A ruling by U.S. District Court Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley was a major setback for the plaintiffs, excluding seven of the eight general causation experts who attempted to link heavy metals in baby food to autism and ADHD.
The judge said she found their testimony unreliable, in part because their theory stemmed from hypothetical baby food “menus” put forth by the plaintiffs’ attorneys and given to experts rather than actual consumption patterns.
This method formed the basis of what effect arsenic and lead could have on a child who eats that food and is not “the product of reliable principles and methods,” Judge Corley said.
The judge emphasized that no published studies directly link baby food consumption to autism or ADHD and found that the experts had not adequately demonstrated such a connection.
“(T)hey have not identified any studies of whether food of any kind can cause (autism and ADHD),” she wrote. “So, Plaintiffs’ causation theory is built upon a series of extrapolations from studies that do not look specifically a consumption of baby food.”
Judge Corley added, ““Even in an area of epidemiology marked by hundreds of studies, none has developed the data needed to support the causation conclusion Plaintiffs’ experts assert in this MDL.”
The judge set an April 2 hearing to discuss the next steps in the baby food MDL. Co-lead plaintiffs’ counsel R. Brent Wisner said he was evaluating the ‘appropriate next steps and forming a plan,’ adding that there would be an appeal ‘of some sort.’