FDA recalled 10 items so far in May. Look for these items in your house
If you're not aware of what's currently being recalled for May, here is what you need to know.
Fresh & Ready Foods, Fresh Take Crave Away, City Point Market Fresh Food to Go ready-to-eat sandwiches and snack items: Recalled for potential listeria monocytogenes contamination.
New Grain Gluten Free Bakery breads, bagels, cookies and croutons: Recalled for undeclared eggs, soy, and milk.
Organic traditions Organic Jumbo Pumpkin Seeds: Recalled for potential foodborne illness - salmonella.
Sacred Tattoo Ink Sacred Tattoo Ink, Raven Black; CI# 77266; Lot#: RB0624; Best Before: June 28 2027, Sacred Tattoo Ink, Sunny Daze; CI# 21095; Lot#: SD1124; Best Before: Nov 1 2027: Tattoo inks that are contaminated with bacteria, including Pseudomonas aeruginosa.
Endurance Boost dietary supplement for male performance and energy: Recalled for undeclared Propoxyphenylsildenafil, Sildenafil.
New England Village Snacks 19th Hole Snack Mix: Recalled for undeclared almonds and sesame.
President Brand licorice plum: Potential or undeclared allergen – sulfites, unapproved color – Amaranth (E123).
Yellowstone baked beans: Recalled for potential or undeclared allergen - soy.
Ray & Mascari Inc. tomatoes: Recalled for potential foodborne Illness - salmonella.
H&C Farms Label tomatoes: Recalled for potential foodborne Illness - salmonella.
It's good to be aware if you recently purchased a recalled product. There are steps to follow if you do have these products in your home. According to FoodSafety.gov, here is what you should do.
Don't panic: The majority of food recalls are not directly linked to an outbreak of foodborne illness. Instead, many recalls are initiated due to the potential risk of contamination in the food product. In such cases, food manufacturers often issue a recall as a preventive measure to safeguard consumers.
Don't eat the food or consume the drug: To ensure your safety, refrain from consuming any recalled food products. Always prioritize caution over convenience. Additionally, please refrain from donating the recalled food to food banks or providing it to your pets, as they are also susceptible to food poisoning.
Don't open the food: To prevent foodborne illnesses, refrain from opening and inspecting food. Bacteria and viruses responsible for such illnesses are invisible, odorless, and tasteless. If you do handle the product, ensure you thoroughly cleanse your hands with warm water and soap for 20 seconds afterward.
Check the recall notice to find out what to do with the food: Upon a food product recall by a manufacturer, specific instructions are provided regarding the product's handling. These instructions generally entail one of the following actions: Return the product to the original store of purchase for a refund. Safely dispose of the product to prevent consumption by humans or animals, particularly if the product has been opened.
This article originally appeared on Austin American-Statesman: FDA recalls 10 items so far in May, including tomatoes, baked beans
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Axios
11 hours ago
- Axios
Why GLP-1s could become the "everything drug"
The biggest buzz around GLP-1 drugs these days has nothing to do with weight loss. And that might lead to some problems for patients and insurers. The big picture: Blockbuster treatments like Ozempic have been found to lower the risk of everything from Alzheimer's and addiction, to sleep apnea, seizures and bacterial infections. More potential uses keep surfacing. While it may be tempting to think of them as wonder drugs, there's a lot that's still unknown. It's still not clear whether they're a cure-all, or whether the benefits come from the fact that obesity and diabetes give rise to so many other health problems. At over $1,000 a month, GLP-1s are also driving up costs in the health system, and their benefits can go away if patients discontinue the medications. State of play: The injectable drugs' potential beyond weight loss was driven home early this year by a study of almost 2 million Veterans Health Administration patient records that found GLP-1s lowered the likelihood of dozens of health conditions. Researchers found the benefits were modest — about a 10% to 20% reduction in most cases — but noted that could be meaningful, especially for conditions like dementia that have few effective treatments. "Given the drugs' newness and skyrocketing popularity, it is important to systematically examine their effects on all body systems — leaving no stone unturned — to understand what they do and what they don't do," Ziyad Al-Aly, the study's senior author said. Friction point: The Food and Drug Administration has only approved GLP-1s for obesity, Type 2 diabetes, heart risk and, under certain circumstances, sleep apnea. That means using them for any other condition is "off label" and at a physician's discretion. The designation can affect whether insurers pay for the treatments. That's no small matter when the monthly cost of brand-name options like Wegovy and Zepbound range from $1,000 to $1,350 without coverage. The hype around the drugs has sent many Americans to telemedicine companies that sell brand-name or knockoff GLP-1s. One recent study found that nearly 40% of GLP-1s approved by the FDA for diabetes are being prescribed off-label. Meanwhile, drug supply shortages and patchwork health plan coverage policies have made GLP-1s less available to patients most in need, including those in marginalized communities. Dozens of lawmakers in Congress last week pressed the FDA to take action against illegal, counterfeit versions of the active ingredients in Ozempic and Wegovy. Reality check: While the drugs have enormous promise, they come with significant side effects, including increased risk for gastrointestinal disorders, low blood pressure, kidney stones and pancreatitis. Surprisingly for weight-loss treatments, there can be a higher risk for arthritis, possibly due to loss of muscle and bone mass. More than 36% of patients who start GLP-1s for either obesity or diabetes treatment stop taking the drugs within a year, according to one study. The cost and adverse effects are often cited as reasons. And although GLP-1s could lower future health costs by preventing more health problems, expanding Medicare coverage of the drugs could drive up federal spending by $48 billion over the next decade. The pricey drugs are already contributing to increasing premiums for employer-sponsored health insurance. The intrigue: The action of GLP-1s could tell us more about how the brain works, by the way they appear to tamp down inflammation and protect nerve cells. They also control cravings and feelings of satisfaction — qualities that could make them important tools for treating substance abuse, suicidal thoughts and even schizophrenia. So, should we all be taking them? The consensus among many clinicians and researchers is "no," or at least not until more is known about how they work. "While I'm excited about the future of these drugs' development, the side effect profile isn't worth the risk for otherwise healthy patients," author-journalist Derek Thompson wrote recently in a Substack review of recent developments and interviews with researchers. What we're watching: Drug companies are moving to develop GLP-1s in pill form, which would make them easier to take and potentially keep people from cycling on and off as much.
