logo
The Biggest Soup Recalls In US History

The Biggest Soup Recalls In US History

Yahoo24-05-2025

Soup has always been a comforting staple in American households, offering warmth and nourishment across generations. Whether it's a steaming bowl of chicken noodle soup to nurse you back to health on a sick day, or a hearty tomato bisque out of an iconic red-and-white can, this dish is often associated with safety, simplicity, and nostalgia. But despite its wholesome image and trusted reliability, even this beloved meal hasn't been immune to being taken off shelves for the general public's protection.
Over the years, various soup products have been recalled due to contamination, mislabeling labels, and other hazards, sometimes leading to serious health risks — and even death — for consumers. These recalls have affected products across the board — from mass-market brands like Campbell's and Trader Joe's to regional and specialty food producers. While some soup recalls were due to typical reasons like the presence of foreign objects or mislabeling, one incident involving insects found in the soup can be considered among the strangest food recalls in U.S. history. These cases also cast a spotlight on how even trusted brands can fall short when safety protocols are breached.
Read more: Campbell's Chunky Soup Flavors, Ranked Worst To Best
For many, a warm bowl of tortilla soup has the perfect blend of comfort and spice that's hard to resist. But in April of 2025, that comforting feeling was interrupted by an unsettling discovery in a batch of tortilla soup: wood fragments. The source of the contamination was traced to cilantro in the soup that had been contaminated by an extraneous material — specifically, small pieces of wood that could pose a choking or injury hazard.
The affected soups were distributed in Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, and Ohio, much of it through food-service channels such as cafeterias, hospitals, and institutional kitchens. That meant consumers might not have purchased these soups directly, but they could still have unknowingly consumed them in a meal.
While no injuries or illnesses were reported at the time of the recall, the incident shows that even a minor ingredient like chopped cilantro can have major consequences when quality control breaks down. Campbell's was one of the brands affected by the recall, along with Life Cuisine, Molly's Kitchen, Sysco, Verve, and Crafted Market. Anyone who encountered the affected product was advised to discard it or return it to the place of purchase.
Trader Joe's is known for its quirky branding and cult-favorite snacks — but in July of 2023, the grocery chain faced an unusual issue that it probably wishes had stayed under wraps. Its Unexpected Broccoli Cheddar Soup was recalled after multiple reports of insects discovered in the frozen broccoli florets used in the product. The soup had been distributed widely, reaching store shelves in Florida, Illinois, California, Texas, Washington, Pennsylvania, and Connecticut. In total, 10,889 cases were affected, making this one of the biggest recalls in Trader Joe's history.
This incident raised eyebrows among even the brand's most loyal fans, with some even pointing out the coincidental link between the product name and the recall: unexpected. While the FDA actually specifies that small amounts of insect parts are allowed in food sold to the public, this level of contamination was too much for TJ's customers to stomach. The recall raised questions about supplier oversight and whether inspection protocols were thorough enough at the point of packaging. Trader Joe's encouraged customers to return the product for a full refund, but the damage to consumer trust was significant. This high-profile case shows that quality issues aren't limited to mass-production brands, and that smaller labels must also hold themselves to high food safety standards.
When consumers open a soup container, they expect to find savory ingredients — not fragments of a nitrile glove. But in August of 2021, a huge batch of chicken tortilla soup was recalled after reports of gray glove pieces in the product. The product, manufactured by Blount Fine Foods, was at the center of a recall that affected more than 6,300 pounds of soup. Sold in 16-ounce containers with a "Use By" date of September 9, 2021, the soup had been distributed to retailers in Arizona, Florida, Georgia, and Texas. One of the retailers affected was Panera Bread.
The contamination likely occurred during the packaging process, raising concerns about employee safety protocols. Consumers who bought these products were advised not to eat them. Instead, they were instructed to discard the items or return them to the store where they were purchased.
No injuries or illnesses connected to this soup were reported at the time of this recall, but the visual shock of finding glove pieces in their food probably left many consumers unsettled. An incident like this could lead people to try making their own homemade versions of their favorite products — our copycat recipe for Panera's chicken noodle soup would a good place to start if you're interested in trying this.
