Trump Admin Stopped Criminal Charges Against Abbott Nutrition for Infant Formula Illnesses 46%

By Bailee Henderson0%

6/30/2026, 6:21:46 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 14 faulty reasoning types, including Framing Effect, Post Hoc (False Cause), and Confirmation Bias, with Appeal to Authority as the most egregious example at 24.3% saturation with 125 hits. Analysis detected 632 faulty-reasoning hits from 514 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 48.1% and a BS Rank of 46% (11,901 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 54.40% of the article peer group.

Trump Admin Stopped Criminal Charges Against Abbott Nutrition for Infant Formula Illnesses 
Image credit: Sasun Bughdaryan via Unsplash 
Production was temporarily halted at the Sturgis, Michigan facility—one of the U.S.’s most significant producers of infant formula—greatly contributing to the subsequent nationwide infant formula shortage . 
No unopened, distributed Abbott infant formula products tested positive for the strain of C. sakazakii that infected the sickened babies, and a definitive link between Abbott and the illnesses was never made by FDA. 
DOJ Considered Criminal Charges Against At Least One Person 
Despite the lack of a genetic link between the C. sakazakii isolates from product samples and clinical cases, in 2023 , DOJ opened a criminal case against the company. 
Three years and a new President later, in 2026, sources familiar with the matter revealed to WSJ that DOJ has closed the investigation in favor of the alternative approach of recovering money that Abbott earned from selling its formula through federally funded nutrition programs. 
The source also told WSJ that, before dropping the case, prosecutors were considering charging at least one individual at Abbott. 
Looking for quick answers on food safety topics? 
Try Ask FSM, our new smart AI search tool. 
A DOJ spokesperson confirmed to WSJ that the case was closed, saying criminal charges would have been “heavy-handed” and that the concerns were instead addressed through the related civil lawsuit focusing on Abbott’s profits on formula sales through federal child-nutrition programs. 
Trump Administration DOJ ‘Does Not Believe in Regulation by Prosecution’ 
“Ensuring the safety of our nation’s food supply is a top priority for the Trump Administration; however, this Department of Justice does not believe in regulation by prosecution,” the DOJ spokesperson told WSJ . 
The decision to drop the criminal investigation of Abbott Nutrition aligns with the Trump Administration’s May 2025 Executive Order, Fighting Overcriminalization in Federal Regulations , which states, “Prosecution of criminal regulatory offenses is most appropriate for persons who know or can be presumed to know what is prohibited or required by the regulation and willingly choose not to comply, thereby causing or risking substantial public harm.” 
The Executive Order mandated the Director of the U.S. 
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to compile a report on all criminal regulatory offenses enforceable by federal agencies or DOJ, adding, “Criminal enforcement of any criminal regulatory offense not identified in the [OMB] report… is strongly discouraged.” 
KEYWORDS: infant formula President Trump and food safety industry 
Bailee Henderson is the Director of Content Strategy for Food Safety Magazine. 
In the day-to-day, she covers industry-relevant current events, regulatory affairs, and scientific developments. 
She also produces the Food Safety Five Newsreel and edits the twice-weekly Food Safety Digest newsletter. 
Notably, Bailee's coverage for Food Safety Magazine has been featured in national televised news segments including CBS Sunday Morning and MSNBC's Rachel Maddow Show . 
She can be reached at hendersonb@bnpmedia.com . 
Serovar Differences Matter: Utility of Deep Serotyping in Broiler Production and Processing 
This article discusses the significance of Salmonella in... 
By: Nikki Shariat Ph.D. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 12.8%Bailee Henderson: 8.1%https://www.food-safety.com/#org: 8.1%Confirmation Bias12.8%This article: 0.0%Bailee Henderson: 0.0%https://www.food-safety.com/#org: 0.0%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 4.9%Bailee Henderson: 1.2%https://www.food-safety.com/#org: 1.2%Availability Heuristic4.9%This article: 0.0%Bailee Henderson: 0.0%https://www.food-safety.com/#org: 0.0%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 8.6%Bailee Henderson: 2.1%https://www.food-safety.com/#org: 2.1%Hindsight Bias8.6%This article: 0.0%Bailee Henderson: 0.0%https://www.food-safety.com/#org: 0.0%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 16.5%Bailee Henderson: 20.2%https://www.food-safety.com/#org: 20.2%Framing Effect16.5%This article: 0.0%Bailee Henderson: 0.0%https://www.food-safety.com/#org: 0.0%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Bailee Henderson: 0.0%https://www.food-safety.com/#org: 0.0%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Bailee Henderson: 0.0%https://www.food-safety.com/#org: 0.0%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Bailee Henderson: 0.0%https://www.food-safety.com/#org: 0.0%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Bailee Henderson: 0.0%https://www.food-safety.com/#org: 0.0%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Bailee Henderson: 0.0%https://www.food-safety.com/#org: 0.0%Negativity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Bailee