Junk Science Fuels Cook County’s Latest Nuclear Verdict in Baby Formula Case
Cook County has once again lived up to its Judicial Hellholes® reputation, with a recent $70 million verdict against Abbott Laboratories over its life-sustaining infant formula.
Here, plaintiffs’ attorneys brought claims on behalf of four families whose premature infants were prescribed the company’s fortified formula while in neonatal intensive care units. The infants later developed necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC)—a serious and often life-threatening intestinal condition—and suffered severe complications.
This verdict marks the latest development in a growing wave of litigation that risks undermining care for some of the most vulnerable patients: premature infants who depend on specialized nutrition to survive. These lawsuits allege that fortified infant formula increases the risk of NEC, placing responsibility for tragic outcomes on manufacturers. But in doing so, they threaten access to a critical nutritional lifeline for at-risk newborns.
Infant formula labeling is closely regulated by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, which has not required warnings about NEC risk because current scientific evidence does not support such claims. Nevertheless, plaintiffs’ lawyers continue to target the industry, advancing theories that regulators and much of the medical community have not endorsed.
It is no coincidence that many of these cases are concentrated in Judicial Hellholes® jurisdictions long criticized for their plaintiff-friendly litigation environments. Alongside Cook County, St. Clair County, Madison County, and St. Louis have become magnets for this litigation—forums where speculative claims can gain traction despite being based on dubious scientific evidence.
The Real Experts Weigh In
Leading medical and public health authorities have expressed concern about the direction of this litigation.
The American Academy of Pediatrics has stated unequivocally: “Courtrooms are not the best place to determine clinical recommendations for the care of infants.” The organization emphasizes that specialized formulas for preterm infants are an essential, physician-prescribed source of nutrition in neonatal intensive care settings.
Similarly, the NEC Society has warned that such litigation may carry unintended consequences, including limiting access to beneficial treatment options for vulnerable infants.
Federal health agencies—including the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the National Institutes of Health—have also weighed in. In a joint assessment, they concluded that there is no conclusive evidence that preterm infant formula causes NEC. They further noted that such formulas remain part of the standard of care when human milk is unavailable or insufficient, underscoring the importance of ensuring that premature infants receive appropriate nutrition as early as medically feasible.