In early 2020, Kettle Cuisine Midco faced scrutiny after recalling some 200 pounds of soup due to misbranding and undeclared allergens. The product in question? A toddler-targeted lentil and beef soup, which turned out to contain noodles made with egg and wheat, two common allergens that weren't listed on the label. Packaged in 7-ounce containers emblazoned with a cute cartoon cow and colorful veggies, the soup had been sold online and shipped to customers in Connecticut, New Jersey, New York, Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Washington, D.C.
For health-conscious parents seeking allergy-safe options for young children, the mistake was a major concern. Even though the volume recalled was relatively small, the potential impact was significant. The mismatch between the product's intended demographic and the seriousness of the mislabelling made it especially troubling. This recall highlighted the importance of applying extra care when it comes to foods sold specifically for children, and provides an example of the need for enhanced controls when allergens are involved.
When it comes to ready-to-eat pantry essentials, Campbell's Homestyle soups are considered as dependable and comforting choices. But in April of 2017, that reputation took a hit after a labeling mistake took a toll on the canned food giant. Nearly 4,200 pounds of soup cans labeled as Homestyle Healthy Request Chicken with Whole Grain Pasta were found to contain a completely different product: Homestyle Healthy Request Italian-Style Wedding Spinach & Meatballs in Chicken Broth soup — which, to make matters even worse, contains milk.
Milk is one of the major allergens that must be declared on food labels under the Food Allergen Labeling and Consumer Protection Act (FALCPA). The recalled cans of Campbell's soup — all produced on February 13, 2017 — bore a "Best By" date of February 13, 2019, and were shipped to retailers in Florida. Campbell's urged consumers to return the affected products or dispose of them. Luckily, no adverse reactions were reported when the recall was declared, but the risk of an allergic response earned this recall Class I status — the most serious level, indicating the potential for life-threatening health consequences.
Consumers assume that the food they buy has passed rigorous safety checks — but in October of 2015, Rustico Foods reminded Americans that sometimes, even after all the supervision stages have been passed, errors can happen. The company issued a recall for some 2,659 pounds of poultry-based soup products after it was discovered they had been produced without federal inspection. The recalled soups were comfort-food staples like chicken matzo ball, turkey chili with beans, and chicken vegetable. These items were produced over nearly a monthlong period — during 2015 from September 24 through October 21 — and distributed to retailers in California.
At the time of the recall, no negative health impacts were reported from consumers eating these soups, but the revelation that these products bypassed inspection stirred up more than just broth — it raised serious questions about oversight and accountability. Federal inspection isn't just red tape; it's the backbone of food safety, ensuring that products are hygienic, accurately labeled, and free from contaminants. Without it, consumers are left to play a dangerous guessing game. Considering the tragedies that occurred because of the most deadly recalled foods in U.S. history, it's understandable that brand trust can evaporate overnight when safety protocols slip.
In August of 2012, Blount Fine Foods found itself in hot water (pun intended) after a food safety issue led to the recall of varied types of soup, including its Italian wedding soup with meatballs and its chicken and dumpling soup. The Class II voluntary recall stemmed from consumers discovering plastic fragments in these prepackaged soup varieties, which were sold under the Wegmans supermarket chain's private label.
Investigators determined that the plastic pieces likely entered these products during the production of their containers. Such a mistake can pose serious health risks — foreign objects such as plastic, metal, and wood fragments can cause choking or internal injuries. With a total of 4,100 pounds of these soups recalled, a considerable amount of the affected products reached Wegmans shelves and the kitchens of shoppers, but fortunately the soups caused no reported injuries at the point when the recall was announced.
Labeling errors might seem like minor slip-ups — but when allergens are involved, such mistakes can become potentially life-threatening to many consumers. In April of 2011, Bay Valley Foods had to recall 188,181 pounds of cans that were labeled as containing reduced sodium chicken noodle condensed soup, because it was discovered that some of those cans actually contained cream of chicken soup. Since the latter soup variety contains milk, and this ingredient was not listed on the label, the potential severity of this situation prompted a Class I recall notice.
For people with dairy allergies or severe lactose intolerance, consuming the mislabeled cream of chicken soup could have led to dangerous reactions. The recall affected soup produced for Walmart's Great Value private label, and it was distributed across 36 states and Puerto Rico. Although no allergic reactions related to the soup had been reported when the recall was initiated, at least one customer complained that the product was improperly labeled, indicating that a significant amount of the recalled soup cans may have reached the homes of consumers before this colossal food-safety mistake was discovered and rectified.
