Plum Organics Heavy Metal Testing, Texas v. Plum PBC Agreement Requires Continued Test Result Disclosures

Plum Organics has agreed to keep testing its baby food for heavy metals and to keep publishing the results, following an investigation by the Texas Attorney General. The agreement, called an Assurance of Voluntary Compliance, was filed in Collin County, Texas, and announced by Attorney General Ken Paxton on September 29, 2026. Plum does not admit any violation of the law and expressly denies liability.

This is a state consumer protection matter, not a class action settlement. There is no settlement fund, no official settlement website, no claim form and no way for parents to apply for money. The agreement is about testing standards and transparency going forward. This article explains what Plum agreed to, which laws are involved, what the agreement covers and does not cover, and what parents can do today.

Texas v. Plum PBC d/b/a Plum Organics: Quick Facts

Detail	Information
Case name	Texas v. Plum PBC d/b/a Plum Organics
Case number	494-07202-2026
Court	District Court of Collin County, Texas
Agreement filed	September 4, 2026
Publicly announced	September 29, 2026
Plaintiff	State of Texas, through the Consumer Protection Division of the Texas Office of the Attorney General
Defendant	Plum, PBC (Plum Organics), a Delaware public benefit corporation based in Fresno, California
Law at issue	Texas Deceptive Trade Practices-Consumer Protection Act (DTPA)
Type of resolution	Assurance of Voluntary Compliance
Admission of wrongdoing	No. Plum expressly denies any violation
Metals covered	Lead, inorganic arsenic, cadmium and mercury
Official settlement website	None. This is not a settlement with a claims process.
Claim form and claim deadline	None
Money paid to consumers	None. Each side bears its own costs
Private right of action	None created by the agreement
How long the commitments last	Three years from the date the court signs the agreement
Where parents can check results	The heavy metals test results page on Plum’s own website (listed in Sources)

What Triggered the Texas Attorney General’s Plum Organics Investigation?

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton announced an investigation into major baby food makers in August 2025, saying his office had served Civil Investigative Demands on Gerber and Plum Organics. The office said the probe targeted companies that may have deceptively advertised and sold baby food containing dangerous levels of heavy metals, including lead, arsenic, cadmium and mercury.

Plum said at the time that its baby foods meet FDA limits as well as its own standards. According to the agreement, the State’s demand to Plum, dated September 13, 2025, sought information about Plum’s testing for the four metals and how Plum disclosed the results to Texas consumers.

The agreement says Plum responded and cooperated. Plum told the State that it tests every lot of its baby food for the four metals before release and has published lot-specific results since December 2024. The agreement states that the parties entered into it to resolve disputed claims without the expense and delay of prolonged litigation.

What Laws Are Involved in the Texas v. Plum Agreement?

The Texas Deceptive Trade Practices-Consumer Protection Act (DTPA)

The DTPA (Texas Business & Commerce Code, Chapter 17, Subchapter E) prohibits false, misleading or deceptive acts in trade and commerce. It gives the Texas Attorney General’s Consumer Protection Division several tools that matter here:

• Civil Investigative Demands. The Attorney General can require a company to produce documents and answer questions during an investigation. This is how Texas obtained information from Plum in 2025.
• Enforcement actions. Under DTPA Section 17.47, the State can seek court orders stopping deceptive practices and civil penalties of up to $10,000 per violation, with higher penalties available when the conduct targets consumers aged 65 or older.
• Assurances of Voluntary Compliance. Under DTPA Section 17.58, the Attorney General can accept a written promise from a company to stop or change a practice. The company usually does not admit wrongdoing, and the assurance can be filed in court. That is the type of agreement used here.

Because this case ended in an assurance, no court has found that Plum violated the DTPA.

Federal rules: the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and FDA guidance

Food safety is mainly regulated federally. The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act treats food as adulterated if it contains a poisonous or deleterious substance that may make it injurious to health (21 U.S.C. § 342). FDA has no binding legal limit for most heavy metals in baby food, but it runs the “Closer to Zero” program, which aims to reduce babies’ exposure to toxic elements over time.

In January 2025, FDA issued final guidance setting action levels for lead in processed food intended for babies and young children. Guidance documents are not binding law, but they show what FDA considers appropriate and what the agency may act on. The Plum agreement ties Plum’s lead standard to that guidance.

FDA has not published comparable action levels for cadmium or inorganic arsenic in baby food generally, which is why the agreement relies on European Union guidance for those two metals.

State disclosure laws

Some states have gone further than federal law. For example, California, where Plum is based, has a law requiring baby food makers to test for heavy metals and make results available to the public. Plum’s published testing predates this Texas agreement, and the Texas commitments apply to products marketed or sold in Texas. Readers outside Texas should check their own state’s rules.

Federal consumer protection law

The Federal Trade Commission Act also prohibits unfair or deceptive acts and practices, including misleading advertising. This agreement is a Texas state action under the DTPA, not an FTC action.

What Did Plum Organics Agree to Under the Texas Agreement?

The agreement has three main parts: publishing results, describing standards honestly, and not shipping lots that fail Plum’s own limits.

