VermontVermont law requires heavy-metal testing and sales limits for baby food
Vermont law requires testing and heavy-metal information for baby food, while infant formula is covered only after comparable rules take effect elsewhere.
What it does
The law requires testing and heavy-metal information for baby food sold or distributed in Vermont. Products with arsenic, cadmium, lead, or mercury above FDA limits cannot be sold, distributed, or offered for sale.
The Attorney General must temporarily suspend these rules for infant formula if, after consulting the Health Commissioner, the Attorney General verifies that supply cannot meet need or is declining.
Starting January 1, 2027, infant formula is excluded from the definition of baby food. It is included only after the Attorney General confirms in writing that comparable rules have taken effect in California or at least two other states.
Argument forTesting, clear information, and a sales ban could help families avoid baby food with heavy metals above FDA limits.
Argument againstIf infant formula is in short supply or its supply is declining, suspending these rules could leave families with less protection from heavy metals.
More detail
The law requires testing and information about heavy metals in baby food, and bars sales of products above FDA limits. These rules cover baby food products sold or distributed in Vermont. The listed metals are arsenic, cadmium, lead, and mercury; infant formula is excluded from the definition at first. The law has multiple effective dates beginning January 1, 2027; the summary does not give a separate start date for these requirements.
The Attorney General, consulting the Health Commissioner, must temporarily suspend the law's application to infant formula if the stated supply concern is verified. The suspension applies to the law's requirements for infant formula. The Attorney General must verify either that infant formula supply is insufficient to meet need or that there is evidence of a declining supply.
The law includes infant formula in the definition of baby food only after the Attorney General gives written confirmation that qualifying rules have taken effect elsewhere. Starting January 1, 2027, infant formula is excluded from the definition unless and until the required confirmation is made. The Attorney General must confirm in writing that the rules have taken effect in California or in at least two other states. Those rules must be substantially comparable on sales bans for products above FDA limits, testing for heavy metals, and labeling and information. The exclusion starts January 1, 2027; the summary gives no specific date for when the definition may later include infant formula.
Where do you stand?
Choose your position
Tell your reps
Take a position to see your representatives and ways to contact them.
Where it stands
- Introduced
- Passed 1st Chamber
- Passed 2nd Chamber
- To Governor
- Became Law
Looking ahead
No hearings or votes scheduled.
History
- 2026
- May 26House message: Governor approved bill on May 26, 2026Latest
- May 26Signed by Governor Phil Scott on May 26, 2026Became Law
- May 20Delivered to Governor on May 20, 2026To Governor
- May 15House message: House concurred in Senate proposal of amendmentMinor
- May 13Senate proposal of amendment concurred inMinor
- May 13Action Calendar: Action postponed until May 13, 2026
- May 12Rep. Nelson of Derby moved to postpone action until May 13, 2026, which was agreed to
- May 12Action Calendar: Senate Proposal of AmendmentMinor
- May 8Notice Calendar: Senate Proposal of AmendmentMinor
- May 7Senate Message: Passed in concurrence with proposal of amendmentMinor
- May 6Read 3rd time & passed in concurrence with proposal of amendmentPassed 2nd Chamber
- May 6New Business/Third ReadingMinor
- May 5Roll Call, Requested by Sen. Lyons
- Vote recorded 3rd reading ordered on roll call Passed -- Needed 14 of 28 to Pass -- Yeas = 28, Nays = 0. Result: pass.Upper
- May 53rd reading ordered on roll call Passed -- Needed 14 of 28 to Pass -- Yeas = 28, Nays = 0
- May 5Proposal of amendment by Committee on Health and Welfare agreed toMinor
- May 5Read 2nd time, reported favorably with proposal of amendment by Senator Gulick for Committee on Health and WelfareMinor
- May 5Favorable report with proposal of amendment by Committee on Health and WelfareMinor
- May 5New Business/Second ReadingMinor
- May 1Favorable report with proposal of amendment by Committee on Health and WelfareMinor
- May 1Second ReadingMinor
- May 1Entered on Notice Calendar
- Mar 24Read 1st time & referred to Committee on Health and WelfareMinor
- Mar 19Read third time and passedPassed 1st Chamber
- Mar 19Action Calendar: Third ReadingMinor
- Mar 18Third Reading orderedMinor
- Mar 18Report of Committee on Agriculture, Food Resiliency, and Forestry, as amended, agreed to
- Mar 18Rep. Bartholomew of Hartland, Bos-Lun of Westminster, Brigham of St. Albans Town, Burtt of Cabot, Durfee of Shaftsbury, Lipsky of Stowe, Nelson of Derby, and O'Brien of Tunbridge moved to amend the report of the Committee on Agriculture, Food Resiliency, and Forestry, which was agreed to
- Mar 18Rep. Nelson of Derby reported for the Committee on Agriculture, Food Resiliency, and Forestry
- Mar 18Read second timeMinor
- Mar 18Action Calendar: Favorable with Amendment
- Mar 17Notice Calendar: Favorable with Amendment
- Feb 3Rep. Wood of Waterbury moved that the Committee on Human Services be relieved of the bill and that the same be committed to the Committee on Agriculture, Food Resiliency, and Forestry, which was agreed to
- Jan 6Read first time and referred to the Committee on Human ServicesIntroduced
HealthcareConsumer Protection