In February of 2005, New Jersey-based Aunt Kitty's Foods found itself in the middle of a huge safety scare when it voluntarily recalled its Wedding Bell Soup with Meatballs and Chicken, due to the presence of undeclared dairy ingredients. For many consumers, especially those who are lactose intolerant or who suffer from a milk allergy, this was more than just a labelling error — it was a serious health hazard.
The soup — a hearty blend sold under the World Classics brand in 19-ounce cans — was suspected of containing cheese among its ingredients, a dairy-based food that was not disclosed on the label. A total of 4,275 pounds of this product was distributed to retailers in Connecticut and Massachusetts, and all of it was subjected to this Class I recall. Unfortunately for the producer (and for consumers of its products), this would not be the last time that Aunt Kitty's Foods would be subjected to a recall — in 2023, the company was caught up in one of the biggest chicken pot pie recalls in U.S. history.
Being in business for over 150 years, Campbell's is undoubtedly a food-industry giant. Nonetheless, a wide variety of its products have been caught up in the biggest recalls in Campbell's history. In February of 2003, the company issued a recall of its Italian Sausage with Pasta and Pepperoni Soup due to the presence of an undeclared dairy ingredient. The product contained Romano cheese, which was not listed on the label, and the concern was serious enough to warrant federal attention with a Class I recall. In total, 56,000 pounds of soup were pulled from shelves to keep consumers safe.
The soup was produced in a Campbell's plant located in Napoleon, Ohio, and it had been distributed to Costco locations in Alaska, Idaho, Montana, Oregon, Texas, Utah, and Washington. Complicating the incident, this Italian Sausage with Pasta and Pepperoni Soup was packaged in variety-pack cartons along with cans of a chicken-based product that was not subjected to any recall. This massive mistake showed that safety gaps can occur even amid facilities operated by well-established food producers.
Thanks to the work of Andy Warhol, cans of Campbell's soup transcended the kitchen to become American pop culture icons, highlighting a simple, reliable, and comforting image. But in 2002, the company had to issue a recall that shook consumers' confidence. The problem was that nearly 20,000 cases of its classic tomato soup — with a dozen 18.7-ounce cans in each case — were found to contain undeclared milk and soy.
The mix-up was traced to a single day's production of this soup variety, which resulted in a small amount of soup that contained milk and soy being packaged in containers that did not list these ingredients on the label. Distributed across at least 37 states from coast to coast, the reach of the affected product was extensive. Luckily, after receiving customer complaints, Campbell's acted quickly, initiating this recall and issuing a public warning to prevent any harm to its customers. Anyone who bought the soup was encouraged to return it to the point of sale for a full refund.
In December of 1992, Campbell's Soup Company faced a major recall involving both soups and frozen dinners — which is a reminder that there are numerous red flags to look out for when buying frozen foods. The issue this time involved the presence of glass shards that had accidentally found their way into the products during production.
The recall affected some 423,000 cans of soup and around 332,000 frozen dinners, leading to a widespread advisory to all areas where these products were distributed — including at least 33 states, as well as Guam and Mexico. Campbell's soup varieties that were impacted by the recall included chicken with rice and chicken gumbo.
The glass pieces were found in bags of rice that were sourced from an external supplier, but used in varied Campbell's products. Thankfully, despite the huge risks, at the time of the recall there were no reports of injuries caused by the sharp shards.
One of the most infamous soup-related recalls in American history dates back to 1971, when a can of Bon Vivant's vichyssoise soup became the focal point of a deadly botulism outbreak. After a couple in New York consumed the soup, the husband died within hours, and his wife was hospitalized in critical condition. Laboratory testing later confirmed the presence of botulinum toxin, a deadly pathogen that can be introduced to foods due to improper canning processes.
Fearing widespread contamination, the FDA moved to recall all soups, sauces, and canned foods produced by Bon Vivant, which was based in Newark, New Jersey. Further investigation revealed that defective cans were found in multiple product lines offered by Bon Vivant — which included numerous foods sold under different brand names.
This incident sent shockwaves through the industry and the nation. It was no longer just a health crisis — it also became a turning point for changes in food safety regulations, particularly for canned goods. It also ultimately led to the company's downfall, as consumer trust evaporated almost overnight. More than 50 years later, the vichyssoise tragedy still serves as a sad reminder of how poor food safety practices can be lethal, and why regular inspections and safety checks are needed.
Read the original article on Mashed.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