Plum Will Keep Publishing Heavy Metal Test Results

Plum agreed to continue posting heavy metal test results on its website for covered baby food marketed, distributed or sold in Texas. Results stay up through each product’s “best by” date plus one month. Parents can look up a product by UPC code, lot number or “best by” date. For products covered by FDA’s lead guidance, results can also be reached through the QR code on the package.

Plum Will State That Its Standards Align With FDA and EU Guidance

Plum also agreed to state on its website that its testing standards align with leading regulations and guidance, including those from the FDA and the European Union.

Plum Will Hold Back Lots That Exceed Its Limits

Plum committed to a pre-release, lot-by-lot testing standard for each metal. If testing shows a lot exceeds the limit, Plum will not ship it.

Metal	Standard Plum agreed to follow
Lead	FDA’s January 2025 guidance on action levels for lead in processed food for babies and young children
Cadmium	40 parts per billion (ppb), based on EU guidance
Inorganic arsenic	20 ppb, based on EU guidance
Mercury	10 ppb, an internal Plum standard, since no FDA or EU guidance exists

The agreement notes that mercury is found mainly in fish, which Plum says is not an ingredient in its baby food. Plum’s standards can be revised if FDA adopts new or different action levels. The cadmium and arsenic figures are EU guidance levels that Plum voluntarily adopted. They should not be read as universal FDA limits.

Which Plum Organics Products Does the Texas Agreement Cover?

The testing and disclosure terms apply to Plum baby food packaged in jars, pouches, tubs or boxes and intended for babies and young children under two. They do not extend to the items FDA excludes from its lead guidance, such as infant formula, beverages and snack foods, including grain-based or freeze-dried snacks like puffs, rusks and teething biscuits.

That matters for parents. Plum sells snacks, and under the agreement’s wording those snack items fall outside the scope of the commitments.

What Plum Organics and the Texas AG Each Said

Paxton called the agreement the first of its kind with a baby food manufacturer and urged Gerber and other manufacturers to follow Plum’s lead. His office says Plum is the first baby food company to enter such an agreement.

Plum has said its baby food is safe and nutritious, that it has posted heavy metal test results publicly since 2024, and that it will keep doing so. The agreement itself says Plum has published lot-level testing since December 2024 and tests every lot for the four metals before release. It also notes that Consumer Reports gave Plum its top ranking for reporting heavy metal testing in January 2025 and again in March 2026.

What the Texas Agreement With Plum Organics Does Not Do

Parents should read the limits as carefully as the commitments:

• No admission. Plum does not admit it violated the DTPA or any other law, and the agreement says it is not an approval of Plum’s past practices either.
• No money for consumers. There is no refund, cash payment or compensation fund.
• No new lawsuit rights. The agreement says it creates no private rights, causes of action or remedies against Plum.
• Not permanent. The testing and disclosure commitments expire three years after the effective date, which is the date the court signs the agreement. That does not mean Plum must stop testing after three years. It means these particular commitments end, while other laws and company practices may continue to apply.
• Not a safety ruling. The agreement does not say any specific Plum product is unsafe, and no court has made that finding. It also does not prove that any child was harmed.
• Voluntary thresholds. Plum’s cadmium, arsenic and mercury limits are voluntary, since FDA has not set binding levels for those metals in baby food generally.
• Limited release. The agreement releases claims the State could have brought based on the facts it covers. It does not release anyone else’s claims, though it also does not create any.

Heavy Metals in Baby Food: What Parents Should Know

Both the Texas Attorney General and the agreement acknowledge that small amounts of lead, arsenic, cadmium and mercury occur naturally in fruits, vegetables and grains because plants absorb them from soil, water and the environment. FDA’s “Closer to Zero” program works on the premise that these metals cannot be removed entirely, and aims to reduce levels in baby food over time.

A detectable amount does not by itself mean a product breaks a legal limit or that a child was injured. The amount detected, the form of the metal, how much food a child eats, the child’s age and other sources of exposure can all matter. A number on a testing page should also not be compared with an unrelated standard, such as a drinking water limit, without checking what that standard measures.

How to check a Plum product:

1. Find the product name, UPC code, lot number and “best by” date on the package.
2. Visit the heavy metals test results page on Plum’s website and search with that information, or scan the QR code on the package where available.
3. Match the lot number or “best by” date, not just the product name. Results for one lot should not be treated as results for every lot of the same product.
4. Keep the packaging of any product you want to identify accurately later.

For questions about your child’s diet or possible exposure, talk to your pediatrician.

Is There a Separate Baby Food Lawsuit I Could Join?

This Texas agreement is separate from private baby food litigation. Product liability and consumer protection lawsuits against baby food manufacturers have been filed in other courts, including a federal multidistrict litigation in California that groups cases against several makers. Those cases have their own allegations, procedures and requirements, and nothing in the Texas agreement creates, supports or limits them. Whether you have a claim depends on your own facts, so speak with a licensed attorney.

For related background, see our coverage of the Happy Baby Lawsuit, Toxic Heavy Metals in Baby Food Exposed, 389 Cases Pending in Federal MDL 2026. That litigation involves a different baby food brand and is not the Texas agreement with Plum.

