AB 899 for baby food brands: what the law requires

If you sell infant or toddler food into California, Assembly Bill 899 is already on the compliance calendar. This page draws a line between that statute and a voluntary certification. It is not legal advice.

The requirements live on the standards site: California baby-food testing and disclosure (AB 899). Use that page for who is covered, what must be tested, how results are disclosed, and what sits outside the baby-food definition. Confirm obligations with counsel against the enacted text.

What the law is trying to do

AB 899 is a testing-and-disclosure statute for covered baby-food manufacturers that sell or distribute in California. It asks a covered brand to generate results for the toxic elements named in the law, on a stated cadence, at a proficient laboratory, and, in the disclosure window, to put those results where a parent or a regulator can find them. Label and records duties belong to the manufacturer, not to a certification program.

Two facts are easy to miss in a hurried briefing:

• The law is about measurement and publication. It does not, by itself, license a marketing mark.
• Meeting the statute does not automatically mean a product meets a published certification standard. Those are different questions, scored against different documents.

Infant formula and some other product types sit outside the baby-food definition as the statute is written. Do not treat this page, or a certification conversation, as coverage you have not confirmed.

What a licensed mark adds (and does not add)

Heavy Metal Tested is an independent Paleo Foundation certification that evaluates food, supplement, and consumer products against a published standard and licenses a mark to products that meet it.

That is a voluntary certification program, not a laboratory, and not a government filing. Testing is coordinated through a qualified independent ISO/IEC 17025 laboratory. The Heavy Metal Certified mark is licensed only to products that meet the published subcategory standard. Certification is valid one year, with annual retesting.

A brand already generating AB 899 data is not finished with heavy-metal questions. Parents still look for a mark. Reviewers still ask what standard sits behind a claim. Teams still need a rule for when a result supports on-pack language.

Certification can sit beside the statute. It cannot sit in place of it.

Heavy Metal Tested certification does not satisfy, replace, or discharge AB 899. A covered brand remains responsible for statutory testing, website disclosure, labeling where the law requires it, and records for the California Department of Public Health. The program does not determine reporting or contractual duties. It does not claim that a product is safe. It does not claim that California requires this certification.

How teams usually split the work

Regulatory owns the statute. Quality owns the measurement system. Brand and legal own any on-pack claim. Certification is a claim-control tool, not a compliance shortcut.

A working sequence, not a substitute

If your team is already inside AB 899:

1. Keep the statutory file current. That work does not move to a certifier.
2. Decide whether any SKU should also be evaluated against a published certification standard.
3. If yes, start with eligibility, not an application, and not a close.

The process, when a product is in scope: apply; coordinate testing through a qualified independent ISO/IEC 17025 laboratory; license the Heavy Metal Certified mark only if the product meets the published subcategory standard; recertify annually with retesting. If it does not meet the standard, the mark is not licensed.

FAQ

Does California require Heavy Metal Tested certification? No. AB 899 is a testing-and-disclosure law. Certification is voluntary and does not replace it.

Where are the requirements written up? On the standards site: California baby-food testing and disclosure (AB 899). Confirm against the statute and your counsel.

If we already disclose results, why consider a mark? Disclosure shows what was measured. A licensed mark is a claim that a product met a published standard. Those are different communications.

Does the mark mean we are compliant with AB 899? No. Compliance with the statute is the brand's obligation.

How should we start? A 30-minute eligibility conversation. It is not an application and not a close.

Next step

If you own quality, regulatory, or compliance for a US baby-food line with California distribution, book a 30-minute eligibility conversation. Bring the SKU list. We will talk about whether a published standard and a licensed mark are in scope, not about substituting certification for the law.