RFK Jr. Says Seed Oils Are Poison. Here's What a Dietitian Says
RFK Jr. Says Seed Oils Are Poison. Here's What a Dietitian Says

Yahoo

time33 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

RFK Jr. Says Seed Oils Are Poison. Here's What a Dietitian Says

Seed oils have come under fire, with Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., leading the charge, saying Americans are being "poisoned" by them While they can cause inflammation, Julia Zumpano, a registered dietitian with the Center for Human. Nutrition at the Cleveland Clinic says the bigger problem is that they're used in ultra-processed food The issue is less about the seed oils themselves and more about the foods they're inSeed oils — a type of processed oil found in packaged food and used for deep-frying — have come under fire, with the secretary of health and human services Robert F. Kennedy Jr. posting on X that Americans are being 'unknowingly poisoned." Wellness influencers have joined in, decrying them as the 'hateful eight": specifically, canola, corn, cottonseed, soybean, sunflower, safflower, grapeseed, and rice bran oils. The real story is a bit more complicated. 'They're not poison, but we're poisoning ourselves with everything else that's ultra-processed and processed that may be cooked in seed oils," Julia Zumpano, registered dietitian with the Center for Human Nutrition at the Cleveland Clinic, tells PEOPLE. 'The bigger picture is the fact that we're eating way too much of seed oils, which happen to be found in highly processed foods," she explains. "That's where I see the problem.' On their own, seed oils are high in Omega-6 fat, which Zumpano says is linked to increased inflammation. But, as she explains, 'instead of deep frying chicken in beef tallow versus the seed oil, let's just focus on the fact that fried chicken is not really that good for us.' Beef tallow, which Kennedy has touted as a healthier option, does have some benefits, Zumpano tells PEOPLE. 'There's nutrients in it, fat-soluble vitamins that are essential.' But when you're using it to cook highly processed foods, she explains, 'we're just flip-flopping between two issues that aren't necessarily better.' As she explains, 'We're heavily focused on the seed oils and not necessarily focused on the fact that the foods that they're in are so processed: sauces and dressings and baked goods and potato chips and candy bars and granola bars and protein bars. Even coffee creamers are loaded with seed oils,' she says. They're in highly processed food because they're more cost-effective to make, Zumpano explains: 'It's cheaper and quicker and easier to process it with chemicals and solvents.' But if you're cooking at home, she says, with 'cold pressed or hi-oleic sunflower seed oil, or a canola oil and you're drizzling it, pan-frying some fish with it, there are no health concerns like inflammation. Fast Food is a part of American culture. But that doesn't mean it has to be unhealthy, and that we can't make better choices. Did you know that McDonald's used to use beef tallow to make their fries from 1940 until phasing it out in favor of seed oils in 1990? This switch was… — Robert F. Kennedy Jr (@RobertKennedyJr) October 21, 2024 'We should just focus on really eliminating highly, ultra-processed and processed foods and going back to basics. Again, if you're gonna use the beef tallow at home to cook your eggs, fine — or the canola oil. "You're using it in moderation, a small amount, just to get the job done versus deep frying a doughnut or deep frying french fries or deep frying whatever breaded food or processed fried food you're consuming.' Ultimately, 'It's not the oil itself. It's the food that's found in the oil that is more of the problem.' If someone were to ban seed oils out of their diet, 'that's great, because they're probably cutting out a bunch of junk food," she says. "But I don't think anyone needs to be very fearful if their grandma made muffins with canola oil. They're gonna be okay if they eat that.' Never miss a story — sign up for to stay up-to-date on the best of what PEOPLE has to offer, from celebrity news to compelling human interest stories. Read the original article on People

