Location on Illnesses – Florida and Georgia.

The FDA and CDC, in collaboration with state and local partners, are investigating illnesses in a multistate outbreak of E. coli O145:H28 infections linked to frozen GreenWise brand-organic blueberries recalled by Frutas y Hortalizas del Sur S.A, of San Carlos, Chile.

On July 1, 2026, the Florida Department of Health (FDOH) notified CDC partners about an ongoing investigation into a cluster of E. coli O145 illnesses. Based on interviews with sick people, frozen GreenWise-brand organic blueberries sold at Publix were identified as the leading food item of interest in this outbreak. Florida state partners shared their findings with Publix Headquarters and, in response, Publix immediately conducted an internal stop sale of frozen GreenWise-brand organic blueberries at their stores.  

Based on epidemiological information collected by CDC and FDOH state partners, a total of twelve people infected with the outbreak strain of E. coli have been reported from two states. Illnesses started on dates ranging from May 11, 2026, to June 5, 2026. Seven of 9 (78%) cases interviewed reported eating frozen blueberries. Of which, 5 specified GreenWise- brand organic frozen blueberries purchased from Publix. There have been four hospitalizations, and no deaths have been reported. 

In response to this investigation, on July 3, 2026, Frutas y Hortalizas del Sur S.A., San Carlos, Chile recalled frozen GreenWise-brand organic blueberries, sold in 10-oz packages with a printed lot code of 60401 and Best by Date of February 9, 2028. The recalled product was shipped to Publix retail stores in Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia. Consumers should check their freezers for the recalled product and should not consume it. The product should be discarded or returned to the place of purchase. 

FDA and state partners are actively working to determine the source of contamination. Additional products may be added to this advisory as the investigation continues. This advisory will be updated as new information becomes available.

Where Product was Distributed.

On July 6, 2026, the CDC and FDA updated their joint investigation of the infant botulism outbreak linked to Nara Organics Whole Milk Organic Powdered Infant Formula. A fourth infant has now been confirmed sick. All four babies — every one of them a boy between two and five months old — were hospitalized and treated with BabyBIG, the botulism immune globulin. Thankfully, no child has died. But four families have now lived through every parent’s nightmare because of a can of formula they trusted.

Here is where things stand as of the latest update:

  • 4 confirmed cases of infant botulism (up from 3) across 3 states — California (2), Pennsylvania (1), and Washington (1).
  • All 4 infants were hospitalized. Zero deaths.
  • Illness onset dates range from April through May 2026.
  • Laboratory testing confirmed Clostridium botulinum in an open can of Nara formula fed to one of the sick infants.
  • FDA is now testing an unopened sample from the same lot, with more results expected in the coming weeks.

Back when the ByHeart recall was unfolding in late 2025, Nara Organics posted a page on its own website titled “Information for Families Affected by the ByHeart Recall.” The message to frightened parents looking for a safe alternative could not have been more confident:

“Please be assured that Nara Organics is not affected by this recall and our formula is safe to drink. Your baby’s safety is our highest priority, and we hold ourselves to the most rigorous standards in the industry.”

That page is still live as I write this. It told the very parents fleeing one botulism recall to come feed their babies a formula that would, months later, be pulled from shelves in its own botulism recall. I have been doing this work for more than thirty years, going back to the 1993 Jack in the Box E. coli outbreak, and I have read a lot of corporate reassurances that curdled. This one belongs in the hall of shame.

I do not doubt that the mom who founded Nara believed every word of it. That is exactly the problem. Confidence is not a safety system. “We hold ourselves to the most rigorous standards” is a marketing sentence, not a food safety result — and it is worth remembering that Nara’s page also boasted the formula was “made in Germany” by a partner with “over 70 years of experience.” None of that stopped C. botulinum from ending up in a can fed to an infant.

Here is what turns this from a tragedy into a scandal. According to FDA’s June 26 update, the specific lots of Nara formula the sick infants consumed were made with milk supplied by Organic West Milk and spray dried by Dairy Farmers of America (DFA).

Those are the same two suppliers tied to the 2025 ByHeart infant formula botulism outbreak. The same milk source. The same spray dryer. A different brand on the label, but the same upstream ingredients flowing into babies’ bottles.

And it gets worse. FDA says that during the ByHeart investigation, Organic West Milk provided FDA with an incomplete customer list — a list that did not disclose that Organic West was also supplying milk to the manufacturers of Nara Organics formula. Regulators were investigating a deadly infant botulism outbreak. They asked who else was getting this milk. And they were not told about Nara.

If FDA had been given a complete and accurate customer list in 2025, investigators might have been looking hard at Nara’s supply chain months earlier — before four more babies got sick. This is precisely the supply-chain foreseeability problem I have been writing about for months. When the same milk and the same powder feed multiple brands, a contamination event is never really “one company’s problem.” It is a systemic problem.

FDA has also confirmed that, before this outbreak, it inspected and issued citations to two facilities that manufacture Nara’s formula. Both firms have submitted corrective-action responses that are still under review. Citations before an outbreak. An incomplete customer list during the last outbreak. Shared suppliers across both. Foreseeable does not begin to cover it.

If you have Nara Organics Whole Milk Organic Powdered Infant Formula in your home, stop using it immediately. It was sold nationwide through Target stores, Target.com, and Nara.com between July 2025 and June 2026, and all of it has been recalled.

  • Before you throw a container away, photograph the label, lot number, and expiration date.
  • Consider keeping any opened formula sealed and labeled “DO NOT USE,” stored away from your baby’s food, for at least a month in case your health department wants to test it.
  • Wash any items or surfaces that touched the formula with hot, soapy water or in the dishwasher.

Know the symptoms of infant botulism. It often starts with constipation, then shows up as poor feeding, a weak or altered cry, loss of head control, difficulty swallowing, and decreased facial expression. It can progress to trouble breathing. Symptoms can take days to weeks to appear after the formula is eaten. If your baby shows any of these signs, seek medical care immediately.

Physicians who suspect infant botulism should call the Infant Botulism Treatment and Prevention Program at 510-231-7600 — available 24/7 — for case consultation and to arrange BabyBIG treatment.

I represent families in both the ByHeart and Nara outbreaks, so I am not a neutral observer, and I will not pretend to be. But you do not need to be a plaintiffs’ lawyer to see the pattern here. Two infant formula botulism outbreaks. The same milk supplier. The same spray dryer. An incomplete disclosure to federal investigators. And a company page telling scared parents that its formula was the safe harbor — right up until it wasn’t.

Babies are the most vulnerable consumers there are. They eat one thing, and they cannot tell you when something is wrong. Formula companies and their suppliers know this, which is exactly why the standard of care has to be near-perfect. “Trust us” is not a food safety plan. Complete customer lists, honest disclosures to regulators, and rigorous testing that actually catches C. botulinum before it reaches a bottle — that is the plan. Four families are living with the consequences of the gaps.

And that is exactly why I have been pushing Congress to act. I have written to both the House Energy and Commerce Committee and the Senate HELP Committee urging passage of the Infant Formula Safety Modernization Act of 2026 (H.R. 7867) and its Senate companion, S. 272 — and urging both committees to open hearings. Regulators need the clear authority, and the mandate, to compel complete supplier customer lists, to require finished-product and environmental testing for C. botulinum, and to trace a shared ingredient into every brand it touches before babies get sick, not after. Two botulism outbreaks tied to the same milk, ought to be more than enough to put a hearing on the calendar. If that is not enough, I honestly do not know what would be.

