Global Infant Formula Recalls Expand as France Investigates Two Baby Deaths

Three Dairy Giants Face a Widening Safety Alert

Nestlé, Danone and Lactalis have withdrawn infant formula across dozens of countries after concerns over cereulide, a toxin traced to an ingredient used by multiple manufacturers. As of January 28, 2026, French prosecutors were investigating the deaths of two babies who had consumed recalled formula, while illnesses had also been reported in Singapore and Brazil. The connection between the French deaths and the formula remained under investigation.

Nestlé's recall reached more than 60 countries and covered brands including SMA, Beba, Guigoz and Alfamino. Lactalis recalled six batches of Picot formula distributed in 18 countries. Danone's response began with a batch of Dumex Dulac 1 blocked in Singapore and later extended to specific batches of Aptamil, Nutrilion and Cow & Gate manufactured in Ireland for export.

The shared concern is arachidonic acid oil, usually called ARA oil. ARA is a fatty acid important for infant brain and visual development and is commonly added to premium formula. Potentially contaminated oil from a single supplier entered production lines at several companies, turning an ingredient problem into an international recall.

Cereulide is produced by certain strains of the bacterium Bacillus cereus. It can cause nausea, vomiting, abdominal cramps and severe gastrointestinal illness. The toxin also survives heat, so boiling water during bottle preparation cannot remove it.

The response now stretches beyond finding affected tins. Authorities are examining serious incidents, consumer groups are challenging the timing of public warnings, and manufacturers face scrutiny over how they checked an ingredient used in food for babies. Parents must also navigate different brands, batches and national recall instructions.

How the Alert Spread Across Companies

Nestlé first identified the problem during routine checks at one of its facilities in the Netherlands. Its voluntary withdrawal grew into one of the largest recalls in the company's history. Nestlé described the action as preventive.

Nestlé said its priority was protecting infants and keeping families informed:

Food safety and the wellbeing of all infants remain our top priority. We understand that this news may cause concern, and we are committed to providing clear, transparent information and support for parents and caregivers throughout this process.

Lactalis said it began testing through an independent laboratory immediately after receiving the alert about contaminated ARA oil. Its recall covered six batches of Picot distributed across 18 countries, including France, China, Australia and Mexico. The company said French authorities had reported no illnesses associated with consumption of those specific products.

Singapore's Food Agency detected cereulide in batches from both Nestlé and Danone during increased surveillance testing. At the agency's request, Danone blocked a batch of Dumex Dulac 1 originating in Thailand before it could reach consumers. Danone said its internal controls had found no irregularities, while complying with the regulatory recall directive.

The different company responses show how the alert moved through the supply chain. A problem involving an ingredient required manufacturers and regulators to identify which finished products contained it, where those products had been shipped and whether they were already available to families.

The Dates Behind the Recall Dispute

The timing of the warnings has become a central issue. Investigations into the response indicated that Dutch authorities were notified on December 9, 2025, and that Nestlé confirmed cereulide at its factory on December 26. Public recalls followed on January 5 or 6, 2026.

The sequence described in the investigations and subsequent announcements was:

• December 9, 2025: Dutch authorities were notified of the problem.
• December 26, 2025: Nestlé confirmed the presence of cereulide at its factory.
• January 5 or 6, 2026: Public recalls were issued.
• January 2026: The extent of the international recall became public, with Nestlé products affected in more than 60 countries.
• January 28, 2026: Investigations into infant deaths, illness reports and the handling of the recalls remained active.

Austrian authorities described the period over the Christmas holidays as a "silent recall". The timing mattered because parents might have been buying extra formula for the holiday period while information about affected products was still emerging.

Foodwatch Challenges the Public Warnings

Foodwatch International, a consumer protection group, accused the companies of a "serious breakdown" in communication. It alleged that Nestlé and Lactalis delayed public warnings while continuing to distribute potentially contaminated products.

Nicole van Gemert, director of foodwatch Netherlands, challenged the change in the publicly disclosed scale of the recall:

Why did we only find out in January 2026 that 60 countries were ultimately affected by the recall of powdered baby milk due to the presence of Bacillus cereus, when there were only nine in December? How does Nestlé, which is supposed to ensure immediate traceability of sensitive baby products, explain the piecemeal dissemination of information and late recalls in many countries?

Nestlé chief executive Philipp Navratil responded in a video, saying the company had worked closely with authorities and followed their guidance. He said the staggered recalls were planned and coordinated locally.

Foodwatch International said it was preparing a lawsuit against Nestlé and Lactalis over alleged breaches of European and national food safety rules. The group argued that stronger sanctions and penalties were needed to prevent further failures in corporate responsibility.

The disagreement concerns both the speed of the response and the information families received. Foodwatch's comparison was between nine countries identified in December and 60 disclosed in January. Nestlé's explanation focused on coordination with authorities in individual markets. The legal action being prepared would bring those competing accounts into a dispute over the companies' obligations.

France Investigates Two Infant Deaths

French prosecutors opened inquiries into the deaths of two babies who had consumed formula covered by the recall. One baby died in southwestern France after being fed Nestlé's Guigoz powdered milk. The second died in western France.

The French health ministry said a causal connection had not been established. Nestlé also addressed the deaths in a statement:

"As stated by the authorities, at this stage nothing indicates any link between these tragic events and the consumption of our products," Nestlé said in a statement.

The companies involved said there were no confirmed illnesses definitively linked to their products. Investigators were examining the circumstances of the deaths alongside the wider contamination alert. The French farm ministry said results from judicial inquiries were expected soon, without giving a date.

Illness Reports Extend to Singapore and Brazil

Singapore's Food Agency confirmed one case of mild symptoms likely associated with cereulide exposure. The patient recovered. That report came as the agency's increased testing detected the toxin in formula batches from Nestlé and Danone.