Oscar Health, Inc. (OSCR): A Bull Case Theory
Oscar Health, Inc. (OSCR): A Bull Case Theory

Yahoo

timean hour ago

  • Yahoo

Oscar Health, Inc. (OSCR): A Bull Case Theory

We came across a bullish thesis on Oscar Health, Inc. (OSCR) on FJ Research's Substack. In this article, we will summarize the bulls' thesis on OSCR. Oscar Health, Inc. (OSCR)'s share was trading at $14.15 as of 4th June. OSCR's trailing and forward P/E were 35.38 and 19.84 respectively according to Yahoo Finance. A female doctor using the latest healthcare IT technology in her medical practice. Oscar Health represents a bold attempt to overhaul the dysfunctional infrastructure of the $4.5 trillion American healthcare industry, which is plagued by inefficiencies, misaligned incentives, and staggering administrative costs. Unlike traditional insurers or consumer-facing telehealth startups like Hims and Hers, Oscar is rebuilding the backend—the core logic layer that powers healthcare transactions. It's a fully integrated, tech-driven insurance stack spans claims processing, risk scoring, provider networks, and member engagement, all powered by proprietary software and increasingly AI. This infrastructure is not only used internally but is also being licensed externally, giving Oscar the potential to become the AWS of health insurance. The company is especially well-positioned in the rapidly evolving Affordable Care Act (ACA) marketplace, which has expanded beyond low-income households to include a broader swath of middle-income Americans, thanks to enhanced subsidies under recent legislation. As legacy insurers retreat from this complex segment, Oscar's low admin costs, member engagement capabilities, and tech adaptability put it in pole position to seize market share. Currently active in 20 states, Oscar is on a clear growth trajectory. Despite its compelling fundamentals, the market still undervalues the company, with its stock trading below IPO levels. However, Oscar's long-term vision is backed by Thrive Capital and Josh Kushner, investors with a track record of identifying transformative platforms. Their continued involvement signals deep conviction and a willingness to drive strategic execution. With structural tailwinds, scalable infrastructure, and a highly engaged investor base, Oscar Health offers a mispriced opportunity in one of America's most essential yet broken industries. Previously, we covered a on Oscar Health (OSCR) by convexititties in March 2025, focusing on political overhangs and insider buying. FJ Research's June 2025 thesis complements this by highlighting Oscar's AI-powered backend platform and ACA market leadership, reinforcing the long-term upside case. Oscar Health, Inc. (OSCR) is not on our list of the 30 Most Popular Stocks Among Hedge Funds. As per our database, 41 hedge fund portfolios held OSCR at the end of the first quarter which was 43 in the previous quarter. While we acknowledge the risk and potential of OSCR as an investment, our conviction lies in the belief that some AI stocks hold greater promise for delivering higher returns and have limited downside risk. If you are looking for an extremely cheap AI stock that is also a major beneficiary of Trump tariffs and onshoring, see our free report on the best short-term AI stock. READ NEXT: 8 Best Wide Moat Stocks to Buy Now and 30 Most Important AI Stocks According to BlackRock. Disclosure: None. This article was originally published at Insider Monkey. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data

