Consumer Reports found detectable phthalates and microplastics in Little Spoon and Cerebelly samples. What was actually tested, what BPA-free does and doesn't tell you, and practical steps that reduce exposure.
By James T. Reilly · September 22, 2026
Part of the complete guide to baby and toddler meal kit delivery for close-age siblings.
A health-content note, read first: This guide reports specific, recent, independently conducted test results for brands covered in this cluster, alongside each company's own response where available. It does not diagnose any health effect in any child, and it does not tell you whether a specific finding warrants changing your family's choices — that's a judgment to make with your own risk tolerance and, for any specific health concern, your pediatrician. Research on microplastic and phthalate exposure in infants is real, active, and still developing; presenting these findings accurately means being clear about both what's been found and what remains uncertain, not overstating either direction.
Bottom line up front: Consumer Reports published test results within the last few days finding detectable phthalates in Little Spoon's puffs and microplastics in its purée samples, and separately, detectable DEHP phthalate and microplastics in Cerebelly's Organic Sweet Potato Chicken Broth pouch. Both companies responded to Consumer Reports directly. This guide did not find equivalent independently published test results for Once Upon a Farm, Tiny Organics, or Nurture Life in this specific round of testing — that's a real gap in available data, not evidence either way for those three brands. Separately, a May 2026 Greenpeace-commissioned lab study found substantial microplastic contamination in Gerber and Happy Baby Organics pouches (neither covered in this cluster), pointing to plastic pouch packaging broadly, not any single brand's formulation, as a likely contributing factor.
Consumer Reports, working with an accredited outside laboratory, tested 48 baby food products (using secret-shopper purchases of 2–4 lots per product) for heavy metals and, in a subset of 16 products, for microplastic particles and phthalates. Here's what was reported for brands in this cluster:
Little Spoon: No heavy metals above CR's level of concern were found. However, testing did find detectable levels of phthalates in Little Spoon's puffs and microplastics in its purée samples. When Consumer Reports asked Little Spoon about the phthalate finding, a company spokesperson stated: "We purposely use BPA-free and phthalates-free packaging." The company separately told CR it maintains an "Always Tested" standard (in place since 2024) screening for more than 500 toxins and contaminants across its infant and baby portfolio, with results published through what it calls a Transparency Hub, and added: "A clear government standard for microplastics and phthalates would help the entire food industry, and we would welcome one."
Cerebelly: Testing found detectable levels of the phthalate DEHP and microplastics in Cerebelly's Organic Sweet Potato Chicken Broth pouch specifically. No heavy metals above CR's level of concern were found. A Cerebelly spokesperson told CR: "In an environment where many contaminants have no standards or regulations and very limited monitoring tools, we regularly monitor and work with..." (the full statement wasn't captured in full in this guide's research).
Once Upon a Farm, Tiny Organics, Nurture Life: This guide did not find these three brands specifically named in the phthalate/microplastic findings from this particular Consumer Reports test round. This may mean they weren't part of the 16-product microplastics subset tested, that they tested favorably and weren't flagged, or simply that this guide's research didn't surface a specific mention — treat the absence of a finding here as an honest data gap, not as confirmation these products are free of the same contaminants.
An important general note from CR's methodology: particle size matters for potential health relevance — smaller microplastic particles are believed to have greater potential to cross into bodily tissues than larger ones — and CR's testing found particle sizes across a wide range in the products it examined.
Separately from the CR brand-specific findings above, a May 2026 study commissioned by Greenpeace International and conducted by the independent lab SINTEF Ocean tested squeeze pouches from Gerber (Nestlé) and Happy Baby Organics (Danone) — neither of which is covered in this cluster. The findings were substantial: an estimated 5,000+ microplastic particles in a single Gerber pouch and 11,000+ in a single Happy Baby Organics pouch, along with a range of plastic-associated chemicals in both the packaging and the food itself, including a chemical identified as a potential endocrine disruptor in the Gerber samples. The study's authors traced the likely source to the polyethylene lining used in flexible pouch packaging — a materials-science point that applies to the pouch format broadly, not to any single company's recipe or ingredient sourcing.
