Food Politics

by Marion Nestle
Jun 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.

Jun 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.

Jun 22 2026

Industry funded study of of the week: raspberries

Who knew raspberries were an industry.  As it happens, every food has its own industry, each more desperate than the next to prove it is a superfood so you will buy it and not its competing foods.

Here’s how I heard about this one:

Red raspberries linked to better blood sugar control and memory in older adults:  Adding a cup of red raspberries to a carbohydrate‑rich meal may help curb post‑meal glucose and insulin spikes while supporting short-term cognitive performance in older obese or overweight adults…. Read more

As always, I went right to it:

  • The study: Xiao D, Shukitt-Hale B, Rutledge GA, Fisher DR, Edirisinghe I, Burton-Freeman B. Red raspberry improves postprandial metabolic indices and cognitive function in older adults who are overweight or have obesity. British Journal of Nutrition. Published online 2026:1-13. doi:10.1017/S0007114525105497
  • Method:“This randomised, single-blinded, controlled crossover study evaluated the acute metabolic and cognitive effects of RRB intake in older adults (55–70 years) with overweight/obesity.
  • Conclusion: “These findings suggest that acute RRB supplementation attenuated postprandial metabolic stress, reduced markers of neuroinflammation and improved cognitive performance, supporting RRB’s potential role in a dietary strategy for ageing populations.”
  • Acknowledgments: “This work was supported by the National Processed Raspberry Council and the Washington Red Raspberry Commission (WA, USA). The authors thank Van Drunen Farms (Momence, IL, USA) for providing the freeze-dried red raspberry powder used in this project…The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Comment: Et tu, raspberries?  They are coming into season on my Manhattan terrace and I do love to go out in the morning and pick them for breakfast in the week or so that they produce fruit.  I’ll take whatever short-term cognitive benefit they convey.  But c’mon.  Can one fruit, no matter how delicious, organically grown, local, and seasonal deliver on such promises?  Seems like a lot to ask.  And I continue to be amazed that the researchers see no conflict of interest in having their study funded by raspberry trade groups, when so much evidence demonstrates commercial funding to influence research outcome.  This is one of those studies where I could predict the funder from the title, and predict the outcome from knowing the funder.

 

Jun 19 2026

Weekend reading: cannabis edibles

Legal issues about CBD and THC edibles continue to be in flux, and not only in the United States.

One big issue is their safety, since nobody is checking to see what is really in the products.

In the meantime, lots of new cannabis-fortified foods are on the market.

And there is a whole new category of drinks: hemp spirits; these are non-alcoholic.

Comment

This is information, not recommendation.  Be careful about these products.

    • Their doses are unregulated; start small and wait two hours before taking more.
    • Keep them securely away from children.
    • Don’t let pets consume them.
Tags:
Jun 18 2026

Did Amsterdam really ban meat ads?

Apparently so.  According to the New York Times, the city has banned ads promoting activities linked to high carbon emissions.  Meat is high on that list.

On May 1, Amsterdam became the world’s first capital city to ban ads for fossil fuel products and meat. It’s part of the city’s efforts to discourage consumption of goods linked with high carbon emissions.

Ads for airlines, cruises, and faraway destinations are no longer allowed because they implicitly promote the burning of fossil fuels. Ads for beef, chicken, pork and fish are also banned because of the environmental harms caused by animal agriculture.

…Amsterdam’s law applies to city-owned properties and public spaces, such as buses and bus shelters, benches, trams, trains and metro stations, and billboards. Advertising in privately owned stores and in media such as newspapers, radio and online formats is exempt.

Here’s why:

Will banning such ads encourage less meat consumption?  I hope someone is evaluating this possibility.

Jun 17 2026

SNAP waivers: bad for business?

Here’s what got me started on this one: SNAP waivers could lead to $830M sales loss for soda, candy, energy drinks: By the end of 2026, state-specific restrictions are expected to impact one-third of participants in the government food assistance program, Numerator found.

Redirected or reduced spending by SNAP households could lead to sales losses of $430 million for soda, $300 million for candy, and $100 million for energy drinks across the 19 states that will have waivers in place by the end of the year, according to the firm’s research.

SNAP waivers refer to rules about what SNAP recipients can buy with their electronic benefit cards.  Without waivers, they cannot buy alcoholic beverages, tobacco products, cannabis edibles and drinks, supplements, hot food, and non-food items.

Waivers add sugar-sweetened beverages and some junk foods to this list.

Up until this administration, the USDA turned down requests by cities (New York) and states (Maine, Nevada) for such waivers.

Now, the USDA has granted waivers to 23 states so far, and is encouraging others to request them.

 

Food retailers are the beneficiaries of SNAP EBT cards.  SNAP recipients buy a lot of soda (as do lots of other people).   In waiver states, they will have to use their own money to buy soda.

Will waivers reduce overall sales?  Retailers think so.

Will waivers reduce consumption of sugary drinks, and improve the health of SNAP recipients?

Let’s hope these states are sponsoring research to find out.

Jun 16 2026

Stat News’ assessment of MAHA progress: a mixed bag

StatNews ‘  Isabella Cueto and J. Emory Parker did a detailed analysis of 80 promises made by the MAHA administration and evaluated progress toward meeting them.

I’ve pulled out the promises most relevant to food and nutrition (I’m surprised at how many there are).  These are worth reading, not least because of Stat’s thoughtful analysis of what the actions or inactions mean.

Lots of others bear on food and nutrition, but less directly.

See what you think.  For another look, See Food Tank’s  chronology: One Year On: How Trump and Vance Have Changed Food, Agriculture, Health, and Climate.

Stat’s assessment of what’s worked.

Here are the ones in the works.

And here are the ones not yet touched.

 

Jun 15 2026

Guest post: A visit to my Manhattan terrace

Once again, I am breaking my rule about no guest posts, but this one is too much fun not to share.  Erin Weinger interviewed me for her Substack, which she calls Going to Seed, and agreed to let me do a repost.  I thought this would be a great way to start the week.  Enjoy!

Going to Seed