Botulism

Botulism is rare, but there is nothing else quite like it. The toxin produced by Clostridium botulinum is among the most potent poisons known, and it attacks the nervous system, causing a descending paralysis that can stop a person’s breathing. Marler Clark, The Food Safety Law Firm, is the nation’s leading firm representing victims of botulism outbreaks. Our botulism lawyers have represented thousands of victims in the only U.S. law practice devoted exclusively to foodborne illness, which has recovered more than $850 million for victims and families nationwide. We have handled botulism cases arising from carrot juice, pesto, cheese, chili, and improperly home-canned foods. Infant botulism works differently from the foodborne kind: rather than swallowing pre-formed toxin, a baby ingests spores that colonize the immature gut and produce the toxin there. Today we represent infants sickened in recent powdered infant formula botulism outbreaks, and we are working with Congress to pass legislation aimed at preventing the next one.

If you or a family member developed botulism after eating contaminated food, contact the Marler Clark botulism attorneys for a free case evaluation.

FAQ

What is botulism?

Botulism is a rare but life-threatening illness caused by a nerve toxin from the bacterium Clostridium botulinum, one of the most potent poisons known. It causes a descending paralysis that can stop breathing. Infant botulism differs from the foodborne form: a baby swallows spores that grow in the immature gut and produce the toxin there.

What foods cause botulism?

Improperly home-canned foods are the classic source, but outbreaks have also come from commercial products such as carrot juice, pesto, cheese sauce, and chili. Infant botulism has been linked to spores in honey and, more recently, in powdered infant formula.

What is infant botulism?

In infant botulism, a baby ingests C. botulinum spores that colonize the immature intestine and produce toxin internally. Early signs include constipation, a weak cry, poor feeding, and loss of muscle tone—the “floppy baby” presentation.

Is powdered infant formula being investigated?

Yes. We currently represent infants sickened in recent powdered infant formula botulism outbreaks, and we are working with Congress on legislation to require testing that could prevent the next one.

What should I do if my baby has these symptoms?

Seek emergency medical care immediately; infant botulism is treatable, and early treatment improves outcomes. Preserve any formula, containers, and lot numbers.

Additional Resources:

  • About Botulism — a complete online resource on botulism and its causes
  • Botulism Blog — current news on botulism outbreaks and research

Frutas y Hortalizas del Sur S.A., San Carlos, Chile is recalling frozen GreenWise Organic IQF Blueberries 10 oz. Because it may be contaminated with Escherichia coli O145:H28 (E. coli O145).

E. coli O145 is a Shiga toxin-producing E. coli (STEC) that can cause illness characterized by severe stomach cramps, diarrhea (which may be bloody), and vomiting. While most healthy individuals recover within a week, some infections may result in a serious complication known as hemolytic uremic syndrome (HUS), particularly in young children, older adults, and individuals with weakened immune systems.

The recalled product was shipped to Publix retail stores throughout 8 states including Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia. Consumers should check their freezers for the affected product.

The affected product lot is:

  • Product: Frozen GreenWise Organic IQF Blueberries
  • Package Size: 10 oz
  • Lot Code: 60401
  • Best By Date: February 9, 2028

No other lot codes or Best By dates are affected by this recall.

There have been reports of 12 confirmed cases of consumers experiencing stomach illness between May 11, 2026 and June 5, 2026 linked with E. coli O145:H28 infections

After receiving reports of consumers experiencing digestive illnesses and having consumed GreenWise frozen blueberries as part of their diet, Frutas y Hortalizas S.A. has decided to initiate the recall.

Consumers who have frozen GreenWise blueberry products with the affected lot date should not consume it. The product should be discarded or returned to the place of purchase for a full refund.

Frutas y Hortalizas S.A. is working closely with the appropriate regulatory authorities and its customers regarding this recall. The company has instructed all customers receiving the affected lot to immediately isolate the product, discontinue its distribution, and notify any downstream customers who may have received the affected lot.

E. coli

E. coli O157:H7 is the pathogen that built this firm. In its worst form it produces a Shiga toxin that shuts down the kidneys—hemolytic uremic syndrome (HUS)—and its victims are too often children. Marler Clark, The Food Safety Law Firm, is the nation’s leading firm for E. coli and HUS cases. Our E. coli lawyers have stood beside thousands of families in the only U.S. law practice devoted exclusively to foodborne illness, which has recovered more than $850 million for victims and families nationwide. We have traced E. coli to ground beef, raw milk, lettuce, spinach, sprouts, and much more, and we have brought cases against Jack in the Box, Dole, ConAgra, Cargill, and Jimmy John’s. Among those we have been honored to represent are Brianne Kiner, Stephanie Smith, and Linda Rivera. Our advocacy has reached beyond the courtroom as well: we helped push the federal government to declare E. coli O157:H7—and later six additional Shiga toxin–producing strains—adulterants in ground beef, and we have funded independent research into the pathogen to push the science forward.

If you or a family member developed an E. coli infection or HUS after eating contaminated food and you want to understand your legal options, contact the Marler Clark E. coli attorneys for a free case evaluation.

FAQ

What is E. coli?

E. coli O157:H7 is a Shiga toxin–producing strain of Escherichia coli that causes severe, sometimes life-threatening food poisoning. Most people develop painful stomach cramps and bloody diarrhea three to four days after exposure, and about 5 to 10 percent of victims—often young children—go on to develop hemolytic uremic syndrome (HUS), a form of acute kidney failure.

What foods cause E. coli outbreaks?

Ground beef, raw milk, leafy greens such as romaine and spinach, sprouts, unpasteurized juice, and raw flour have all been linked to E. coli O157:H7. Any food contaminated with even a trace of cattle feces can carry it.

What is HUS, and is it permanent?

Hemolytic uremic syndrome is the most common cause of acute kidney failure in young children. Many children recover, but some are left with lasting kidney damage, high blood pressure, or neurological injury and need lifelong monitoring.

Can I sue if I got E. coli from food?

If a contaminated food caused your infection, you may have a product-liability claim against the manufacturer, grower, or restaurant. The key questions are what you ate and whether your illness is genetically linked to a known outbreak strain.

How long do I have to file an E. coli lawsuit?

Filing deadlines (statutes of limitation) vary by state and by the type of injury, and they can run quickly. A free case evaluation is the fastest way to learn where you stand.

Additional Resources:

Ten people are dead. Fifty-nine were hospitalized. The plant in Jarratt, Virginia that made the liverwurst that killed them carried a documented record of filth going back years — product residue on food-contact surfaces, black mold on the walls, flies and ants and a cockroach-like insect in the coolers, water dripping over the product, blood on the floors. When ten people die from a single meal, I want to know one thing above all others: is anyone going to be held accountable, and will the public ever be told how it ends.

On June 2, 2026, I asked. I sent USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service a Freedom of Information Act request built around the two questions that actually matter for accountability. First, what is the current status of any law-enforcement hold or referral on the Boar’s Head records — has the Exemption 7(A) basis USDA asserted in 2024 been lifted? Second, produce any referral or transmittal records between FSIS and the Department of Justice concerning Boar’s Head, to the extent they can be released. I also asked for the records FSIS once withheld as law-enforcement material, everything about the Associated Press’s appeal, and the final enforcement actions on the Jarratt plant. Because conditions had changed — the plant reopened in February 2026 — I asked FSIS to re-evaluate whether the interference-with-enforcement rationale it invoked in 2024 still held up.

On July 2, 2026, I got my answer. It is worth reading closely, and I’ve attached all three documents below so you can read it yourself.