This matters directly for this cluster: several of the five companies covered here also use flexible pouch packaging for at least part of their product line (Once Upon a Farm's pouches, Little Spoon's Babyblends+ pouches, Cerebelly's entire pouch-based line). The Greenpeace/SINTEF findings don't test those specific companies' pouches, but they establish that the general packaging category — multi-layer flexible pouches with a plastic inner lining — is a documented source of microplastic contamination across brands that use it, which is relevant context regardless of which specific company's pouch a family is considering.
This is a genuinely common point of confusion worth stating plainly, and it's directly relevant to interpreting the findings above: "BPA-free" and "phthalate-free" are two different, separate claims, and neither one addresses microplastics as a category. BPA (bisphenol A) and phthalates are both plasticizing or plastic-associated chemicals, but they're chemically distinct, used in different applications, and a packaging material can be free of one while still containing or shedding the other. Microplastics — physical particles of plastic, as opposed to chemicals that leach from plastic — are a separate concern from either BPA or phthalates entirely, and a product can be marketed as "BPA-free" while still shedding physical microplastic particles from its packaging material during normal use, especially under heat (microwaving) or mechanical stress (squeezing a pouch).
This is exactly the tension visible in Little Spoon's case above: the company's own claim of "phthalates-free packaging" and CR's finding of detectable phthalates in the product aren't necessarily contradictory once you consider that phthalates can originate from sources other than the primary packaging material itself, or that "free of" claims typically refer to intentional formulation rather than a guarantee of zero detectable trace presence — a distinction companies and testing organizations sometimes describe differently, which is part of why independent, third-party testing (like CR's) exists as a check on manufacturer claims rather than a redundant confirmation of them.
Separate from the specific phthalate/microplastic findings above, Consumer Reports and the nonprofit Unleaded Kids separately evaluated 39 baby food brands specifically on how easily parents can access heavy-metal test results — required under a California disclosure law (AB 899) — without needing to track down lot numbers or best-by dates first.
Rated as providing straightforward, easy access to test results: Once Upon a Farm, Nurture Life, and Cerebelly were named among this higher-transparency group in this evaluation.
Rated as requiring extra steps (lot numbers, UPCs, or best-by dates before results are accessible): Little Spoon was named in this middle-tier group.
Not independently confirmed either way in this guide's research: Tiny Organics' specific rating in this evaluation.
This transparency rating is a separate question from the actual contaminant findings in Sections 1 and 2 — a company can test rigorously and still make the results annoying to access, or vice versa. Both dimensions matter for a parent trying to make an informed decision, and they don't always point the same direction for a given brand (Little Spoon, for instance, tests extensively by its own account and CR's, but scored lower specifically on ease of public access to those results).
None of the following claims to eliminate exposure entirely — that's not realistic given how widespread plastic packaging is across the entire food supply, not just baby food. These are evidence-based ways to reduce it:
Never microwave food inside the original plastic pouch or tray unless the packaging is specifically labeled microwave-safe, and even then, transferring food to a glass or ceramic bowl before heating avoids the combination of heat and plastic contact that's most associated with increased particle shedding.
Squeeze pouches mechanically stress the plastic lining with each use, which is part of the shedding mechanism identified in the Greenpeace/SINTEF research — decanting a pouch's contents into a bowl for spoon-feeding, rather than letting a child suck directly and repeatedly from the pouch spout, reduces this specific mechanical stress pathway, and also happens to align with general infant feeding guidance favoring spoon-feeding over pouch-sucking for oral-motor development reasons.
Favor glass or non-plastic packaging where a comparable option exists — several of Little Spoon's Babyblends ship in small plastic containers rather than pouches, which some parents and reviewers have noted they prefer for this reason, though plastic containers aren't automatically free of the same shedding concerns simply for not being a flexible pouch.
Check each company's own testing disclosures directly, using the transparency notes in Section 4 as a starting point, since testing standards and results can change and a static guide will go stale faster than a company's own current published data.
Does a "BPA-free" label mean a product is free of all plastic-related health concerns? No — BPA-free addresses one specific chemical; it says nothing about phthalates or microplastics, which are separate concerns with separate sources and separate testing requirements, as covered in Section 3.
Should I stop feeding my child Little Spoon or Cerebelly products because of these test results? This guide can't make that decision for your family — it depends on your own risk tolerance, how you weigh documented findings against the current uncertainty in microplastic health research, and whether your child has any specific medical considerations your pediatrician would want factored in. What this guide can do is report the findings accurately so you have current, real information to make that call yourself.
