Cocoa Puffs is sued in $5million class action accused of having dangerously high levels of this chemical

Cocoa Puffs cereal could contain dangerously high levels of lead, a pair of federal lawsuits seeking $5million have alleged.

Two class-action lawsuits have been filed against General Mills, which manufactures the popular children's cereal, by consumers in California and Minnesota.

One complaint argues that a one-cup serving of Cocoa Puffs contains just shy of the state legal limit for lead, but that most consumers pour well beyond the serving size when they eat the cereal.

The other alleges that General Mills failed to 'disclose that the products could poison the consumer.'

The lawsuits are seeking over $5million in damages for consumers nationwide who 'would not have purchased and consumed [the cereal] had they known the truth about the products'.

Cocoa Puffs cereal could contain dangerously high levels of lead, a pair of federal class-action lawsuits have alleged (file photo)

Two class-action lawsuits have been filed against General Mills, which manufactures the popular children's cereal. The complaints are seeking over $5million in damages for consumers nationwide who 'would not have purchased and consumed [the cereal] had they known the truth about the products'. Pictured: General Mills Headquarters in Minneapolis

According to the California lawsuit, which was reviewed by DailyMail.com, one cup of Cocoa Puffs contains just under the state's maximum limit of lead, which is 0.5 micrograms.

'Almost all consumers, however, substantially exceed the recommended serving size per bowl of cereal,' the lawsuit stated, claiming that consumers opt for a larger serving due to a 'prominent depiction of the cereal on the front of the box.' 

The second complaint, filed in Minnesota, alleged that the risk of lead poisoning within the cereal 'creates unreasonable danger' to consumers.

Citing evidence from the Center of Disease Control (CDC), the plaintiffs argue there is 'no known safe blood lead level, because even small amounts of lead can be harmful to a child's developing brain'.

The complaint alleged that General Mills was under a 'continuous duty' to disclose the 'true nature' of its product and that it 't contained a substance known to cause poisoning'. 

The plaintiffs also slammed the company for representing that Cocoa Puffs 'are safe and effective for people, especially children, to consume', and argued that the risk of lead poisoning was 'avoidable'.

'Other manufacturers formulate, produce, and sell non- poisonous chocolate cereal and bars, which is evidence that this poisoning risk inherent with Defendant's Products is demonstrably avoidable,' the lawsuit said. 

DailyMail.com has approached General Mills for comment. The company, in a statement to Food Dive, did say it does not comment on pending litigation.

The lawsuit comes after a study from George Washington University earlier this month found that some American cocoa products contain heavy metals that exceed food safety guidelines.

Researchers from the Louvain Institute of Biomolecular Science and Technology (IBST) in Belgium also warned earlier this year that some store-bought chocolate desserts may contain dangerous chemicals that could damage your DNA and cause cancer. 

The complaint filed in California argues that a one-cup serving of Cocoa Puffs contains is just shy of the state legal limit for lead, but that most consumers pour well beyond the serving size when they eat the cereal (file photo)

General Mills, America's largest cereal producer, earlier this year defeated two federal class-action lawsuits alleging its cereal Cheerios contained pesticide residue.

The complainants had alleged that Cheerios contained up to three times a proposed 'safe' level of the pesticide chlormequat chloride, which in animal studies has been found to disrupt fetal growth and reproductive systems.

But General Mills argued the company had followed all laws and regulations and claimed the suits failed to prove any harm, The Star Tribune reported. The plaintiffs ended up dropping their suits this past spring, not long after they had filed them.

Legal experts suggest the cereal producer could use the same standard - failure to state a claim - as its defense in the Cocoa Puffs case.