as cited in the New York Times, 2021

• Emory’s School of Nursing is a top-ranked research institution. This quote appeared in the New York Times in the context of the congressional report on heavy metals in baby food. Abbott could not have missed this coverage; the company employs media monitoring teams.

“Requiring infant formula manufacturers to disclose heavy metals test results would create ‘significant confusion’ and ‘fear and panic’ among consumers and cause them to ‘mistrust’ the manufacturers.” — Infant Nutrition Council of America (INCA), of which Abbott is one of three members, lobbying against California Assembly Bill 899, as cited in the class action complaint, 2023

• This is Abbott’s own industry group, of which Abbott is one of only three member companies, arguing that parents should not be allowed to know what is in the formula they feed their babies. “Fear and panic” is the industry’s description of informed parental decision-making.
• Following INCA’s lobbying effort, infant formula manufacturers were removed from the California AB 899 disclosure requirement before the bill was finalized. The lobbying worked. Parents in California still do not have the right to see Abbott’s heavy metals test results at the point of sale.
• The lawsuit notes that other manufacturers, including Plum Organics and Nurture (Happy Family), now voluntarily disclose heavy metals test results via QR codes on packaging. Abbott has chosen not to follow that practice.

“Even low levels of exposure can cause serious and often irreversible damage to brain development.” — U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Oversight and Reform, Subcommittee on Economic and Consumer Policy, Staff Report: “Baby Foods Are Tainted with Dangerous Levels of Arsenic, Lead, Cadmium, and Mercury,” February 4, 2021

• Congress published this finding on February 4, 2021. The lawsuit’s relevant period begins March 7, 2019, meaning Abbott was selling formula containing heavy metals for nearly two years before Congress issued this public warning, and continued selling it without any disclosure change after the report was released.
• A second congressional report, published September 29, 2021, found dangerous levels in even more products. Abbott still made no packaging changes.

Societal Impact: Who Gets Hurt and How

Public Health

The documented health consequences of chronic infant heavy metal exposure are not theoretical. They are grounded in peer-reviewed science and confirmed by multiple federal agencies.

• Children aged 0 to 24 months collectively lose more than 11 million IQ points from arsenic and lead exposure through food, according to the Healthy Babies Bright Futures report cited in the lawsuit.
• Arsenic exposure causes cognitive deficits, impaired brain development, growth problems, breathing problems, and compromised immune function. There is no evidence that the harm caused by arsenic is reversible, according to the same report.
• Lead exposure causes behavioral problems, decreased cognitive performance, delayed puberty, reduced postnatal growth, chronic poisoning, cancer, and serious injury to the nervous system. Lead’s effects also cannot be reversed or remediated.
• Cadmium is linked to neurotoxicity, kidney and bone damage, heart damage, cancer, and learning disabilities. Scientists found a tripling of risk for learning disabilities and special education placement among children with higher cadmium exposures, at levels common among U.S. children.
• Mercury exposure increases cardiovascular disease risk and is linked to lower IQ scores and intellectual disability in children. Mercury is classified as a highly toxic element by the scientific literature cited in the complaint.
• Co-exposure to multiple heavy metals simultaneously, which is what testing of several Similac products showed, produces interactive adverse effects that compound harm beyond what any single metal would cause alone.
• Because heavy metals bioaccumulate in kidneys and other organs, the risk grows with every feeding. A baby fed Similac multiple times a day, every day, for 12 months is not facing a one-time exposure. The compound burden builds across hundreds of feedings.
• Infants absorb more of the heavy metals that enter their bodies than adults do, making the same concentration in food disproportionately more harmful to a baby than to an adult consuming the same product.
• The whistleblower referenced in the complaint alerted the U.S. Congress to apparent failures of internal quality controls at Abbott’s plant. The contamination crisis at Abbott’s Sturgis, Michigan facility in 2022 forced a recall and a temporary market exit, suggesting systemic manufacturing oversight failures were not isolated incidents.

Economic Inequality

The financial and structural dynamics of this case fall disproportionately on parents who have the fewest resources to protect themselves or seek alternatives.

