Gerber Baby, Toddler Foods ‘Misbranded’ With Certain Nutrient Content Claims, Class Action Alleges

New to ClassAction.org? Read our Newswire Disclaimer

A proposed class action alleges Gerber has misbranded more than 50 baby and toddler food items by including on product labels nutrient content claims that are “strictly prohibited” by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). 

The 59-page suit contends that the nutrient content claims at issue mislead buyers into believing that certain foods, including many of Gerber’s baby food pouches, provide physical health benefits for children younger than two, when in fact the products are “harmful both nutritionally and developmentally” for children under two years old. 

A list of the Gerber baby and toddler foods the lawsuit alleges are misbranded can be found here. 

Want to stay in the loop on class actions that matter to you? Sign up for ClassAction.org’s free weekly newsletter here. 

According to FDA regulations, no nutrient content claims, whether expressed or implied, may be made on the label of a food intended specifically for use by infants and children younger than two years old, the filing states. Moreover, the FDA strictly governs the use of claims that include the words “more,” “added,” “plus” or synonyms to describe the level of a nutrient in a food, the complaint relays. 

Examples of the nutrient content claims that the lawsuit challenges are unlawful include express statements such as “2g of Protein” and implied claims such as a Gerber pouch containing food that is “[n]utritious, plant-based, and specially designed to provide 2 grams of protein.” The labels of other products claim that the foods provide, for instance, “1 ½ servings of fruit” or “2 servings of superfoods,” which suggest that fiber and vitamins are present in a certain amount, the lawsuit says.

Other Gerber product labels state the foods are “with Vitamin C” and vitamin E, which count as claims that the products contain “more” of the vitamins and are therefore subject to FDA labeling rules, the complaint adds. 

The case defines an express nutrient content claim as “any direct statement about the level (or range) of a nutrient in a food,” and an implied claim as any that “[d]escribes the food or an ingredient therein in a manner that suggests that a nutrient is absent or present in a certain amount” or “[s]uggests that the food, because of nutrient content, may be useful in maintaining healthy dietary practices and is made in association with an explicit claim or statement about a nutrient.” 

Further, the federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act dictates that a label claim is “misleading” if it is technically true yet “likely to deceive consumers,” the case says. Similarly, California law stipulates that a food that’s “misbranded” cannot legally be made, advertised, distributed, sold or possessed, the suit states. 

According to the complaint, a claim such as “4g Protein” could be misleading to Gerber baby and toddler food buyers in that children from zero months to four years old and older have different recommended intakes and many consumers have a limited understanding of the recommended amounts. The case says that the FDA prohibits nutrient content claims on products intended for children under two years old because “the agency lacks evidence that a more restrictive dietary pattern for other nutrients such as sodium or an increased intake for nutrients such as fiber are appropriate and recommended for children and toddlers.”

Lastly, the suit contends that consuming food from a pouch may lead a baby to eat more than when they’re fed with a spoon, which can be problematic in that a baby could be less likely to recognize “satiety cues,” and fill up on purees which, per the American Academy of Pediatrics, are “not good nutritional substitutes for breastmilk or formula in early life.” 

“For these reasons, Defendant marketing the Products as providing physical health benefits for babies and toddlers [and] being a healthful and safe source of nutrients for babies and toddlers is misleading to reasonable consumers and the Products are actually harmful for children under two both nutritionally and developmentally.” 

The complaint looks to cover all consumers in California who purchased any of the products listed here between August 18, 2018 and the present. 

Get class action lawsuit news sent to your inbox – sign up for ClassAction.org’s free weekly newsletter here.