A recently filed class action lawsuit in the US District Court for the Western District of Washington underscores growing legal risks for retailers and distributors of rice products in the United States. Plaintiffs in Wright et al. v. Amazon.com Inc. allege that certain rice products sold through Amazon.com contain dangerously high levels of toxic heavy metals, including arsenic and cadmium, posing particular harm to young children and pregnant women.1 Asserting claims under Washington's Consumer Protection Act and state law fraudulent concealment, plaintiffs allege that Amazon sold certain of these rice products to an intended consumer audience that includes children and pregnant women, with no warning or disclosure on the packaging or on its point-of-sale webpage that high levels of arsenic and cadmium are associated with increased risks of bladder, lung, and skin cancers, as well as neurodevelopmental harm in early-life exposures. Plaintiffs also allege that certain information regarding the presence of heavy metals in these rice products was in the "exclusive possession" of Amazon, and that Amazon actively concealed this information from its consumers.
The Wright complaint cites to widely publicized reports from Healthy Babies Bright Futures (HBBF) and to testing conducted by private research firms Brooks Applied Labs and Abt Global (formally Abt Associates), which had recently detected arsenic in 145 samples of rice purchased from grocery and retail stores across the United States (with one-fourth of those samples exceeding the FDA's limit of 100 ppb for infant rice cereal). Some of the samples that HBBF reported as containing high levels of arsenic and cadmium include well-known brands sold by Amazon, Safeway, and Whole Foods Market.
Industry groups, including the USA Rice Federation, have emphasized that US-grown rice contains some of the lowest arsenic levels globally, and that the relative contribution of rice to dietary arsenic is smaller than that of fruits and vegetables collectively. However, critics, including those at HBBF, argue that because rice is a single, frequently consumed product, it may represent the most significant individual food-based source of arsenic and other heavy metals exposure in the American diet.
The FDA has publicly stated that it is not possible to completely prevent arsenic or cadmium from entering the food supply. In fact, outside of the FDA's limit for infant rice cereal and the agency's general "Closer to Zero" policy aimed at reducing childhood exposure to contaminants from foods, the FDA has not set enforceable limits for arsenic or cadmium in general rice products. However, the FDA continues to monitor heavy metal levels through its Total Diet Study and can take steps to prevent products from entering, or remaining, in the US market if the agency determines that the level causes a food to be unsafe.
Footnote
1. 2:25-cv-00977 (W.D. Wash. May 23, 2025).
Visit us at mayerbrown.com
Mayer Brown is a global services provider comprising associated legal practices that are separate entities, including Mayer Brown LLP (Illinois, USA), Mayer Brown International LLP (England & Wales), Mayer Brown (a Hong Kong partnership) and Tauil & Chequer Advogados (a Brazilian law partnership) and non-legal service providers, which provide consultancy services (collectively, the "Mayer Brown Practices"). The Mayer Brown Practices are established in various jurisdictions and may be a legal person or a partnership. PK Wong & Nair LLC ("PKWN") is the constituent Singapore law practice of our licensed joint law venture in Singapore, Mayer Brown PK Wong & Nair Pte. Ltd. Details of the individual Mayer Brown Practices and PKWN can be found in the Legal Notices section of our website. "Mayer Brown" and the Mayer Brown logo are the trademarks of Mayer Brown.
© Copyright 2025. The Mayer Brown Practices. All rights reserved.
This Mayer Brown article provides information and comments on legal issues and developments of interest. The foregoing is not a comprehensive treatment of the subject matter covered and is not intended to provide legal advice. Readers should seek specific legal advice before taking any action with respect to the matters discussed herein.