Who Represents Texas and Plum?

The State is represented by Ken Paxton, Brent Webster, Ralph Molina, Will Wassdorf, Johnathan Stone and Kelley Owens of the Texas Office of the Attorney General. Kelley Drye & Warren LLP represents Plum.

What Happens Next With Texas v. Plum PBC?

The agreement takes effect when the court signs it. We could not confirm from the sources reviewed whether that order has been entered, and the agreement itself refers to submitting it to a Travis County court while the filing carries a Collin County cause number. We will update this article once the order and effective date are confirmed. Until then, no specific expiration date should be assumed.

The Attorney General has said the broader baby food investigation continues. Texas has also served Gerber with a Civil Investigative Demand, and more demands may follow. Whether other baby food makers enter similar agreements remains to be seen.

Be cautious of websites, ads or messages claiming a Plum Organics payment is available through the Texas case. There is no payout, no claim form and nothing to register for.

Frequently Asked Questions About the Plum Organics Texas Agreement

Is there a Plum Organics class action settlement I can claim money from?

No. Texas v. Plum PBC is a state enforcement action resolved by an Assurance of Voluntary Compliance. There is no settlement fund, no settlement website and no claim form.

What is the Texas v. Plum Organics case number?

Case No. 494-07202-2026, in the District Court of Collin County, Texas.

Did Plum Organics admit its baby food contained too much lead or other heavy metals?

No. The agreement states that Plum does not admit any violation and expressly denies liability.

Which heavy metals must Plum test for?

Lead, inorganic arsenic, cadmium and mercury, in covered baby food intended for children under two.

What limits did Plum agree to follow?

FDA’s lead guidance, 40 ppb for cadmium and 20 ppb for inorganic arsenic (based on EU guidance), and an internal 10 ppb standard for mercury. Plum agreed not to ship a covered lot that exceeds the applicable standard in pre-release testing.

Are all Plum Organics products covered?

No. The agreement covers baby food in jars, pouches, tubs or boxes for children under two. It excludes infant formula, beverages and snack foods such as puffs, rusks and teething biscuits.

Where can I find Plum Organics test results?

On the heavy metals test results page on Plum’s website. Search by UPC code, lot number or “best by” date, or use the QR code on covered packages.

Does the agreement prove Plum sold contaminated baby food?

No. No court has made that finding, and the agreement does not establish that any product was unsafe or that any child was harmed.

How long do Plum’s commitments last?

Three years from the effective date, which is the date the court signs the agreement.

Can I sue Plum Organics because of this agreement?

The agreement does not give anyone a new right to sue. For advice about your own situation, speak with a licensed attorney.

Bottom Line

The Texas agreement with Plum Organics locks in practices Plum says it already followed: test every lot, publish the results, and hold back lots that exceed its stated limits. It does not award money to parents, and it includes no admission of wrongdoing. Its main value is transparency, which parents can use today by looking up their product’s lot results on Plum’s website.

Disclaimer: I am a legal content researcher, not a practicing attorney. This article is general information, not legal advice or medical advice. The agreement does not establish that Plum violated the law or that any product caused harm. Case status may change. For advice about your own situation, consult a licensed attorney or your child’s doctor.

About the Author

Israr Ahmad is the founder and legal content researcher at AllAboutLawyer.com, a legal information site covering consumer class action lawsuits and settlements.

Sources

1. Texas Attorney General, announcement of the Plum agreement (September 29, 2026): https://www.oag.state.tx.us/news/releases/attorney-general-ken-paxton-and-plum-enter-landmark-agreement-ensure-no-dangerous-levels-heavy
2. Texas Attorney General, Assurance of Voluntary Compliance, State of Texas v. Plum, PBC d/b/a Plum Organics, Cause No. 494-07202-2026: https://www.oag.state.tx.us/sites/default/files/images/press/Plum%20AVC.pdf
3. Plum Organics, Heavy Metals Test Results for Pouches: https://plumorganics.com/heavy-metals-test-results-for-pouches/
4. Texas Attorney General, investigation into major baby food manufacturers (August 26, 2025): https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/news/releases/attorney-general-ken-paxton-launches-investigation-major-baby-food-manufacturers-selling-products
5. FOX 4 News, “Toxic metals in baby food? Plum Organics agrees to new standards amid Texas AG investigation” (September 29, 2026)
6. Texas Scorecard, “Baby Food Company Agrees To Uphold Transparency Standards Following Texas Investigation”
7. Just Food, coverage of the Texas AG investigation into Gerber and Plum Organics (August 2025)
8. Texas Deceptive Trade Practices-Consumer Protection Act, Tex. Bus. & Com. Code ch. 17, including §§ 17.47 and 17.58
9. Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, 21 U.S.C. § 342 (adulterated food)
10. U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Closer to Zero program and January 2025 guidance on action levels for lead in processed food intended for babies and young children
11. Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45

By Israr Ahmad, Founder and Legal Content Researcher, AllAboutLawyer.com | Last updated: October 10, 2026