I was going to wait for more news to come in about the recent recall of Abbott Nutrition infant formulas (brand names Similac, Alimentum, EleCare) before posting again, but then THIS arrived at my doorstep:
Yep, this is a promotional package from Similac.
First, some overly personal but necessary context: One reason why I was particularly interested in this recall is that I am 7 months pregnant. I can only assume that I got this promotional package from Similac either through my hospital sharing my information without my knowing (cool), or because I have a baby registry that shared my information without my knowing (also cool).
Anyway, so all that’s to say that this could not have been weirder timing for a brand to try marketing itself to me. Because of the kind of person I am, I do feel at least a little bad for Similac’s marketing people, because under normal circumstances, this would be kind of a good surprise? The package included three 7-oz. containers, which feels like a not-insignificant amount of formula to receive for free? This is my first child, so honestly I’m not sure.1
I was at work when this arrived, and my first reaction was to tell my (very confused) partner DON’T THROW IT OUT I WANT TO CHECK THE LOT NUMBERS because I am that kind of nerd.
And in a truly shocking twist that no one saw coming, all three containers had lot numbers that were part of the recall!!
As I expected, I’m not the only one who had a few questions about this recall that was announced last weekend:
Politico reports that the Minnesota Department of Health investigated a Cronobactor sakazakii case in September 2021, and Abbott received several consumer complaints between September and January 2021. FDA initiated an investigation on Jan. 31, and the recall was announced Feb. 18.
In a recent post over at Food Safety News, Bill Marler2 also has some questions about the inspection history at the Sturgis, MI plant, and in particular, a two-year gap in inspections from 2019 to 2021.3 I think it’s safe to assume that the gap could be chalked up to COVID-19 delaying or halting food inspections, but it is interesting to note that the FDA returned in September 2021.
My take on the timeline Politico describes is this: on the one hand, I agree that it’s absolutely too long of a delay, especially given the product in question (infant formula). On the other, this is probably closer to typical than we would like to believe in terms of how quickly a federal agency is able to act on recalls with the power and resources that they have. (As I discovered in researching past recalls for my dissertation, this response time can be even slower if the product is jointly overseen by the USDA and FDA, such as animal feed.)
I think most of us want to imagine that the FDA is as aggressive as Hugo the health inspector in Bob’s Burgers, where they can walk in, see something (or, in the case of Hugo, someone) they don’t like, and plaster a giant sign on the outside of the window, and that’s that.

But the day-to-day work of the FDA probably looks a lot more like the work of Hugo’s mild-mannered accomplice, Ron. They have to conduct an investigation, gather the facts, assemble the evidence. Typically the agency will try working with the company to get a voluntary recall (as opposed to a mandatory one).
It also seems crucial (again flagged by Marler) that Cronobacter is not one of the diseases that hospitals or laboratories are required to report to health departments. Unfortunately, this fits with historical patterns in which agencies focus their attention and rulemaking efforts on one or a few pathogens (in the late 1980s, it was various strains of Salmonella, after 1993, it was E. Coli, more recently, it’s been Campylobacter and Salmonella, again) but in doing so, neglect other pathogens that may also be of equal or greater concern. This gets back to the federal-agencies-as-Hugo-vs.-Ron analogy above. Given that agencies don’t have infinite resources or power, they have to make difficult choices about which risks to focus their attention.
All that’s to say I’ll be watching to see what else comes out about this.
In the meantime, as weird and darkly funny as it is to me, of all people, to received recalled products in the mail, and as much as I enjoy making food safety references that involve Bob’s Burgers, the fact that recalled product is still in distribution is very troubling.
From what I could tell on the packaging, this shipped sometime within the last two weeks, which would have been after the FDA inspection Jan. 31, which had been in response to months of complaints. Also, the expiration date on these products is August 2023, June 2023, and Jan 2024 respectively, which means that without the kind of national press coverage this recall received, it’s entirely possible that recalled formula could sit on shelves for some time.
Anyway, so now I have this recalled formula in my house and I’m trying to decide what to do with it. I am personally leaning towards talking some scientist friends into testing it for pathogens, but maybe I’ll try returning it to see how involved and bureaucratic it is?? TBD.
I did some math on the total quantity (199g) and recommended scoop size (8.8g / 2oz) to an 8oz bottle and it’s about 5 8oz bottles per can, so 15 bottles. So idk, parents can tell me if that’s a lot or a little.
While not a household name outside the food safety world, Bill Marler is the attorney who made his name by representing the victims and victims’ families during the Jack in the Box outbreak in the early 1990s. Since then, he’s continued to advocate for improvements to the food safety system. His blog, Food Safety News, is a substantially more reputable source for information on recalls this this here newsletter.
As Marler notes, infant formula plants are typically inspected annually, which is more frequent than other food manufacturing facilities.