Abbott Laboratories, a major manufacturer of infant formula, has been ordered by a US court to pay almost £400 million in damages, following accusations that it concealed the risk of its premature infant formula causing a potentially fatal bowel disease. This verdict comes after a jury trial, the first of its kind against the company, brought by the mother of a child who allegedly suffered brain damage after consuming Abbott's Similac Special Care 24 formula.
The St. Louis jury awarded the plaintiff family £75 million in compensation for their losses, alongside a hefty £320 million in punitive damages. This landmark decision, announced by Tor Hoerman, the lead lawyer for the plaintiff, could have far-reaching implications for Abbott and the wider infant formula industry.
In response, Abbott has strongly contested the verdict, claiming it was not unanimous and stating their intention to appeal the decision. A spokesperson for the company, Scott Stoffel, commented in an emailed statement, âWe will pursue all avenues to have the erroneous decision overturned."
The case itself centres on a premature baby girl who developed necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC), a potentially fatal bowel condition, and subsequently suffered brain damage after being fed Abbott's Similac Special Care 24, a cow's milk-based formula. This trial, which commenced earlier this month, forms part of a larger wave of over 1,000 similar claims against Abbott and other formula manufacturers.
The plaintiff's legal team, Hoerman Law Firm, stated, "Justice was served for Margo Gill and her daughter Robynn, who suffered severe, irreversible brain damage due to Abbottâs misconduct.â They highlighted that Abbott had been aware for years that its cow's milk-based formula posed a risk of NEC in premature infants, yet failed to warn families and medical professionals of this potential danger.
A crucial point raised during the trial was the omission of any mention of NEC risks on the product label. Furthermore, Abbott allegedly did not inform parents that their children could be at risk of brain damage or even death from consuming the formula.
Abbott's defence centered around disputing the causal link between their formula and NEC, arguing that the child's pre-existing health issues were the primary cause of her condition. They also maintain that the formula itself does not cause NEC, and that their products, alongside breast milk and donor human milk, are the only available options for feeding premature infants.
However, this defence appears to have been insufficient to sway the jury, who ultimately sided with the plaintiff. This verdict adds to the growing pressure on infant formula manufacturers to be more transparent about the potential risks associated with their products, particularly for vulnerable premature infants.
This case follows a similar ruling in March, where a jury in Illinois ordered Enfamil-formula maker Reckitt Benckiser Group Plc to pay £48 million to the family of a premature baby who died after being fed the UK-based company's cow's milk-based formula. The subsequent 15% plunge in Reckitt's share price highlights the potential financial impact of such rulings.
The outcome of these trials signifies a growing awareness of the dangers associated with infant formula, particularly for vulnerable premature babies. As more cases come to light, the industry faces increasing scrutiny, prompting a call for greater transparency and accountability in the production and marketing of infant formulas.
