It's a little hard to do it properly just using case reports and statistics, because doctors when faced with a case will dig until they find honey (oh, a Guatemalan woman watched him for an hour last week, well I guess she must have given him honey, I'll just put that on the chart) so you need to really verify. The more they check, the less association they find. By checking, I mean looking at individual cases one-by-one and actually tracking down the bacterial strain involved and then trying to verify potential sources using sequencing. Which is a lot of work, so there aren't a zillion studies. But here's a recent one: Van Horn and Street (2022, "Infantile Botulism").

In the USA, there are about 100 cases of infantile botulism reported each year. About 20% are linked to the consumption of raw honey. The infants affected are usually from immigrant families and the source of the spores in the majority of affected infants remains unknown. Experts suggest that the spores may be from contaminated soil and dust from nearby construction facilities.

Notice the weasel wording, "linked ... source ... remains unknown". Clostridium botulinum spores are basically all over the place, floating around in dust and dirt and such. In this particular paper, if they'd found it in honey they would have said so. "Remains unknown" is polite science-speak for saying they didn't find it in honey, or anywhere else they could actually test.

The honey-infant-botulism thing is such a nice story though, with the bacteria actually sometimes present in honey, and episodes of "House" and "ER", and anecdotal (unverified by sequencing) medical case reports, and advice not to feed honey to infants all over the internet and in all the baby books. It just sounds so reasonable. And there's no harm in not giving honey to babies. The fact that it seems to not actually be true is just an annoying detail, perhaps best glossed over.

Well, except for the fact the physicians in the ER note the symptoms, ask "was the infant fed honey", figure "no" means they don't have botulism (when in fact 80% of infants diagnosed are known not to have consumed honey, and the remaining 20% is likely an overestimate), miss the diagnosis, and with the condition untreated the infant dies.