Seventy-eight pages, released under FOIA No. 2026-FSIS-00209-F. Much of it I had seen before — the Associated Press already pried a version loose in early 2025. There is the July 26, 2024 Notice of Suspension and the revised version four days later, laying out the whole grim arithmetic that FSIS knew from the start: 34 sick across 13 states, every hospitalized patient with available information hospitalized, two dead, whole-genome sequencing tying the liverwurst strain to the people it killed, and a positive Listeria swab on Pallet Jack SH3 in a processing room with no walls between the lines and no written plan to keep employees from carrying contamination from one line to the next. There are the lab reports. There are the “for further processing” emails, where a plant under suspension asked to keep shipping raw material out of Jarratt and FSIS blessed it “as long as it meets all applicable regulations.” There is the email where the company asked permission to dispose of recalled product and a district manager wrote back, “Yes. Just keep records.”

That is the record of a company that was warned, and warned, and warned again, and a regulator that watched it happen. It is damning. But it is not what I asked for.

THE PAPER TRAIL FSIS ALREADY HAD
Noncompliance documented at Jarratt (Est. M12612), from the released Notice of Suspension
Product residue on food- & non-food-contact surfaces (pre-op):  2/3/24 · 2/29/24 · 3/14/24 · 3/22/24 · 4/19/24 · 5/20/24 · 6/28/24 · 7/6/24 · 7/19/24
Product residue from prior shifts (operational SSOP):  6/7/24
Insects — flies, ants, ladybugs, a cockroach-like insect:  2/7/24 · 2/11/24 · 3/15/24 · 6/10/24 · 6/26/24 · 7/12/24 · 7/17/24
Black mold / algal growth / insanitary conditions:  2/22/24 · 6/1/24 · 6/28/24 · 7/12/24 · 7/17/24 · 7/23/24 · 7/24/24
Water leaks over storage & product:  6/10/24 · 7/6/24
Dripping condensation on product / bags of dextrose:  7/9/24 · 7/12/24
Inedible product not denatured, mark of inspection left on:  2/8/24 · 2/21/24 · 4/8/24 · 4/24/24And this is only 2024. Federal inspectors had warned the Jarratt conditions posed an “imminent threat to public health” as early as 2022.

In 2024, FSIS withheld these records under FOIA Exemption 7(A) — the law-enforcement exemption you invoke only when releasing records “could reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings.” You do not invoke it over a matter that does not exist. Its use in 2024 was the strongest public confirmation we had that someone with a badge was looking hard at this company.

In the July 2, 2026 response, Exemption 7(A) is gone. FSIS now redacts only under Exemptions 4, 5, and 6 — trade secrets, deliberative process, and personal privacy. It cited no law-enforcement interference at all. That is a meaningful signal. It means that, whatever is happening, FSIS no longer believes releasing these particular records would step on an active proceeding.

Now watch the negative space, because in a FOIA response the silence is the message.

I asked for the status of any law-enforcement hold. On a June 4 clarification call, my office agreed to narrow the request and set that bullet aside to move the rest along — I’ll be straight about that. But I also asked, in a separate bullet that was never dropped, for any FSIS–DOJ referral or transmittal records. The final response recites that bullet word for word at the top of the letter. And then it does nothing with it. No records. No Vaughn-style description of records withheld. No statement that no responsive records exist. Not a single word about the Department of Justice anywhere in 78 pages.

And there is not one word about the other investigation I care about — the USDA Inspector General’s review of how its own inspectors let this plant run for years while the noncompliance reports stacked up. If the government is examining its own people, none of it is in here.

The law-enforcement exemption that once shielded these records has quietly evaporated, which tells us the interference concern has cooled. But whether that is because a criminal matter has been referred out and now lives on a docket in the Eastern District of Virginia, because it has wound down, or because it was never pursued to a charge — the response does not say, and I suspect FSIS does not intend to say. Grand-jury secrecy under Rule 6(e) covers a live investigation. It does not require the agency to pretend the DOJ bullet in my request was never written.

I have spent more than thirty years representing people whose lives were shattered by a single meal, and my stated goal has always been to put myself out of business by making food safe enough that families no longer need lawyers like me. Criminal food cases are slow — the Peanut Corporation of America prosecution that sent Stewart Parnell to prison for twenty-eight years took years to build; Chipotle’s $25 million deferred-prosecution deal followed outbreaks that began long before it. I am not demanding a charge on a schedule I happen to prefer.

I am demanding an answer to a fair and narrow question: is anyone still working this, and will the public ever be told how it ends? A 78-page release that hands back the inspection records we already had, drops the law-enforcement exemption without explanation, and never once utters the words “Department of Justice” is not an answer. It is a shrug dressed up as a determination.

Ten people are still dead. Their families are still waiting. I intend to keep asking.

https://www.marlerblog.com/files/2026/07/FOIA_USDA_FSIS_BoarsHead2-1.pdf

https://www.marlerblog.com/files/2026/07/FSIS-FOIA-No.-2026-FSIS-00209-F-Final-Response-Letter.pdf

https://www.marlerblog.com/files/2026/07/2026-FSIS-00209-F-Final-Records.pdf

A few days ago, I wrote about the $500,000 Abbott gave to the inauguration and the $500,000 in Abbott stock that turned up in the President’s portfolio while his Justice Department sat on a criminal case against the company. I said then that the families whose babies were fed formula from Sturgis were owed a better answer than an invoice.

This morning Bloomberg Law gave us the rest of the story, and it is worse than I thought. The Abbott decision was not a one-off. It has become a policy.

Let me lay out what the Bloomberg reporting adds, because the details matter.

First: the prosecutors wanted the case. According to people familiar with the internal deliberations, the head of DOJ’s Criminal Division, Tysen Duva, actually pushed to charge Abbott — a felony theory that executives conspired to defraud the United States, plus a separate Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act charge against the company itself. Duva, a career line prosecutor, reportedly reviewed the case favorably while he was still awaiting Senate confirmation. When the consumer-protection lawyers were folded into his division last November, supervisors flagged Abbott as ripe — and they liked it precisely because it could hold individuals accountable. They told the team to draft a prosecution memo over Thanksgiving weekend.

Let’s put to rest the idea that this case was dropped because it was weak. The people whose job it is to weigh the evidence looked at it and wanted to indict. That squares with everything the Wall Street Journal already reported: a pile of evidence, and then a dropped case.

Second: the case was killed from the top. The Deputy Attorney General’s office — then run by Todd Blanche — overruled Duva and ordered the criminal probe closed, deciding a civil deal under the False Claims Act was the “more appropriate” resolution. I’ve spent thirty-three years in this world. I know what a civil settlement is and what it is not. It is a check. It is not a prosecution. Nobody goes to prison. No executive lies awake at night. The company writes it off and moves on.

Third — and this is the part every parent need to remember — one of Abbott’s lawyers reportedly warned DOJ that an indictment might cause the company to cancel a roughly $1 billion plant it plans to build in Ohio, along with the hundreds of jobs that come with it.

There it is. Not the Cronobacter on the equipment. Not the whistleblower who said records were falsified. Not the dead babies. A billion-dollar plant and a jobs number.

To its credit, the Department says it gave that argument no weight at all, and that it has reached an agreement in principle with Abbott that includes a significant payment — one it says will send an unmistakable message that companies who endanger babies face serious consequences. I hope that’s true. But forgive me if, after watching a criminal case that supervisors called ripe get spiked in favor of a check, I reserve judgment on how unmistakable the message really is. The families I represent have heard a lot of messages over the years. What deters the next executive is a subpoena, not a settlement.

Fourth, and the reason I’m writing again: this is spreading. Bloomberg reports that after the DAG’s office rejected the Abbott charges, division leaders directed prosecutors to close other food and drug industry probes and imposed a heightened evidentiary standard on corporate investigations going forward. The health and safety unit still has cases open — but they’re reportedly stalling, because the people running them are trying not to get overruled again. Raise the bar high enough and you don’t have to formally decline anything. The cases just quietly die on the vine.

