The 'systemic collapse' of a can of infant formula

Today, the dairy industry once again stands on the precipice of a consumer trust crisis. Over the past two years, the infant formula sector has resembled a cascade of falling dominoes. From Nestlé to a2 and then Abbott, successive quality scandals have plunged this industry—already exceptionally sensitive to safety—into an unprecedented abyss of eroded trust. What truly warrants scrutiny and reflection is: Why have so many infant formula quality issues emerged? And why, when it comes to infant food safety incidents, Johnson & Johnson’s baby powder was fined billions of U.S. dollars, whereas incidents involving formula ingested by infants are mostly resolved with mere recalls or perfunctory apologies? From Nestlé to Abbott—whom can we still trust in a single can of infant formula? Over the past two years, the global infant formula industry has experienced an unprecedented series of safety crises. From Europe to North America, and from international giants to leading domestic brands, food safety alarms have sounded repeatedly: contamination by *Bacillus cereus* toxin, heavy metal超标, foreign object intrusion, excessive microbial counts, rampant counterfeit formula, and diseases with up to 20% fatality rates—each incident poses the same haunting question: Whom—or what—can we truly trust in this can of infant formula? (1) *Bacillus cereus* Toxin: A Global Earthquake in the Infant Formula Industry To reconstruct this crisis, we must begin with Nestlé. In January 2026, Swiss-based Nestlé announced a global recall of certain batches of infant formula across 31 countries and regions. Subsequently, the scope of the incident expanded continuously, ultimately affecting approximately 60 countries and multiple brands. The root cause lay upstream—in the ARA (arachidonic acid) raw material. During supply chain monitoring, Nestlé detected trace amounts of the toxin "cereulide" in ARA oil supplied by a vendor. This toxin is produced by *Bacillus cereus*, exhibits heat resistance, and cannot be neutralized through conventional preparation methods such as hot water mixing. Once ingested, it may rapidly trigger acute symptoms in infants—including nausea, vomiting, and severe abdominal cramps. In China, the recall involved 30 batches across four brands: Lidojing, Botchinen, Shuyinennen, and Wyeth Shannierjia. Coincidentally, just before the Nestlé incident escalated, in December 2025, Serbia and Croatia jointly announced recalls of Dutch-produced Aptamil formula due to potential *Bacillus cereus* contamination risks. Within a short timeframe, both Danone and Nestlé—two industry titans—were embroiled in scandals, prompting speculation that their ARA supplies might originate from the same vendor. Globally, only around ten companies supply ARA, including DSM-Firmenich (Netherlands), Joinbio, and Runke Bio—highlighting a critical vulnerability in the infant formula supply chain: a handful of suppliers dominate key raw materials worldwide; if one falters, dozens of brands and hundreds of countries’ products are inevitably affected. Subsequently, numerous infant formula brands—including a2 Milk, Lactalis, Snowpure, Kendamil, and Danone—launched global recalls. Notably, the European Food Safety Authority reported cases of gastrointestinal symptoms among infants in Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France, and other countries between December 2025 and February 2026, linked to consumption of contaminated formula. (2) Lead Contamination: FrieslandCampina’s ‘Troubled Summer’ In July 2026, Macao’s Municipal Affairs Bureau issued a warning: one batch of Royal FrieslandCampina’s “Royal Mamil 1 Infant Formula” manufactured in the Netherlands tested at 0.2 mg/kg for lead content—nine times higher than Macao’s maximum permissible limit for lead in infant formula. Yet FrieslandCampina’s internal testing yielded results nearly 30 times lower than those reported by Macao authorities.

Under intense public scrutiny, Abbott infant formula is mired in a recall crisis

Data shows that Abbott’s infant formula business generated roughly RMB 5 billion in revenue in the Chinese market in 2019, commanding a mere 6.2% market share. Moreover, Abbott’s market share in China has declined for four to five consecutive years—so much so that it has dropped out of the top five ‘foreign-branded’ formulas and fallen outside the top ten overall in China’s domestic formula market. This decline suggests Abbott has essentially brought it upon itself. Consumers originally favored foreign-branded formulas precisely for their perceived quality—but Abbott’s repeated quality failures have shattered that perception. For instance, media reports in 2012 revealed that Abbott formula—highly sought after by young Chinese parents—failed to meet either international standards or China’s national standards. The Hong Kong–based third-party testing firm CERResearch released a report stating that it had submitted samples of six infant formula brands purchased from the Chinese market for testing—all of which failed to meet required specifications. Among them, Abbott’s Similac Pro-Advance Stage 1 scored the worst. According to the report, China’s national standard mandates a minimum whey-to-casein protein ratio of 60% in infant formula. However, the final test result for Abbott’s Similac Pro-Advance Stage 1 was only 41%, far below the stipulated threshold. It is widely understood that excessive casein intake in infants can cause intestinal bleeding, malnutrition, diarrhea, and place significant strain on kidney function. Since 2016, Abbott Trading (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. has faced administrative penalties on 12 separate occasions, totaling RMB 12.72 million in fines. False Advertising and the Rise of Domestic Brands Having suffered continuous market share losses in China over recent years, Abbott—restless and anxious—spared no effort in advertising. Yet its history of regulatory penalties for unlawful marketing claims is extensive. On August 2, 2022, the Shanghai Pudong New Area Market Supervision Administration published an administrative penalty decision stating that, on July 21, 2021, the company hosted a livestream event titled “Ultra-Shine CP” on its JD.com flagship store. During the livestream, the host claimed that the product “Abbott Similac Organic Toddler Formula Stage 4” could “unlock height-potential,” and described “Abbott Similac Pure Comfort Toddler Formula Stage 3” as capable of “reducing constipation and diarrhea.” Neither product is classified as a health food, yet these claims—“promoting growth and development” and “relieving constipation”—constitute functions reserved exclusively for health foods under Chinese regulations. Consequently, the Shanghai Pudong New Area Market Supervision Administration imposed a fine of RMB 200,000 and ordered Abbott to cease dissemination of the advertisements. Yet this was not Abbott’s first such penalty; the company has previously incurred multiple regulatory sanctions for violations related to advertising claims. Viewed against today’s broader infant formula market landscape, Abbott’s anxiety is hardly unfounded. In recent years, domestic Chinese formula brands have undergone the most stringent policy “examination” in their history. Beginning with the Ministry of Health’s issuance of new infant formula standards in 2010, followed by the implementation of monthly inspections and public disclosures starting in 2013, and culminating in the full rollout in 2018 of the “strictest-ever infant formula regulation”—the Infant Formula Product Registration System—these measures have collectively fueled a dramatic surge in Chinese consumers’ confidence in domestically produced formula.

Nestle, Zydus, Abbott face India scrutiny over claims on children's products

19 hours ago

India's food safety regulator issued notices to Nestle, Zydus, and Abbott regarding promotional claims for infant and children's products. This regulatory crackdown follows proposed bans on added sugars for infants, impacting the nation's $100 billion packaged food sector.

reuters

2026-10-21

Nestle, Zydus, Abbott face India scrutiny over claims on children's products

Nestle, Zydus, Abbott face India scrutiny over claims on children's products

FAQ