Latest from Food Politics: Botulism in infant formula: Companies must prevent this. Now.

I know I just wrote about botulism in powdered infant formula but it upsets me so much that I have to do it again. We now have a second outbreak, first ByHeart now Nara, both linked to contaminated organic whole milk from the same German supplier. Yes, ...

‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ 

By Marion Nestle June 24 2026 Botulism in infant formula: Companies must prevent this. Now. I know I just wrote about botulism in powdered infant formula but it upsets me so much that I have to do it again. We now have a second outbreak, first ByHeart now Nara, both linked to contaminated organic whole milk from the same German supplier. Yes, botulism in infant formula is rare, but not nearly rare enough.  You do not want your infant to be one of the unlucky ones. I’m trying to understand how this could happen and how it can be stopped. The clearest explanation comes from food safety lawyer, Bill Marler, who represents families of those unlucky babies. Let me summarize. Botulism comes from bacterial spores (“seeds”) that can germinate in an infant’s intestine, releasing botulinum toxin. The spores came from Clostridium botulinum in dirt.  Somehow, the dirt got on the cows and the spores got into their milk. Spores resist drying and heat; they survive Pasteurization and the drying that happens when milk is turned into powder. Spores can germinate in infants’ digestive tracts and produce botulinum toxin (older children and adults have immunity) The fat in whole milk may protect the spores (the ByHeart and Nara formulas are whole milk) Pasteurized powdered milk is not sterile; it can contain botulinum spores. What can parents of bottle-fed infants safely feed them? The only option is an expensive one: Ready-to-feed formula previously sterilized at temperatures high enough to kill spores. How about preventing spores in the first place? This is not easy, according to a study of just this question in the International Dairy Journal: Towards low-spore milk powders: A review on microbiological challenges of dairy powder production with focus on aerobic mesophilic and thermophilic spores (Thanks to Kristin Schill for sending). Here’s what this study says needs to be done to keep spore levels low: Membrane filtration or bactofugation Validation of cleaning protocols to avoid recontamination Sterilisation of heating equipment Development of evaporators that are to be sterilised Ensure the plant design is hygienic Avoid long production cycles for temperature-sensitive steps, i.e., separation, pasteurisation and evaporation In other words, prevention requires a clean farm, clean udders, filtration, a clean plant, and quick processing. What about testing?  It comes too late in the process and can’t always find rare contaminants. And formula companies would rather not test for pathogens; if they find some, they have to issue recalls. They also do not like to take responsibility; they would much rather finger point. ; Nara did not want to reveal the name of its European supplier. The risk of botulinum spores has been known for a long time, at least since 2013. Marler, who keeps track of all the problems with powdered infant formula in the past few years, thinks Congress needs to pass the Infant Formula Safety Modernization Act of 2026, which requires much, much higher standards for and oversight of infant formula. Here is Marler’s letter to Congress summarizing the rationale for and evidence in support of this act. Congress: Please pass this, and right away.  It will force formula companies to do what they should have been doing all along. The post Botulism in infant formula: Companies must prevent this. Now. appeared first on Food Politics by Marion Nestle      Related Posts Food safety in peril: a post from Bill Marler What’s happening with infant formula? FDA says infant formulas are free of toxic metals (mostly)   Now Available: What to Eat Now My new book, What to Eat Now, is officially out! It's both a field guide to food shopping in America and a reflection on how to eat well—and deliciously. For more information and to order, click here. You can explore the full archive of this (almost) daily blog at foodpolitics.com, where you'll also find information about my books, articles, media interviews, upcoming lectures, favorite resources, and FAQs. Visit the Site » ​​​​​​​ Marion Nestle Paulette Goddard Professor of Nutrition, Food Studies, and Public Health at New York University, Emerita © Marion Nestle. You're receiving this email because you've signed up to receive updates from us. If you'd prefer not to receive updates, you can unsubscribe. Safely Unsubscribe • Archives • Preferences • Contact • Subscribe • Privacy

---

Email subscriptions powered by FeedBlitz® • 650 E. Palisade Avenue Ste 2, PO Box 173 • Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632

Latest from Food Politics: Oops. District Court in DC says USDA's state SNAP waivers are illegal

Yesterday, a US District Court in the District of Columbia ruled that the USDA violated its own laws when it approved SNAP food restriction waivers allowing states to ban purchases of sodas and some other foods using their Electronic Benefit Cards (they ...

‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ 

By Marion Nestle June 23 2026 Oops. District Court in DC says USDA’s state SNAP waivers are illegal Yesterday, a US District Court in the District of Columbia ruled that the USDA violated its own laws when it approved SNAP food restriction waivers allowing states to ban purchases of sodas and some other foods using their Electronic Benefit Cards (they can still buy those foods using their own money). The decision makes riveting reading, as shown in these excerpts. USDA used the wrong statute The section of the statute the Secretary relies upon as authorization to approve the projects at issue, 7 U.S.C. § 2026(b), does not cover projects aimed towards improving the health of SNAP recipients, and the agency sidestepped the section of the statute that does address those projects, section 2026(k) – which sets out strict requirements they must meet – entirely. USDA waived more than was allowed With her solicitation and approval of the pilot projects in this case, the Secretary purports to waive not just a mere administrative or technical obstacle, but the very definition of “food” as it was laid down by Congress.  Neither the USDA nor the states can force this square peg into a round hole to avoid the plain language of the statute and the requirements of 2026(k). USDA did not follow its own procedures Defendants also failed to abide by the notice requirement of their own regulation, 7 C.F.R. § 282.1(b), which requires the USDA to post notice of pilot projects in the Federal Register thirty days before implementation if they are likely to have a significant impact on the public.  The agency’s terse statement that the pilot projects would not have a significant impact 3 on the public is entitled to little deference and it is directly contrary to the facts in the administrative record. These reasons are strictly procedural The Court’s analysis should not be taken as a comment on whether the pilot projects are a good idea or not.  That is a question of policy that is not before the Court.  The federal defendants and the states may have a genuine desire to improve the health of SNAP households by encouraging healthy choices at the store, and they can take lawful steps to meet those goals.  But what they cannot do is violate the law and their own regulations along the way. The waivers are now remanded (sent back to USDA) and vacated (annulled).  The judgment says orders to USDA will follow. In the meantime, Jerry Hagstrom reports that the USDA is downgrading administrative oversight of SNAP. The Trump administration ended the Agriculture Department mission area status of the federal nutrition programs as part of its broad reorganization, according to a little-noticed explanation published alongside the establishment of the Food and Nutrition Administration. Eliminating the mission area also apparently allows for the elimination of the positions of agriculture undersecretary for food, nutrition and consumer services and the deputy administrator. What does this mean?  As Hagstrom explains, A House Democratic aide said that aligning the structure of the nutrition programs with other benefit programs would make it easier to move FNA to HHS if the Trump administration should try to follow the Project 2025 guidance. Cindy Long, a deputy undersecretary for food, nutrition and consumer services in the Biden administration and before that the administrator of Food and Nutrition Service, said in an email, “This change would represent an abdication of the secretary’s responsibility for FNS programs, which comprise over 75% of the USDA budget.” (Translation: this means SNAP). As I’ve said previously, the USDA’s SNAP waivers have nothing to do with health, but everything to do with getting more people off of SNAP rolls. Why do I think this?  Here’s the headline from ProPublica: More Than 770,000 Children Are No Longer Receiving SNAP Benefits After Trump Changes Federal Food Program. ____ Thanks to Cathy Nonas, Jerry Mande, and Jerry Hagstrom for providing documents and info for this post. The post Oops. District Court in DC says USDA’s state SNAP waivers are illegal appeared first on Food Politics by Marion Nestle      Related Posts SNAP waivers: bad for business? More tragedy: USDA renames, splits up, relocates SNAP services Lawsuit #2: SNAP restrictions   Now Available: What to Eat Now My new book, What to Eat Now, is officially out! It's both a field guide to food shopping in America and a reflection on how to eat well—and deliciously. For more information and to order, click here. You can explore the full archive of this (almost) daily blog at foodpolitics.com, where you'll also find information about my books, articles, media interviews, upcoming lectures, favorite resources, and FAQs. Visit the Site » ​​​​​​​ Marion Nestle Paulette Goddard Professor of Nutrition, Food Studies, and Public Health at New York University, Emerita © Marion Nestle. You're receiving this email because you've signed up to receive updates from us. If you'd prefer not to receive updates, you can unsubscribe. Safely Unsubscribe • Archives • Preferences • Contact • Subscribe • Privacy

---

Email subscriptions powered by FeedBlitz® • 650 E. Palisade Avenue Ste 2, PO Box 173 • Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632