If any of this sounds familiar, it should. Back in May of 2025 I wrote about the executive order declaring criminal enforcement of regulatory offenses “disfavored,” and about the disbanding of the Consumer Protection Branch — the 215-person office that prosecuted the Peanut Corporation of America executives after the 2009 Salmonella outbreak that killed nine people. I said then that even if this administration had the appetite to prosecute a food company, there would soon be no one left to do the work.

The Bloomberg story is what that prediction looks like in practice. The consumer unit was dissolved, its prosecutors were merged into a division run by managers who’d already decided their work was too aggressive, and the first big case to reach those managers’ bosses got killed. Now the higher bar is the house rule.

There is a bitter little irony in the timing. On June 28, the chief of the health and safety unit, Kate Payerle, stood on a conference panel and told a room full of corporate defense lawyers that her team would keep going after cases like food-plant disease outbreaks. Hours later, the news broke that the Abbott baby-formula probe was dead.

I have spent my entire career arguing that criminal accountability is the one thing that actually changes corporate behavior. Civil cases like mine make companies pay. Criminal cases make executives afraid. You need both. Take the fear away, and you have told every formula maker, every deli, every processor in America that the worst thing that happens when a baby dies is a line item on next quarter’s books.

I said last week that the Sturgis families were owed better than an invoice. I’ll add to it now: so is every family that comes next — because the machinery built to protect them is being dismantled one dropped case at a time.

As cyclosporiasis cases continue to rise, with the largest increase occurring in Southeast Michigan, the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services (MDHHS) is providing additional recommendations to help prevent foodborne illness related to fresh produce.  As of July 4, 2026, no specific produce grower/supplier, or specific produce type has been identified as the source of the outbreak. 

In Michigan, the number of reported cases has risen to 572 as of Saturday, July 4, up from 170 on Tuesday, June 30. Cases remain the highest in Monroe, Lenawee, Washtenaw, Wayne, Shiawassee, Jackson, Oakland and Livingston counties. MDHHS is working with local health departments and the Michigan Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (MDARD) and will update information as it becomes available.

Cyclosporiasis is an intestinal illness caused by the Cyclospora parasite. People can become infected by consuming food or water that contains the parasite. Cyclospora infects the small intestine (bowel) and usually causes frequent, watery and explosive diarrhea. The time between being exposed and becoming sick is usually about one week but can range from two days to two weeks or more. Untreated, the illness may last from a few days to more than a month. Symptoms may go away and then return.

Cyclosporiasis is not usually life-threatening, but dehydration from frequent bouts of diarrhea can cause severe illness, particularly among younger or older people and those who have weakened immune systems. 

Previous outbreaks:

The following foods have been specifically linked to previous Cyclospora outbreaks in the United States and Canada:

  •        Bagged salad mixes and kits (pre-cut lettuce blends with romaine, iceberg, red cabbage, carrots)
  •        Fresh cilantro (coriander leaves)
  •        Fresh basil
  •        Raspberries
  •        Snow peas
  •        Green onions (scallions)

Given the large and increasing number of cases in Michigan, MDHHS recommends that entities in Southeast Michigan who are preparing, processing, or serving raw produce, including restaurants and other commercial kitchens, take the following steps to reduce risks of exposure:

        Snow peas: Wash under running water and rub the surface. Safest when cooked.

        Lettuce/leafy greens:  buy whole heads of lettuce (rather than prewashed, bagged lettuce or salad mixes), throw away the outer 2–3 layers of leaves and wash the inner leaves under running water. For leafy greens that can be cooked, cooking is the safest option.

        Cilantro, basil: Wash thoroughly under running water, separating the leaves.  Safest when cooked.

        Green onions: Trim the root end and remove the outer layer, wash thoroughly under running water. Safest when cooked.

        Raspberries: Their bumpy surface makes them especially hard to clean; the parasite can hide in the tiny crevices.  Safest when cooked (pies, jams etc.). Consider frozen raspberries as an alternative (freezing may reduce but does not guarantee elimination of the parasite).

These recommendations are particularly important for people who have a higher risk of dehydration or weakened immune systems such as patients on chemotherapy, organ transplant recipients, infants and young children and elderly people.  

General Rules to Reduce Your Risk:

  • Cook when you can. Heating food to 158°F (70°C) or higher kills Cyclospora.
  • Wash all fresh produce under clean running water, even if you plan to peel it.

Reminders about routine food safety practices:

  •         Wash hands with soap and water before and after handling or preparing food.
  • Scrub firm fruits and vegetables, such as melons and cucumbers, with a clean produce brush.
  • Cut away any damaged or bruised areas on fruits and vegetables before preparing and eating.
  • Wash and sanitize utensils and surfaces before and after handling food. Wash and sanitize display cases and refrigerators where fresh produce is stored.
  • Wash and sanitize cutting boards, surfaces and utensils used to prepare, serve or store fresh produce.
  • Refrigerate cut, peeled or cooked fruits and vegetables as soon as possible. 

If you do become ill:

People experiencing gastrointestinal illness, such as sudden and ongoing diarrhea, are encouraged to contact their health care provider and reach out to their local health department. Cyclosporiasis is treated with antibiotics along with rest and drinking plenty of fluids to maintain hydration.

A century of work, and finally a shot that protects against one of the world’s great killers of children. That is not luck. That is investment.

Every once in a while, a piece of news arrives that shows what putting me out of business would actually look like. This is one of those weeks.

Researchers led by Cincinnati Children’s, publishing in The Lancet Infectious Diseases, reported that two oral doses of an experimental vaccine gave 89 percent protection against Shigella sonnei in a controlled human challenge trial. Let that number sink in. Eighty-nine percent — against a bug that has resisted a vaccine for more than a hundred years.

If the name does not ring a bell, the misery does. Shigella is a leading cause of diarrheal disease worldwide, and it is brutally efficient at hitting the smallest and most vulnerable. Children between one and five make up most cases, and every year the bacteria infect tens of millions of people and cause hundreds of thousands of deaths. This is not only a problem for the developing world. In the United States alone we see an estimated 450,000 infections a year, more than 5,000 hospitalizations, and dozens of deaths.

It spreads exactly the way foodborne pathogens I litigate spread — through fecal matter that contaminates food and water, and through person-to-person contact. It takes as few as ten organisms to make someone sick, which is why it tears through childcare centers, kitchens, and anywhere hand-washing breaks down.

And like so many of the organisms I chase in court, Shigella is getting harder to treat — fast. Just recently, CIDRAP — the University of Minnesota’s respected Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy — reported on a new CDC analysis of nearly 17,000 Shigella isolates showing that extensively drug-resistant (XDR) strains climbed from essentially zero a decade ago to 8.5 percent by 2023. Those strains shrugged off five separate oral antibiotics, and no FDA-approved therapy has been proven to beat them. Roughly a third of patients ended up hospitalized. Right here in the Seattle area, clinicians at the University of Washington and Harborview describe Shigella hammering our most vulnerable neighbors, and one researcher tracking these strains called the prospect of them spilling into the broader food supply “scary.”

A disease that is this contagious, this good at finding the vulnerable, and increasingly untreatable is precisely the kind of threat a vaccine is built to stop. When the antibiotics stop working, prevention is not one option among many — it is the whole ballgame. That is why an 89 percent vaccine is not a footnote. It is a lifeline.

The candidate, called WRSs2, is a live but weakened form of the bacteria — enough to teach the immune system without causing full-blown disease. In the phase 2 trial, 108 healthy adults were enrolled, and 73 completed the deliberate-infection phase used to test whether the vaccine actually protects. Two doses delivered that 89 percent protection, well beyond what earlier Shigella vaccine efforts managed.

