Trump Admin Stopped Criminal Charges Against Abbott Nutrition for Infant Formula Illnesses 43%

By Bailee Henderson65%

6/30/2026, 1:21:46 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 1 faulty reasoning type, including Attempt to Sell a Product or Service, with Attempt to Sell a Product or Service as the most egregious example at 1.8% saturation with 9 hits. Analysis detected 9 faulty-reasoning hits from 514 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 48.1% and a BS Rank of 43% (8,018 of 13,954 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 57.50% 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. 
Confirmation Bias
0%
Anchoring Bias
0%
Availability Heuristic
0%
Representativeness Heuristic
0%
Hindsight Bias
0%
Overconfidence Bias
0%
Framing Effect
0%
Loss Aversion
0%
Status Quo Bias
0%
Sunk Cost Effect
0%
Optimism Bias
0%
Pessimism Bias
0%
Negativity Bias
0%
Self-Serving Bias
0%
Fundamental Attribution Error
0%
Actor-Observer Bias
0%
In-Group Bias
0%
Out-Group Homogeneity Bias
0%
Halo Effect
0%
Horn Effect
0%
Dunning-Kruger Effect
0%
Recency Bias
0%
Primacy Effect
0%
Blind-Spot Bias
0%
Ad Hominem
0%
Straw Man
0%
Appeal to Authority
0%
False Dilemma
0%
Slippery Slope
0%
Circular Reasoning
0%
Hasty Generalization
0%
Red Herring
0%
Bandwagon
0%
Appeal to Emotion
0%
Begging the Question
0%
Post Hoc (False Cause)
0%
Tu Quoque
0%
Burden of Proof
0%
Appeal to Nature
0%
Composition/Division
0%
Anecdotal
0%
No True Scotsman
0%
Ambiguity (Equivocation)
0%
Gambler’s Fallacy
0%
Middle Ground
0%
Personal Incredulity
0%
Special Pleading
0%
Genetic Fallacy
0%
Unattributed Quote
0%
Quote-first Misdirection
0%
Biased Writer Voice
0%
Indoctrination
0%
Politically Left Leaning Bias
0%
Politically Right Leaning Bias
0%
Attempt to Sell a Product or Service
1.8%

514 words analyzed.

Voice attribution · Experimental

Who is speaking?

See where attributed voices appear and how each speaker's manipulation signature differs from the writer's voice.

1speaker15%attributed speech439writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Selected voice

DOJ

0%flagged-word coverage
75 attributed words100% of attributed speech2.1% writer coverage
Attempt to Sell a Product or Service-2.1 pts
Writer 2.1%DOJ 0%

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

Analysis

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