Were Once Upon a Farm, Tiny Organics, and Nurture Life tested and found clean, or just not tested? This guide's research didn't find these three brands specifically named in the phthalate/microplastic findings from the Consumer Reports test round covered here — that could mean they weren't part of the specific microplastics subset tested, or simply that this guide's research didn't surface a mention. Treat this as an open question, not a clean bill of health, and check each company's own current testing disclosures directly.
Are glass baby food jars completely free of microplastic risk? Glass jars themselves don't shed microplastics the way plastic packaging does, but many still use a plastic-lined lid or seal, and any food handling step involving plastic utensils, plastic storage after opening, or plastic bibs and feeding tools can still introduce some exposure; glass packaging reduces one specific source but doesn't eliminate every plastic-contact point in a typical feeding routine.
Is microwaving in a "microwave-safe" plastic container actually safe? "Microwave-safe" indicates the container is rated not to melt, warp, or release its primary chemical additives at typical microwave temperatures under FDA testing standards, but some research has raised separate questions about physical microplastic particle shedding from heated plastics generally, which is a different concern from the chemical-leaching standard that "microwave-safe" ratings are built around; transferring food to glass or ceramic before heating avoids this ambiguity entirely.
How does this packaging-safety topic relate to the ultra-processed food debate covered elsewhere in this cluster? They're related but distinct: the NOVA/ultra-processed classification concerns what's added to the food itself (thickeners, flavor additives, and similar ingredients), while this guide's topic concerns what may migrate into the food from its packaging during processing, shipping, and heating — a product could score well on one dimension and poorly on the other, so they're worth evaluating separately rather than assuming one predicts the other.
Do any regulatory agencies currently set limits on microplastics in food specifically? Based on this guide's research, no comprehensive U.S. federal standard specifically limiting microplastics in food currently exists — this is exactly the regulatory gap Little Spoon's own spokesperson referenced when calling for a "clear government standard," and both Greenpeace's report and several other sources reviewed for this guide call for exactly this kind of regulatory action.
What should I do if I have specific concerns about my child's exposure to these substances? Discuss your specific concerns with your pediatrician, who can factor in your child's individual health history and help you weigh the actual, current evidence rather than general anxiety about the topic; this guide is designed to inform that conversation with accurate current findings, not to replace it.
This packaging-safety guide connects to the ingredient-processing topic covered in Is Subscription Baby Food Ultra-Processed?, the reheating and materials-handling guidance in the freezer-footprint and texture guide, and the brand-specific safety and testing claims referenced throughout the Little Spoon cost ledger and Cerebelly vs. Little Spoon. For what the AB 899 disclosure law and Clean Label Project certification referenced above actually require, see Baby Food Label Terms Decoded. Return to the complete guide for the full cluster.
Health & safety note
Sibling Stack is written by a parent, not a medical professional. The information here is general guidance, not medical advice, and doesn't replace a conversation with your doctor, midwife, or pediatrician — who know your family's specific situation.
More to read
The two most useful dietary tools for supporting comfortable digestion during the solids transition — fiber-rich fruits and the sorbitol-driven effect of prune-based products — mapped to real products for each sibling's stage.
The biggest allergen risk in a close-age-sibling household usually isn't the allergic child's own meal — it's cross-contact from the sibling's. What each company actually discloses, and the kitchen-logistics fixes.
A February 2026 study found 71% of U.S. baby food is ultra-processed under NOVA — but the category is more varied than the headline. The real science, the genuine debate, and a two-step check for any label.
There is no single best baby and toddler meal-delivery service for a close-age-sibling household. The complete 19-part cluster: the financial, logistical, and health questions two-under-two households actually face across five brands.
Two babies under two — sleep, feeding, gear, and the decisions that actually matter, in one place.
James T. Reilly
James Reilly is the father of Irish twins and writes Sibling Stack's guides from the inside — the gear that actually held up, the schedules that actually synced, and the stuff nobody warns you about when two kids are close enough in age that everything overlaps.
Free to use
Sibling Stack shows both your kids' sleep and feed windows on one timeline — so you can see conflicts before they happen, not after. No subscription required.
Create your account