Virginia has become the third state – following California and Maryland – to enact legislation requiring routine heavy metal testing and public disclosure for baby food products, reinforcing what is quickly becoming a new compliance baseline for manufacturers operating in the category.
Virginia’s Baby Food Protection Act, HB1844, effective Jan. 1, 2026, mirrors much of California’s AB 899 and Maryland’s SB0723 (effective January 2025), but introduces a key legal distinction that manufacturers should not overlook. While the growing patchwork of state laws may seem complex, many companies are already well positioned to comply, according to Jessica O’Connell, partner at law firm Covington & Burling,
“This is now the third baby food testing labeling law that’s passed,” O’Connell said. “California was the first one, and that requirement went into effect the beginning of last year. And then Maryland and Virginia both have requirements that are going into effect the beginning [of this year].”
Similar frameworks, shared expectations
Across all three states, the core requirements are largely aligned. The laws mandate testing for the same four heavy metals – lead, arsenic, mercury and cadmium – at least once a month, along with public disclosure of results.
In addition, certain products must carry a QR code or other scannable code that allows consumers to view test results and FDA guidance at the point of purchase.
Virginia regulators have emphasized that compliance should not represent a significant operational lift for companies already meeting California’s requirements.
It’s “clear there was some coordination… to try to get similar requirements,” O’Connell noted.
Virginia’s key legal distinction: When products become ‘unlawful’
Where Virginia diverges most sharply is in how it treats products that exceed FDA guidance levels for heavy metals.
One major difference with Virginia’s law “is if the testing result shows levels above FDA kind of guidelines or limits, then that product is unlawful in Virginia,” O’Connell said.
By contrast, California’s law centers on compliance with testing and disclosure requirements – not the test results themselves.
“In California, what the law says is, if you don’t comply with the requirements of this law, the product is unlawful,” she explained.
O’Connell underscored that FDA thresholds are non-binding guidance, which adds a layer of legal complexity to Virginia’s approach.
A highest-standard approach already emerging
While the laws are state-specific, O’Connell said many companies are gravitating toward a single, most stringent standard to streamline compliance.
“Typically, the best, easiest way to comply is to find the most challenging or most comprehensive state requirement and comply with that,” she advised.
Some brands have already gone further. Baby food company Little Spoon, “in the absence of clear federal regulation,” adopted EU-inspired heavy metal limits and full transparency well before state mandates came into effect, according to Angela Vranich, co-founder and chief product officer at Little Spoon.
“We test every single batch of our baby food for over 500 toxins and contaminants, including heavy metals, publish those results on littlespoon.com, and make them easily accessible via QR code on pack,” she said.
Vranich added that the company views recent legislation as validation rather than disruption.
“We applaud lawmakers for raising the bar and are excited to see greater focus on improving kids’ food and challenging manufacturers to meet the higher standards we’ve long believed should be the norm,” she said.
Operational reality: Testing, labs and transparency
While O’Connell does not point to obvious compliance pitfalls, she emphasized the operational intensity of meeting the requirements – particularly around testing infrastructure and data management.
The process for finding a lab that meets testing requirements across all three existing laws may be a challenge, she emphasized.
Beyond testing, companies must manage representative sampling, monthly reporting, website updates and ongoing monitoring of FDA guidance, O’Connell said.
Because the information is public-facing, scrutiny extends beyond regulators.
“Anyone can kind of look to see if companies are in compliance,” through QR codes, she added.
What this means for smaller brands
For smaller or emerging baby food brands with fewer regulatory resources, O’Connell said testing should be the first priority.
She noted that internal processes are just as critical as lab partnerships, adding that public data disclosures represent a new workstream even for larger companies.
Moving toward a national standard, or continued state-by-state oversight?
With three states now aligned on core requirements, O’Connell sees early signs of convergence, but says the next legislative sessions will be decisive.
“It does seem to me, so far, that it’s at least working towards uniformity,” she said.
At the same time, she cautioned that divergent approaches, particularly around labeling, would pose real challenges.
“The next year or two probably will really see if there are states that want to try to approach this differently,” she said.
For manufacturers, the takeaway is clear: state-level monitoring is no longer optional.
“As every year passes, it’s becoming more and more important on these types of requirements,” O’Connell said. “I don’t think it’s going to diminish anytime soon.”