An Uproar at the NIH
An Uproar at the NIH

Yahoo

time2 hours ago

  • Yahoo

An Uproar at the NIH

The Atlantic Daily, a newsletter that guides you through the biggest stories of the day, helps you discover new ideas, and recommends the best in culture. Sign up for it here. Updated at 10:26 a.m. on June 9, 2025 Since winning President Donald Trump's nomination to serve as the director of the National Institutes of Health, Jay Bhattacharya—a health economist and prominent COVID contrarian who advocated for reopening society in the early months of the pandemic—has pledged himself to a culture of dissent. 'Dissent is the very essence of science,' Bhattacharya said at his confirmation hearing in March. 'I'll foster a culture where NIH leadership will actively encourage different perspectives and create an environment where scientists, including early-career scientists and scientists that disagree with me, can express disagreement, respectfully.' Two months into his tenure at the agency, hundreds of NIH officials are taking Bhattacharya at his word. More than 300 officials, from across all of the NIH's 27 institutes and centers, have signed and sent a letter to Bhattacharya that condemns the changes that have thrown the agency into chaos in recent months—and calls on their director to reverse some of the most damaging shifts. Since January, the agency has been forced by Trump officials to fire thousands of its workers and rescind or withhold funding from thousands of research projects. Tomorrow, Bhattacharya is set to appear before a Senate appropriations subcommittee to discuss a proposed $18 billion slash to the NIH budget—about 40 percent of the agency's current allocation. The letter, titled the Bethesda Declaration (a reference to the NIH's location in Bethesda, Maryland), is modeled after the Great Barrington Declaration, an open letter published by Bhattacharya and two of his colleagues in October 2020 that criticized 'the prevailing COVID-19 policies' and argued that it was safe—even beneficial—for most people to resume life as normal. The approach that the Great Barrington Declaration laid out was, at the time, widely denounced by public-health experts, including the World Health Organization and then–NIH director Francis Collins, as dangerous and scientifically unsound. The allusion in the NIH letter, officials told me, isn't meant glibly: 'We hoped he might see himself in us as we were putting those concerns forward,' Jenna Norton, a program director at the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, and one of the letter's organizers, told me. None of the NIH officials I spoke with for this story could recall another time in their agency's history when staff have spoken out so publicly against a director. But none of them could recall, either, ever seeing the NIH so aggressively jolted away from its core mission. 'It was time enough for us to speak out,' Sarah Kobrin, a branch chief at the National Cancer Institute, who has signed her name to the letter, told me. To preserve American research, government scientists—typically focused on scrutinizing and funding the projects most likely to advance the public's health—are now instead trying to persuade their agency's director to help them win a political fight with the White House. In an emailed statement, Bhattacharya said, 'The Bethesda Declaration has some fundamental misconceptions about the policy directions the NIH has taken in recent months, including the continuing support of the NIH for international collaboration. Nevertheless, respectful dissent in science is productive. We all want the NIH to succeed.' A spokesperson for HHS also defended the policies the letter critiqued, arguing that the NIH is 'working to remove ideological influence from the scientific process' and 'enhancing the transparency, rigor, and reproducibility of NIH-funded research.' The agency spends most of its nearly $48 billion budget powering science: It is the world's single-largest public funder of biomedical research. But since January, the NIH has canceled thousands of grants—originally awarded on the basis of merit—for political reasons: supporting DEI programming, having ties to universities that the administration has accused of anti-Semitism, sending resources to research initiatives in other countries, advancing scientific fields that Trump officials have deemed wasteful. Prior to 2025, grant cancellations were virtually unheard-of. But one official at the agency, who asked to remain anonymous out of fear of professional repercussions, told me that staff there now spend nearly as much time terminating grants as awarding them. And the few prominent projects that the agency has since been directed to fund appear either to be geared toward confirming the administration's biases on specific health conditions, or to benefit NIH leaders. 'We're just becoming a weapon of the state,' another official, who signed their name anonymously to the letter, told me. 