The good news did not stop at fewer infections. Vaccinated participants who did get sick had milder symptoms and shed less bacteria — meaning the vaccine may also cut transmission, not just individual illness. No vaccine-related serious adverse events were reported. There is work left to do on dosing and on broadening coverage to other strains, and the next step is larger trials in the populations that need it most, including children in regions where Shigella is endemic. But this is a real, measurable leap forward.

Here is the part I want everyone arguing about science budgets to read twice. This did not come from a single company chasing a blockbuster. The funding came from the National Institutes of Health, with support from the U.S. Department of Defense. The work drew in Cincinnati Children’s, Emory University, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, the Walter Reed Army Institute of Research, and the Naval Medical Research Command — government, military, and academic scientists pulling in the same direction, some of them across a hundred years of patient, unglamorous research.

That is what public investment in science buys. Not a press release every quarter, but a breakthrough every generation. You do not get an 89 percent vaccine against a century-old killer by cutting the agencies and surveillance systems that make the work possible. You get it by funding them, staffing them, and leaving them alone to do their jobs.

I have spent a lot of ink lately worrying about the other direction — about cuts to disease surveillance, about the hollowing-out of the very networks that tell us when and where people are getting sick. This Shigella news is the counterargument, in one clean data point. When we fund science, science delivers. When we starve it, the bugs win — and lawyers like me stay in business.

A vaccine on a lab bench is not a vaccine in a child’s arm. WRSs2 still has to prove itself in bigger, tougher trials and then survive the long road to manufacturing and approval. I will be watching. But for today, I want to celebrate the plain fact of it: dedicated scientists, backed by public dollars, moved us 89 percent closer to protecting children from a disease that has been killing them for as long as we have records.

That is the world I actually want — one where the science gets ahead of the sickness, and the parents I meet are fewer every year. Keep funding it.

  • Why An Infant Botulism Outbreak?

    Infant botulism is normally sporadic. Because spores are widely present in soil and dust, most cases involve one infant, one household, and no single identified commercial source. A multistate outbreak of infant botulism tied to a manufactured infant formula is therefore extraordinary. CDC and FDA concluded that epidemiologic and laboratory evidence showed ByHeart Whole Nutrition infant formula was contaminated with C. botulinum and made infants sick. In sum, genuine outbreaks are extremely uncommon.[1]

    That is why the 2025 infant-formula outbreak is so notable: it is the rare instance in which many infant botulism cases were linked to a single manufactured product. According to the FDA, it is the first known botulism outbreak tied to infant formula anywhere in the world since the condition was first described about fifty years ago.[2]

    • The ByHeart Outbreak

    In October 2025, California’s Infant Botulism Treatment and Prevention Program noticed that three infants with suspected infant botulism had all been fed the same powdered formula. State officials alerted the CDC, and a multistate investigation followed. The case total was revised as the investigation widened, the case definition was expanded to capture earlier illnesses, and some early-suspected cases were later reclassified.[3]

    FeatureSummary
    ProductByHeart Whole Nutrition powdered infant formula (cans and single-serve “Anywhere Pack”); on sale nationwide since March 2022
    Cases (final)48 infants — 28 confirmed + 20 probable. Reduced from an interim 51 after records review applied additional case-definition criteria and 3 cases from 3 states were diagnosed with other illnesses and excluded (review completed Feb. 26, 2026)
    Geography (17 states)AZ, CA, ID, IL, KY, MA, MI, MN, NC, NJ, OR, PA, RI, TX, VA, WA, WI
    Hospitalized / deathsAll 48 hospitalized and treated with BabyBIG; no deaths reported
    Illness onset rangeDecember 24, 2023 – November 29, 2025 (most clustered August–November 2025); last illness onset November 29, 2025
    StatusCDC declared the outbreak over on February 26, 2026; no new cases added since December 10, 2025
    Toxin typeBoth type A and type B among outbreak cases. The formula / milk-powder strain and its genetically-matched cases were type A (subtype A1); the unusual appearance of type A where type B normally dominates was a key outbreak signal
    Laboratory evidenceC. botulinum detected in finished formula (multiple lots), in opened and closed formula samples, in the base mix, and in organic whole milk powder; whole-genome sequencing has identified 17 distinct strains across patient, product, and ingredient samples
    Likely root causeWhole-genome sequencing links the outbreak organism across clinical, finished-formula, base-mix, and ingredient samples, with strong matches to organic whole milk powder supplied to ByHeart; as of Feb. 26, 2026, the FDA had not yet determined a single root cause and the investigation continued
    RecallTwo lots recalled Nov. 8, 2025; all products recalled Nov. 11, 2025
    SignificancePer the FDA, the first known botulism outbreak tied to infant formula anywhere in the world since infant botulism was first described ~50 years ago

    Sources: See note 24, infra.[4]

    • The Investigation and Final Case Count (FDA/CDC, February 26, 2026

    The FDA and CDC—in collaboration with the California Department of Public Health (CDPH), the Infant Botulism Treatment and Prevention Program (IBTPP), and other state and local partners—investigated the multistate outbreak and concluded that ByHeart Whole Nutrition infant formula was its source. On February 26, 2026, the CDC declared the outbreak over. Public health officials reviewed the medical records of the 51 infants initially included in the investigation and applied additional case-definition criteria; no new cases had been added since December 10, 2025, and three previously reported cases from three states were ultimately diagnosed with other illnesses and excluded. The final tally is 28 confirmed and 20 probable cases of infant botulism—48 in all—with all 48 infants hospitalized, no deaths, and a last illness onset of November 29, 2025.[5]

    Cases were reported across seventeen states: Arizona, California, Idaho, Illinois, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, North Carolina, New Jersey, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Texas, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin.[6]

    Whole-genome sequencing tied the outbreak together across patients, finished product, and ingredients. As of February 26, 2026, two isolates from one lot of organic whole milk powder—collected by the FDA at Dairy Farmers of America, the processor for Organic West Milk, which supplies ByHeart—matched a cluster of isolates the FDA had first reported on January 23, 2026. That cluster also includes a closed (unopened) powdered-formula sample tested by ByHeart; a closed powdered-formula sample tested by the New York State Department of Health, Wadsworth Laboratory; one clinical isolate; and three isolates from one lot of organic whole milk powder tested by ByHeart.[7]

    Additional clinical isolates analyzed by CDPH likewise matched product-sample clusters. One clinical isolate matched a cluster that now includes three clinical isolates and an opened powdered-formula sample (tested by CDPH and previously reported positive on November 18, 2025). A second clinical isolate matched a cluster that now includes one clinical isolate, four isolates from one lot of powdered formula reported by a patient (tested by ByHeart), and one sample of the base mix used to make the powdered formula (tested by ByHeart).[8]

    The FDA has cautioned that detecting Clostridium botulinum in infant formula and its ingredients is complex. To date, whole-genome sequencing has identified 17 different strains of the bacterium across patient, finished-product, and ingredient samples. While those results add to the evidence needed to investigate the outbreak’s origin, the FDA stated that—given the complexities of C. botulinum and the limited scientific evidence currently available—it had not yet determined a root cause, and that additional analysis and research remained necessary. The agency has transitioned from its initial emergency response to post-incident surveillance, prevention, and compliance activities while continuing to investigate the root cause.[9]

    • The Milk-Powder Link

    The detail most relevant to milk and milk powder is the suspected root cause. Investigators detected C. botulinumtype A in finished ByHeart formula, and the New York State Wadsworth Center reported that whole-genome sequencing of the organism in a sample of organic whole milk powder—collected at a processor supplying ByHeart—matched the strain in the finished formula and in a sick infant. Contaminated milk powder used as an ingredient is the leading explanation for how spores entered the product, and it remains the strongest genetic link in the record even though, as noted above, the FDA had not formally declared a single root cause as of its February 26, 2026 update. The full source investigation remained ongoing into 2026.[10]