Henderson: 0.0%https://www.food-safety.com/#org: 0.0%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Bailee Henderson: 0.0%https://www.food-safety.com/#org: 0.0%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Bailee Henderson: 0.0%https://www.food-safety.com/#org: 0.0%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Bailee Henderson: 0.0%https://www.food-safety.com/#org: 0.0%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Bailee Henderson: 0.0%https://www.food-safety.com/#org: 0.0%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 2.5%Bailee Henderson: 1.8%https://www.food-safety.com/#org: 1.8%Halo Effect2.5%This article: 0.0%Bailee Henderson: 0.0%https://www.food-safety.com/#org: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Bailee Henderson: 0.0%https://www.food-safety.com/#org: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Bailee Henderson: 2.1%https://www.food-safety.com/#org: 2.1%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Bailee Henderson: 0.0%https://www.food-safety.com/#org: 0.0%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Bailee Henderson: 0.0%https://www.food-safety.com/#org: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Bailee Henderson: 0.0%https://www.food-safety.com/#org: 0.0%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Bailee Henderson: 0.0%https://www.food-safety.com/#org: 0.0%Straw Man0.0%This article: 24.3%Bailee Henderson: 16.0%https://www.food-safety.com/#org: 16.0%Appeal to Authority24.3%This article: 0.0%Bailee Henderson: 0.0%https://www.food-safety.com/#org: 0.0%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Bailee Henderson: 0.0%https://www.food-safety.com/#org: 0.0%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Bailee Henderson: 0.0%https://www.food-safety.com/#org: 0.0%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 5.6%Bailee Henderson: 1.4%https://www.food-safety.com/#org: 1.4%Hasty Generalization5.6%This article: 0.0%Bailee Henderson: 0.0%https://www.food-safety.com/#org: 0.0%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Bailee Henderson: 0.0%https://www.food-safety.com/#org: 0.0%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Bailee Henderson: 0.0%https://www.food-safety.com/#org: 0.0%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 6.6%Bailee Henderson: 1.7%https://www.food-safety.com/#org: 1.7%Begging the Question6.6%This article: 13.8%Bailee Henderson: 4.8%https://www.food-safety.com/#org: 4.8%Post Hoc (False Cause)13.8%This article: 0.0%Bailee Henderson: 0.0%https://www.food-safety.com/#org: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Bailee Henderson: 0.0%https://www.food-safety.com/#org: 0.0%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Bailee Henderson: 0.0%https://www.food-safety.com/#org: 0.0%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Bailee Henderson: 0.0%https://www.food-safety.com/#org: 0.0%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Bailee Henderson: 0.0%https://www.food-safety.com/#org: 0.0%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Bailee Henderson: 0.0%https://www.food-safety.com/#org: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 8.0%Bailee Henderson: 2.0%https://www.food-safety.com/#org: 2.0%Ambiguity (Equivocation)8.0%This article: 0.0%Bailee Henderson: 0.0%https://www.food-safety.com/#org: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Bailee Henderson: 0.0%https://www.food-safety.com/#org: 0.0%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Bailee Henderson: 0.0%https://www.food-safety.com/#org: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 7.4%Bailee Henderson: 1.8%https://www.food-safety.com/#org: 1.8%Special Pleading7.4%This article: 0.0%Bailee Henderson: 0.0%https://www.food-safety.com/#org: 0.0%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Bailee Henderson: 3.1%https://www.food-safety.com/#org: 3.1%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 1.9%Bailee Henderson: 2.5%https://www.food-safety.com/#org: 2.5%Quote-first Misdirection1.9%This article: 6.6%Bailee Henderson: 2.8%https://www.food-safety.com/#org: 2.8%Biased Writer Voice6.6%This article: 0.0%Bailee Henderson: 0.0%https://www.food-safety.com/#org: 0.0%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Bailee Henderson: 1.2%https://www.food-safety.com/#org: 1.2%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Bailee Henderson: 0.0%https://www.food-safety.com/#org: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 3.3%Bailee Henderson: 2.9%https://www.food-safety.com/#org: 2.9%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…3.3%

514 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker15%attributed speech439writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 44 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageDOJ spokesperson • 41 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageDOJ spokesperson • 34 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 66 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 38 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

DOJ spokesperson

100%flagged-word coverage
75 attributed words100% of attributed speech61% writer coverage
0%25.0%50.0%Biased Writer Voice+45.3 ptsWriter: 0.0%DOJ spokesperson: 45.3%45.3%Attempt to Sell a Product -3.9 ptsWriter: 3.9%DOJ spokesperson: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-2.3 ptsWriter: 2.3%DOJ spokesperson: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.