• Abbott holds the leading market share in U.S. infant formula. In a market this concentrated, parents in many communities and stores have few or no alternatives to Similac products at comparable prices. Low-income parents and those relying on federal nutrition programs often have the narrowest range of formula choices.
• The only way a consumer could have discovered the presence of heavy metals was to conduct their own scientific testing or pay for access to third-party scientific reports, an option described in the complaint as “time consuming and expensive.” Parents earning wages cannot afford independent lab testing of their baby’s food.
• A consumer survey conducted by plaintiffs’ counsel found that 88.9% of parents who reviewed Similac packaging would not expect the formula to contain heavy metals, and 85.9% of those respondents said knowledge of the risk would decrease their likelihood of purchase. The premium price Abbott charged was built on a false foundation; parents were paying more for a safety promise Abbott never delivered.
• Abbott lobbied successfully to kill California AB 899, a disclosure law that would have been a free, immediate remedy available to every parent in California regardless of their income. The blocking of that law is a direct economic harm: parents who would have shifted purchasing behavior were denied the information needed to do so.
• Other manufacturers, including Bobbie Organic, produce formula with non-detectable heavy metal levels. These products are available on the market. Abbott could have reformulated or sourced cleaner ingredients, as Consumer Reports confirmed that every category of baby food had at least some products with heavy metals at or below detectable levels. The choice to keep contaminants in the formula was, at least in part, a cost decision.
• The nationwide class covers purchases from March 7, 2019, to the present. Six years of contaminated formula sales represent an enormous transfer of money from parents who were paying for safety to a corporation that was delivering toxins. The damages sought include the premium price paid above what a contaminated product was worth.

What Abbott Told You vs. What the Testing Found

The Cost of a Life Metric

Who Is Connected to This Case

What Now? Who to Pressure and What to Do

This case is active. The class period runs from March 7, 2019, to present. If you purchased any of the six covered Similac products for a child, you are likely a class member. Here is where accountability should go, and what ordinary people can do to push it there.

Corporate Leadership: Who Is Responsible

• Abbott Laboratories is headquartered in Abbott Park, Illinois (Lake County). It is a Delaware corporation. The individuals responsible for quality assurance protocols, ingredient sourcing, finished product testing, and label approval are employed at that headquarters.
• The Infant Nutrition Council of America (INCA), of which Abbott is one of three members, coordinated the lobbying effort against California AB 899. Both the organization and its members bear responsibility for the successful blocking of that disclosure requirement.

Watchlist: Regulatory Bodies That Must Act

• The FDA (Food and Drug Administration) has acknowledged no safe level exists but has not set enforceable limits for heavy metals in infant formula specifically. The FDA’s “Closer to Zero” initiative is active but voluntary. It must become mandatory.
• The EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) regulates arsenic in drinking water at 10 ppb. There is no parallel standard for infant formula. The regulatory gap is not scientific; it is political.
• The FTC (Federal Trade Commission) has authority over deceptive advertising and marketing practices. Abbott’s packaging claims of brain nourishment and healthy development, made while knowingly omitting heavy metal contamination, constitute a textbook case for FTC enforcement under unfair or deceptive acts and practices standards.
• The CFPB (Consumer Financial Protection Bureau) and state attorneys general in California, Illinois, Washington, Minnesota, New York, and Pennsylvania all have consumer protection jurisdiction over the practices described in this lawsuit and in the state subclass claims.
• The U.S. House Committee on Oversight and Reform published two reports on this issue in 2021. Congressional follow-through on mandatory testing and disclosure requirements, legislation that INCA already tried to kill at the state level, is the legislative fix that would prevent recurrence.

Mutual Aid and Grassroots Resistance

• If you purchased Similac Pro Advance, Similac 360 Total Care, Similac Soy Isomil, Similac Advance OptiGRO Powder (Milk-Based), Similac NeoSure, or Similac Total Comfort powdered infant formula between March 7, 2019, and now, document your purchase records (receipts, subscription orders, loyalty card history, photos of cans). You may be a class member and entitled to damages.
• Share this report with every parent group, pediatrician waiting room, WIC office, and social media network you have access to. Parents who are still buying these products today deserve to know what independent testing found. Abbott will not tell them.
• Contact your state representative and U.S. House representative and demand mandatory heavy metals testing and public disclosure requirements for all infant formula sold in the United States. Reference the California AB 899 fight and the congressional reports of February and September 2021 to show this is documented and ongoing, not speculative.
• If you are in California, contact your state assembly member directly. AB 899 was weakened after INCA lobbying. Demand it be restored with full applicability to infant formula manufacturers, including Abbott.
• Support pediatric environmental health organizations, including Healthy Babies Bright Futures (healthybabyfood.org), which conducted key testing cited in this lawsuit and publishes ongoing contamination research on baby food products.
• When buying infant formula for yourself or as donations to mutual aid food banks or shelters, the testing data shows Bobbie Organic and other Clean Label Project Purity Award recipients produced formula with non-detectable heavy metal levels. Share this information in parenting communities, especially those serving low-income families who have the fewest alternatives.