'They're using grants as a lever to punish institutions and academia, and to censor and stifle science.' NIH officials have tried to voice their concerns in other ways. At internal meetings, leaders of the agency's institutes and centers have questioned major grant-making policy shifts. Some prominent officials have resigned. Current and former NIH staffers have been holding weekly vigils in Bethesda, commemorating, in the words of the organizers, 'the lives and knowledge lost through NIH cuts.' (Attendees are encouraged to wear black.) But these efforts have done little to slow the torrent of changes at the agency. Ian Morgan, a postdoctoral fellow at the NIH and one of the letter's signers, told me that the NIH fellows union, which he is part of, has sent Bhattacharya repeated requests to engage in discussion since his first week at the NIH. 'All of those have been ignored,' Morgan said. By formalizing their objections and signing their names to them, officials told me, they hope that Bhattacharya will finally feel compelled to respond. (To add to the public pressure, Jeremy Berg, who led the NIH's National Institute of General Medical Sciences until 2011, is also organizing a public letter of support for the Bethesda Declaration, in partnership with Stand Up for Science, which has organized rallies in support of research.) Scientists elsewhere at HHS, which oversees the NIH, have become unusually public in defying political leadership, too. Last month, after Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.—in a bizarre departure from precedent—announced on social media that he was sidestepping his own agency, the CDC, and purging COVID shots from the childhood-immunization schedule, CDC officials chose to retain the vaccines in their recommendations, under the condition of shared decision making with a health-care provider. Many signers of the Bethesda letter are hopeful that Bhattacharya, 'as a scientist, has some of the same values as us,' Benjamin Feldman, a staff scientist at the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, told me. Perhaps, with his academic credentials and commitment to evidence, he'll be willing to aid in the pushback against the administration's overall attacks on science, and defend the agency's ability to power research. But other officials I spoke with weren't so optimistic. Many at the NIH now feel they work in a 'culture of fear,' Norton said. Since January, NIH officials have told me that they have been screamed at and bullied by HHS personnel pushing for policy changes; some of the NIH leaders who have been most outspoken against leadership have also been forcibly reassigned to irrelevant positions. At one point, Norton said, after she fought for a program focused on researcher diversity, some members of NIH leadership came to her office and cautioned her that they didn't want to see her on the next list of mass firings. (In conversations with me, all of the named officials I spoke with emphasized that they were speaking in their personal capacity, and not for the NIH.) Bhattacharya, who took over only two months ago, hasn't been the Trump appointee driving most of the decisions affecting the NIH—and therefore might not have the power to reverse or overrule them. HHS officials have pressured agency leadership to defy court orders, as I've reported; mass cullings of grants have been overseen by DOGE. And as much as Bhattacharya might welcome dissent, he so far seems unmoved by it. In early May, Berg emailed Bhattacharya to express alarm over the NIH's severe slowdown in grant making, and to remind him of his responsibilities as director to responsibly shepherd the funds Congress had appropriated to the agency. The next morning, according to the exchange shared with me by Berg, Bhattacharya replied saying that, 'contrary to the assertion you make in the letter,' his job was to ensure that the NIH's money would be spent on projects that advance American health, rather than 'on ideological boondoggles and on dangerous research.' And at a recent NIH town hall, Bhattacharya dismissed one staffer's concerns that the Trump administration was purging the identifying variable of gender from scientific research. (Years of evidence back its use.) He echoed, instead, the Trump talking point that 'sex is a very cleanly defined variable,' and argued that gender shouldn't be included as 'a routine question in order to make an ideological point.' The officials I spoke with had few clear plans for what to do if their letter goes unheeded by leadership. Inside the agency, most see few levers left to pull. At the town hall, Bhattacharya also endorsed the highly contentious notion that human research started the pandemic—and noted that NIH-funded science, specifically, might have been to blame. When dozens of staffers stood and left the auditorium in protest, prompting applause that interrupted Bhattacharya, he simply smiled. 'It's nice to have free speech,' he said, before carrying right on. Article originally published at The Atlantic

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store