    Because spores can be unevenly distributed through a batch of powder, not every baby who drank the formula became ill. All infants under one year were nonetheless considered at risk, which is why every ByHeart product was recalled and parents were urged to stop using it and discard it.[11]

    • Why Formula—Normally So Safe—Was Vulnerable Here

    Powdered infant formula is not sterile. The pathogens usually watched for (such as Cronobacter and Salmonella) do not form spores and are killed by pasteurization. Spore-forming bacteria like C. botulinum are different: their heat-resistant spores can survive normal processing. The 2025 event prompted the FDA and international food-standards bodies to begin a formal risk assessment of spore-forming organisms in powdered infant formula.[12]

    • The Scientific Literature on Milk, Dried Milk, and Formula

    The literature establishes both the historical rarity of C. botulinum in commercial dried milk and formula and the singular significance of the 2025 outbreak:

    • Until 2025, C. botulinum was essentially never found in commercial dried milk or formula. Dedicated surveys—including nonfat dry milk, evaporated milk, and canned formula—came back negative.[13]
    • The 2025 ByHeart outbreak is the turning point and the strongest milk-powder evidence to date. Whole-genome sequencing tied type A C. botulinum in organic whole milk powder to the finished formula and to a sick infant’s own strain—a tight genetic match across ingredient, product, and patient.[14] [15]
    • Earlier formula links were single cases with caveats. A 2001 United Kingdom case and a 2023 Chinese investigation each recovered the organism from formula milk powder, but causation was never firmly proven.[16]
    • Fluid and raw milk can carry the organism and toxin during bovine botulism, and spores survive pasteurization—though pasteurization strongly degrades pre-formed toxin.[17]

    The studies most directly bearing on the milk / formula question are summarized below:

    SourceWhat was testedKey finding
    FDA / CDC outbreak investigation, 2025–26 (USA, multistate)Finished ByHeart formula; ingredient samples incl. organic whole milk powder and base mix; clinical isolatesType A C. botulinum in finished formula was whole-genome matched to organic whole milk powder and to sick infants’ strains. Final: 48 cases (28 confirmed, 20 probable) in 17 states; no deaths. 17 strains identified; FDA had not yet declared a single root cause as of Feb. 26, 2026.
    Harris et al., Front. Microbiol., 2026 (USA)Unopened formula containers and bulk “base powder” (formula before packaging)C. botulinum found in both finished product and base powder, with genetic identity between one finished lot and a base powder—present even where the usual indicator organism was non-detectable, so standard screening would have missed it.
    Brett et al., J. Med. Microbiol., 2005 (UK, 2001 case)14 home foods of a 5-month-old with infant botulismType B C. botulinum recovered from an opened can of infant formula milk powder; two isolates DNA-matched the baby’s own strain. A possible link, never definitively proven.
    Luo et al., Chinese J. Food Hygiene, 2023 (China)30 batches of infant formula milk powder from a company tied to a caseToxin not detected directly; C. botulinum (type B) isolated from only 1 batch. Authors stressed that isolation alone is not proof.
    Guilfoyle & Yager, J. AOAC, 1983 (USA)236 infant-food samples incl. nonfat dry milk, evaporated milk, canned formulaNone of the 236 samples contained C. botulinum spores; incidence in these commercial products is not widespread.
    Barash et al., J. Pediatr., 2010 (USA)30 patient-used formula samples + 9 market-bought formulasClostridial spores in 17% of patient-used and 78% of market formulas—but none were C. botulinum (related Clostridium species).

    Full citations for the studies above appear at notes 33–35, infra.[18]

    In short, across decades of surveys, C. botulinum in commercial dried milk or formula was vanishingly rare until 2025. That long, consistent baseline is precisely what makes the genetic linkage in this outbreak—milk powder to finished formula and base mix to sick infants—so probative of the formula’s defective and adulterated condition, notwithstanding that the FDA had not yet announced a single formal root cause. Related findings in soft, high-moisture dairy products (Italian mascarpone) and in raw milk during herd botulism confirm that C. botulinum can and does contaminate a dairy matrix when conditions allow.[19]

    • Post-Outbreak Developments (2026): FDA’s Root-Cause Findings and the Nara Organics Outbreak

    Developments after the outbreak was declared over have sharpened, not diluted, the evidence pointing to a contaminated dairy ingredient. On June 3, 2026, the FDA reported that it had completed its onsite inspections of ByHeart’s manufacturing facilities and did not identify any deficiencies that could explain the root cause of the outbreak, while confirming that its investigation had identified C. botulinum in a powdered-milk ingredient and that its ongoing root-cause analysis is now focused on ingredients and the dairy supply chain.[20] In other words, the agency’s own inspection of the facilities where the formula was blended and packaged surfaced no processing or sanitation failure capable of explaining the contamination—a finding that directs the causal inquiry upstream, to the organic whole milk powder itself.

    Consistent with that focus, the FDA’s inspection at Dairy Farmers of America—the processor for Organic West Milk, ByHeart’s supplier—yielded two isolates from a single lot of organic whole milk powder that whole-genome sequencing matched both to a clinical isolate from a sick infant and to a positive finished-formula sample.[21] The genetic bridge from ingredient to product to patient that anchors the discussion above thus remains the single strongest strand of evidence in the record, and the post-outbreak findings reinforce rather than undercut it.

    Most significantly, in June 2026 the FDA and CDC opened a second multistate investigation into infant botulism—this time linked to Nara Organics Whole Milk Organic Powdered Infant Formula, with three confirmed type A infections in California, Pennsylvania, and Washington and illness onset between April and May 2026.[22] The FDA has confirmed that Nara Organics and ByHeart share the same suppliers of organic whole milk and organic whole milk powder.[23] The agency has cautioned that it does not yet have enough evidence to determine whether that shared ingredient is the source or route of the Nara contamination. But the recurrence of type A infant botulism in a second premium formula built around the same organic-whole-milk-powder supply chain is a powerful epidemiologic signal that the ingredient—not any single manufacturer’s plant—is the common denominator.

    The FDA has also disclosed that, during the 2025 ByHeart traceforward investigation, Organic West Milk provided an incomplete customer list that failed to identify Nara Organics as a customer, and corrected that omission only during the 2026 Nara investigation.[24] That the same supplier’s product is now implicated in two separate infant-botulism outbreaks, and that the supplier’s disclosures to federal investigators were incomplete.

    [1]           Harris, R. A., & Dabritz, H. A. (2024). Infant botulism: in search of Clostridium botulinum spores. Current Microbiology, 81(10), 306. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00284-024-03828-0

    [2]           U.S. FDA, Outbreak Investigation of Infant Botulism: Infant Formula (November 2025), https://www.fda.gov/food/outbreaks-foodborne-illness/outbreak-investigation-infant-botulism-infant-formula-november-2025; Contemporary Pediatrics, Infant botulism outbreak linked to powdered formula under FDA investigation, https://www.contemporarypediatrics.com/view/infant-botulism-outbreak-linked-to-powdered-formula-under-fda-investigation

    [3]           Khouri JM, et al., Multistate Infant Botulism Outbreak Associated with Powdered Infant Formula, NEJM Evidence (2026), https://evidence.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/EVIDpha2600020; CDC, Investigation Update: Infant Botulism Outbreak, November 2025 (final case data, Mar. 4, 2026), https://www.cdc.gov/botulism/outbreaks-investigations/infant-formula-nov-2025/investigation.html

    [4]           U.S. FDA, supra note 22; CDC, supra note 23; Khouri JM, et al., supra note 23; New York State Dept. of Health, Wadsworth Center, Biodefense Laboratory Identifies Contamination Source in Multistate Infant Botulism Outbreak (2026), https://www.wadsworth.org/news/wadsworth-center-biodefense-laboratory-identifies-contamination-source-multistate-infant. 