Brazilian health authorities reported that two infants, both approximately one year old, experienced persistent vomiting and diarrhea after consuming recalled Nestlé products. Those reports added to the incidents being examined as the recall expanded.

Medical confirmation is difficult because there are no definitive clinical laboratory tests available to detect the toxin in patient samples. Investigators therefore face a practical challenge when assessing whether a reported illness followed exposure to cereulide in a particular product.

Nathalie Goutaland, a food safety lawyer, described the concern associated with repeated feeding:

A baby drinks a bottle every three hours, and prolonged consumption of milk contaminated with this toxin significantly increases the risk of poisoning.

Only one specific laboratory in France is authorized to test for the toxin, and administrative obstacles can delay testing. Limited testing capacity can leave potential cases unreported or unconfirmed, creating a gap between families' experiences and company statements about the absence of confirmed cases.

Why Boiling Water Cannot Remove the Toxin

Cereulide presents a different problem from bacteria that can be killed during food preparation. It is a toxin that certain Bacillus cereus strains produce, and it is stable under heat. Standard preparation methods, including boiling water, do not destroy it.

Bacillus cereus cannot multiply in dry formula powder. Cereulide can nevertheless remain in the powder if it entered during manufacturing. Preventing bacterial growth during preparation and preventing an already formed toxin from entering the product require attention at different stages.

The German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment, known as BfR, reiterated that formula should be prepared immediately before consumption to reduce bacterial growth. That advice addresses what can happen after preparation; toxin already present in the powder remains a manufacturing and recall concern.

The ARA oil investigation therefore places attention on ingredient checks before formula reaches a household. Families can control when a bottle is prepared, but the safety of an ingredient incorporated into the powder depends on controls earlier in production.

A Gap in Rules for Cereulide

The European Union and most national regulatory frameworks had no established food safety threshold specifically for cereulide in infant formula. A threshold would set a defined limit against which testing results could be assessed.

The European Food Safety Authority, or EFSA, recommends keeping Bacillus cereus below 100 colony forming units per gram in powdered formula, commonly written as 100 CFU/g. Colony forming units describe bacteria capable of growing into colonies in a laboratory test. That recommendation concerns the bacterium, while the regulatory gap concerns the toxin it can produce.

Industry insiders said ARA oil had historically been treated as an ingredient carrying low risk within Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points systems, known as HACCP. These systems identify food safety hazards and the stages where controls are needed. Under that classification, the oil received routine rather than intensive scrutiny.

Following the contamination, industry expectations were that ARA oil would be placed in a higher risk category. Such a change would require more frequent testing and closer examination of an ingredient used across the formula sector. As of January 28, this was an expected industry response, rather than an announced universal change.

Markets React as the Supplier Faces Scrutiny

Danone shares fell nearly 9% in a single day, reaching their lowest level since early 2025. Market analysts attributed the reaction to reputation risks in infant nutrition, where consumer trust is central to purchasing decisions.

Infant formula accounts for roughly 21% of Danone's revenue and about 5% of Nestlé's. Using those figures, formula represents a revenue share about 4.2 times as large at Danone as at Nestlé. That comparison helps explain why investors were concerned about disruption to Danone's formula business.

Cabio Biotech, a Chinese company identified by market analysts and reporting as a potential source of the ARA oil, also saw its shares plunge. Neither the dairy companies nor authorities had officially named the supplier. The identity of the upstream business therefore remained a matter of scrutiny rather than official confirmation.

dsm-firmenich, a major Dutch ingredient supplier, publicly said none of its products were involved in the recall. Its statement came as attention widened from the brands on formula tins to the businesses supplying ingredients used by multiple manufacturers.

Different Countries Take Different Action

The geographic reach continued to grow as companies traced affected ingredients and finished products. Nestlé's recall extended to more than 60 countries, while Lactalis confirmed distribution of affected Picot products in 18. Those figures describe the reach of each company's action, rather than a single combined country total.

Danone's recall expanded beyond the batch blocked in Singapore to products manufactured in Ireland and exported to the European Union, the United Kingdom and other destinations. The Food Safety Authority of Ireland confirmed recalls of specific batches of Aptamil, Nutrilion and Cow & Gate. None of the implicated products were distributed within Ireland itself.

Vietnam took broader action by halting all sales of specific Nestlé brands regardless of batch number. Elsewhere, recalls focused on identified batches. This meant families in different markets could face different instructions even when the brand name on a product was the same.

The connection across these actions was a shared ingredient supply chain. Oil supplied upstream could enter several manufacturers' production lines, then travel through different brands and export routes. Tracing that movement was necessary to identify where affected formula had gone.

For parents and caregivers relying on formula, the expanding notices created uncertainty about products used for everyday feeding. The immediate work remained identifying affected stock, examining reported illnesses and deaths, and reviewing the timing of warnings. The wider response focused on ingredient testing, traceability and how quickly companies and authorities communicated recalls.

The Bottom Line

• Nestlé, Danone and Lactalis recalled infant formula over concerns about cereulide traced to ARA oil from a shared supplier.
• Nestlé's recall reached more than 60 countries. Lactalis recalled six Picot batches distributed in 18 countries.
• French prosecutors were investigating two infant deaths. Singapore reported one mild case likely associated with exposure, and Brazil reported illness in two infants.
• Cereulide survives boiling water, and limited testing capacity complicates investigations into suspected poisoning.
• Foodwatch challenged the timing of public warnings and was preparing legal action against Nestlé and Lactalis.
• European rules lacked a specific cereulide threshold for infant formula, while ingredient testing and supplier controls faced renewed scrutiny.