    [5]           CDC, Outbreak of Infant Botulism Linked to ByHeart Infant Formula — Food Safety Alert and Investigation Update (outbreak declared over Feb. 26, 2026), https://www.cdc.gov/botulism/outbreaks-investigations/infant-formula-nov-2025/index.html; U.S. FDA, FDA’s Actions to Respond to Clostridium botulinum Illnesses Associated with Consumption of Powdered Infant Formula (Feb. 26, 2026 update), https://www.fda.gov/food/outbreaks-foodborne-illness/fdas-actions-respond-clostridium-botulinum-illnesses-associated-consumption-powdered-infant-formula; FDA, Whole Genome Sequencing (WGS) Program, https://www.fda.gov/food/microbiology-research-food/whole-genome-sequencing-wgs-program. 

    [6]           CDC and U.S. FDA, supra note 25.

    [7]           U.S. FDA, supra note 25.

    [8]           U.S. FDA and California Dept. of Public Health, supra note 25.

    [9]           U.S. FDA, supra note 25.

    [10]         U.S. FDA, supra note 22; New York State Dept. of Health, Wadsworth Center, supra note 24.

    [11]         CDC, supra note 23; U.S. FDA, supra note 22.

    [12]         U.S. FDA, FDA’s Actions to Respond to Clostridium botulinum Illnesses Associated with Consumption of Powdered Infant Formula, https://www.fda.gov/food/outbreaks-foodborne-illness/fdas-actions-respond-clostridium-botulinum-illnesses-associated-consumption-powdered-infant-formula ; Contemporary Pediatrics, supra note 22.

    [13]         Guilfoyle DE, Yager JF, Survey of infant foods for Clostridium botulinum spores, 66 J. Assoc. Off. Anal. Chem. 1302 (1983), https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/6355058/; Barash JR, et al., Clostridial spores in powdered infant formula, J. Pediatr. (2010), https://www.jpeds.com/article/S0022-3476(10)00070-3/fulltext. 

    [14]         U.S. FDA, supra note 22; Harris RA, et al., Detection and characterization of Clostridium botulinum isolated from powdered infant formula, Front. Microbiol. (2026), https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/microbiology/articles/10.3389/fmicb.2026.1800624/abstract. 

    [15]         Harris, R. A., & Dabritz, H. A. (2024). Infant botulism: in search of Clostridium botulinum spores. Current Microbiology, 81(10), 306. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00284-024-03828-0

    [16]         Brett MM, et al., A case of infant botulism with a possible link to infant formula milk powder, J. Med. Microbiol. (2005), https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16014431/ ; Johnson EA, et al., Characterization of Clostridium botulinum Strains Associated with an Infant Botulism Case in the United Kingdom, 43 J. Clin. Microbiol. 2602 (2005), https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1151885 ; Luo H, et al., Isolation and typing of Clostridium botulinum from milk powder of an enterprise associated with a case of infant botulism, 35 Chinese J. Food Hygiene 1475 (2023), https://doaj.org/article/30d4cb5e20434fad9a47a75d7afcd132. 

    [17]         Böhnel H, et al., Presence of Clostridium botulinum and botulinum toxin in milk and udder tissue of dairy cows with suspected botulism, Vet. Rec. (2013), https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23585115/ ; Lindström M, et al., Clostridium botulinum in cattle and dairy products, 50 Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 281 (2010), https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20301016/ ; The Case of Botulinum Toxin in Milk: Experimental Data, 76 Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 3293 (2010), https://aem.asm.org/content/76/10/3293.full. 

    [18]         Harris RA, et al., supra note 34 (C. botulinum present in finished product and bulk “base powder,” with genetic identity between a finished lot and a base powder, and detectable even where the usual indicator organism, sulfite-reducing clostridia, was non-detectable — such that standard screening would have missed it).

    [19]         Franciosa G, et al., Clostridium botulinum spores and toxin in mascarpone cheese and other milk products, 62 J. Food Prot. 867 (1999), https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10456738/; Aureli P, et al., An outbreak in Italy of botulism associated with a dessert made with mascarpone cream cheese, 16 Eur. J. Epidemiol. 913 (2000), https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11338122/ .

    [20]         U.S. FDA, Post-Outbreak Response Activities: Clostridium botulinum Illnesses Associated with Consumption of Powdered Infant Formula (June 3, 2026), https://www.fda.gov/food/outbreaks-foodborne-illness/post-outbreak-response-activities-clostridium-botulinum-illnesses-associated-consumption-powdered; U.S. FDA, Outbreak Investigation of Infant Botulism: Infant Formula (November 2025) (content current as of June 3, 2026).

    [21]         U.S. FDA, Post-Outbreak Response Activities, supra (two samples from one lot of organic whole milk powder collected by FDA at Dairy Farmers of America, the processor for Organic West Milk, matched a clinical sample and a positive finished-formula sample by whole-genome sequencing); Food Safety Magazine, After Infant Botulism Outbreak, FDA Shares Root Cause Analysis Findings from ByHeart Formula Plants (June 10, 2026).

    [22]         U.S. FDA, Outbreak Investigation of Infant Botulism: Powdered Infant Formula (June 2026), https://www.fda.gov/food/outbreaks-foodborne-illness/outbreak-investigation-infant-botulism-powdered-infant-formula-june-2026 (three confirmed type A infant-botulism cases in California, Pennsylvania, and Washington, with illness onset April–May 2026, linked to Nara Organics Whole Milk Organic Powdered Infant Formula).

    [23]         Id. (Nara Organics and ByHeart share the same suppliers of organic whole milk and organic whole milk powder; FDA states there is not yet enough evidence to determine whether that shared ingredient is the source or route of the Nara contamination; and Organic West Milk’s customer list, provided during the 2025 ByHeart traceforward investigation, was incomplete and did not identify Nara Organics as a customer). See also STAT, New Infant Botulism Outbreak Puts Fancy Formulas Under Scrutiny (June 18, 2026).

    Warning: Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia.

    A tip o’ the pen to David Neal at the Miami Herald, who flagged a recall that a lot of people would have skated right past over a holiday weekend. On July 3, 2026, Frutas y Hortalizas del Sur S.A. — the Chilean grower-packer that sells under the Comfrut brand — announced a recall of its 10-ounce GreenWise Organic IQF Blueberries after the product tested presumptively positive for Escherichia coli O145:H28, a Shiga toxin–producing E. coli (STEC). The frozen berries were distributed exclusively to Publix stores across eight states: Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia.

    The recall covers a single lot — lot code 6040 01, with a Best By date of February 9, 2028. According to the company, the recall was prompted by reports of consumers who fell ill after eating the berries, and the notice states there have been 12 confirmed cases of stomach illness between May 11 and June 5, 2026 linked to E. coli O145:H28. Consumers are told to check their freezers and throw out the product.

    Read the notice closely and you see the company hedging. The berries may be contaminated; the positive result is described as a “presumptive finding”; the source is still under investigation. That is fine as far as it goes — a company that finds STEC in its product should pull it first and confirm later. But there is a real distance between “we think there may be a problem” and the plain fact sitting one paragraph away: a dozen people were already sick over a roughly four-week stretch, with symptom onsets running from mid-May into early June. The illnesses came first. The recall came July 3.

    For the record, O145:H28 is not a benign bug. STEC can cause severe, sometimes bloody diarrhea, and a subset of patients — especially young children, older adults, and the immunocompromised — go on to develop hemolytic uremic syndrome (HUS), a type of kidney failure that can be fatal. “Twelve confirmed cases” is not a number to wave off.

    Here is what bothers me. As of this writing, the “12 cases” figure comes from the company — not from a health authority. I cannot find a matching outbreak notice from either the FDA or the CDC. FDA’s Investigations of Foodborne Illness Outbreaks table carries no entry for GreenWise blueberries, no CORE reference number, and no agency case count. CDC’s foodborne outbreak page shows no dedicated notice. There is no publicly disclosed PulseNet cluster ID for this event, and no official hospitalization, HUS, or death tally.

    To be fair, the company’s notice says it is “working closely with the appropriate regulatory authorities,” so there may well be a nonpublic FDA interaction already underway. But that is precisely the point: as of publication, no agency has posted anything the public can actually see. Whatever is happening behind the scenes, the silence facing consumers is total.

    That gap matters. When a recall says “12 confirmed cases,” the public deserves to know who confirmed them, whether the human isolates are a genetic match to the product by whole genome sequencing, how many people were hospitalized, whether anyone developed HUS, and whether the case count is still climbing. Those are exactly the questions FDA’s CORE and CDC exist to answer. A company press release, however responsibly issued, is not a substitute for a public health investigation — and consumers checking their freezers this weekend are entitled to more than a grower’s two sentences.

    E. coli O145:H28 is not an exotic one-off. It has become one of the more persistent STEC serotypes in recent surveillance, and it has an uncomfortable track record of causing clusters that public health investigators never manage to pin to a food:

    • 2025 (FDA CORE ref #1303). CDC notified FDA of an O145:H28 cluster (PulseNet ID 2504MLENM) with 11 cases, isolation dates in late March through early April 2025. Three were hospitalized. There was one HUS case and one death attributed to STEC. The vehicle was never identified.
    • 2024 (FDA CORE ref #1282). Another O145:H28 cluster, 8 cases, again closed with the food source “not identified.”
    • United Kingdom, 2024. A national O145:H28 outbreak grew to nearly 300 cases with 11 HUS cases and two deaths, ultimately traced to lettuce. UK authorities have flagged O145:H28 as one of the most common STEC serotypes they now detect.

    Two things jump out from that history. First, when O145:H28 has been solved, the vehicle has usually been fresh produce — leafy greens, salad vegetables — where contamination can enter at the farm through irrigation water or run-off and survive ordinary washing. A frozen blueberry vehicle would be a genuinely notable attribution. Second, when this strain hasn’t been solved, people still died. Orphan clusters are not victimless; they are simply outbreaks where the traceback ran out of road before the source was named.

    Which raises the obvious question for FDA and CDC: does this Chilean blueberry lot retrospectively explain an earlier O145:H28 cluster that was closed as “not identified”? That is precisely the kind of connection a real, public investigation — with sequencing data and traceback — is supposed to run down. Right now, no one is telling us whether anyone is even asking.

    If you have GreenWise Organic Frozen Blueberries in your freezer, check the bag for lot code 6040 01 with a Best By date of February 9, 2028. If you have it, do not eat it. If you or a family member ate these berries and came down with severe stomach cramps, diarrhea (especially bloody diarrhea), or vomiting, see a doctor and ask specifically about STEC. Symptoms of HUS — decreased urination, extreme fatigue, loss of color in the cheeks and inside the lower eyelids — are a medical emergency.

    And to FDA and CDC: a grower in Chile should not be the only voice telling American families how many of them got sick. Twelve confirmed illnesses from a Shiga toxin–producing E. coli strain with a documented history of killing people warrants an outbreak notice, a case count the public can trust, and a traceback that says out loud whether these berries are connected to the clusters that came before. Consumers have earned that. So have the twelve.

    The Wall Street Journal reported on June 28 — in a story headlined “The Baby Formula Probe Produced a Pile of Evidence. Then the DOJ Dropped the Case.” — that the Justice Department has quietly closed its years-long criminal investigation into Abbott Laboratories over the contamination at its Sturgis, Michigan infant-formula plant. Reuters picked it up the same day.

    According to the Journal, some of the prosecutors on the case believed they had the evidence to bring criminal charges — under the very same federal food-safety law the government has used to go after other companies that sold contaminated food. Some supervisors reportedly thought it was a good case. The people at the top closed it, anyway, opting instead to claw back some of the money Abbott made selling formula through federally funded nutrition programs.

    A DOJ spokeswoman explained the philosophy this way: the department, she said, does not believe in “regulation by prosecution.”

    Let me translate that from Washington into English. It means that if you make infant formula in a plant where deadly Cronobacter is found, where a whistleblower says records were falsified and untested product was released, and where your own environmental testing had flagged the pathogen years earlier — the current Justice Department would prefer to send you an invoice than a subpoena.

    This is not a close call on the facts, and it never was.

    In late 2021 and early 2022, infants who were fed powdered formula from Abbott’s Sturgis plant got sick. Regulators found Cronobacter sakazakii on equipment inside the facility. At least two babies died and others were hospitalized; the FDA received reports of additional infant deaths tied to the plant. Abbott recalled Similac, Alimentum and EleCare and shut Sturgis down — a plant that at one point supplied roughly a fifth of the infant formula in this country — and the closure touched off a national formula shortage that had parents driving across state lines and calling strangers to find a can of formula for a hungry baby.

    Abbott points out, correctly, that the Cronobacter strains found in the plant did not genetically match the isolates from the sick infants. That is the defense, and the company is entitled to make it. But the FDA and CDC have been equally clear that the absence of a genetic match does not exonerate the plant — and the rest of the record is damning. FDA inspectors described conditions there in terms like “egregiously unsanitary.” A 2021 whistleblower complaint accused management of falsifying records and misleading inspectors. Reporting by ProPublica found that Abbott’s own testing had turned up Cronobacter at the facility back in 2019 and 2020. This was, in other words, exactly the kind of case the criminal food-safety statutes were written for.

    Here is why the families I represent — and every parent who lived through the 2022 shortage — should be furious.

    Abbott gave $500,000 to President Trump’s inaugural fund. Public Citizen has documented that Abbott was one of 58 corporations facing federal investigations or enforcement that together poured some $50 million into the inauguration. Public Citizen’s Rick Claypool has argued that gifts like these can function as down payments for pardons or for decisions to drop enforcement actions — and to be fair, he framed that as a concern, not as a proven exchange. Abbott has declined to comment on its political giving.

    And then there is the stock. As Common Dreams reported this week, the President’s own annual financial disclosure — 927 pages listing thousands of trades worth more than a billion dollars — shows that Trump began buying Abbott stock in late September of last year and picked up roughly $500,000 worth of Abbott shares over the course of 2025. The buying happened while his Justice Department was still sitting on a criminal case against the company.

    $500,000 into the inauguration. $500,000 in stock in the President’s own portfolio. 

    No court and no investigator has found that the donation or the stock purchases caused this case to be dropped. What is undisputed is the sequence: the money, and then the vanished prosecution. Whether one caused the other is a question no one in a position to answer has been willing to answer.

    But here is the thing about food-safety enforcement — it runs entirely on public trust. The whole point of holding a company criminally accountable is deterrence: the next executive weighing whether to ship product from a plant with a pathogen problem needs to believe that the government will come after him personally if a baby dies. Take that fear away, replace it with a negotiated check written out of the money the company already made, and you have told every formula maker in America that the downside of poisoning an infant is a line item.

    The Justice Department says it doesn’t believe in regulation by prosecution. Fine. But there is a difference between declining to over-prosecute and declining to prosecute a company that donated $500,000 to the President who now also owns $500,000 of its stock.

    The families whose babies were fed formula from Sturgis are owed a better answer than an invoice — and a lot better than silence.