USA Today
a day ago
- USA Today
People living with Alzheimer's ‒ and their caregivers ‒ need more than hope
I hope my film sparks a conversation not just about the search for a cure but also about the necessity to care ‒ honoring the people we love and the caregivers who ease their journeys. In June 2021, I was sitting in a small outside café in Stowe, Vermont. My husband and I were chatting with a lovely elderly Peruvian man sitting nearby. His name was Pedro. He had a character-rich face, a warm smile and a mischievous twinkle in his eye. I'm a casting director in Los Angeles, perpetually on the lookout for interesting faces, and my husband and I love meeting people and striking up conversations with strangers. Just as I was about to quiz Pedro more on his life, I got a phone call from a recruiter at the University of Southern California's Keck medical center about a new drug trial for Alzheimer's disease. My husband, Charlie Hess, was living with early onset Alzheimer's, and though you might not notice right away, the challenges were real. Living with Alzheimer's doesn't need to be a story of pure tragedy. It's a terrible disease ‒ a disease that should be much further along in developing treatments ‒ but because Alzheimer's is more invisible than, say, a person battling cancer, the disease has largely been ignored. This accelerated trial for the drug known as donanemab held the promise of slowing the progression of Alzheimer's by clearing the amyloid plaque that many view as a key driver of the disease. It's a more complex trajectory ‒ Alzheimer's is a multifactorial disease ‒ but clearing amyloid might be akin to prescribing statins for people with high cholesterol to help keep their arteries from clogging and causing a heart attack. The USC recruiter insisted this medication donanemab was much better than Aduhelm, a drug I was well aware of that got provisional accelerated approval later that summer in 2021 but was mired in controversies from the get-go. The Food and Drug Administration's expert outside advisers voted not to approve it for many reasons, and Aduhelm finally was removed from the market by Biogen in 2024, as the manufacturer turned its focus toward another Alzheimer's medication that showed more promise. But the jury is still out whether these drugs, which cost up to $32,000 a year, and lengthy infusion therapy will be the answer. There are significant risks for Alzheimer's patients, and issues of cost and access to consider. I was at a loss that June day four years ago. The infusion, given once every six weeks, might slow progression. And I thought, while Charlie was still talking to Pedro, that in a year Charlie might lose conversations like this. The recruiter pressed me: Charlie was on their short list, and if we didn't decide in 24 hours, it would be gone. My stomach tightened. My mind kept thinking, 'If not now, when?' Families living with Alzheimer's are at a tipping point We said goodbye to Pedro. I looked Charlie in the eye and told him we had gotten a 'golden ticket' ‒ a spot in a trial for a new drug ‒ and we had to decide immediately. My husband was clear in his thinking and calm in his delivery. 'Why would we rush back to LA for a drug that is only a pile of promises?' Charlie said. 'I feel way better here in nature, slowing down. We have great doctors. If this drug proves to be the one, I'm sure you'll find a way to get me back in. The only thing I know is that nobody knows what to do with this, and we just have to keep living.' Opinion: Is it Alzheimer's or am I just getting old? Here's how to find an answer. Charlie sometimes struggles for words, but then suddenly finds clarity and speaks directly. That June in 2021, he did just that, and I think he was right. In February 2025, in a New York Times opinion column, journalist Charles Piller raised alarm about fraud and controversy in Alzheimer's research. His book, "Doctored: Fraud, Arrogance, and Tragedy in the Quest to Cure Alzheimer's," sent shock waves across the Alzheimer's community. It's a messy story, and I do not think all researchers are cooking their studies. Even so, drug companies certainly have a huge financial incentive, and we ‒ caregivers and people living with Alzheimer's ‒ are at a tipping point. What Alzheimer's looks like from the inside There may be more drugs approved in the future that are worth pursuing for some, but the risks are high, the costs are staggering, and the resources we put toward selling hope could undermine health care for everyone. Hope itself is perhaps the most powerful drug of all, but it won't cure Alzheimer's. We need a cure, but we also need to rethink the narrative. It's time we fund caregiver supports, and find a way to help people live with dignity and compassion alongside their disease. It's time we recognized that Alzheimer's doesn't just affect a person ‒ it profoundly impacts the whole family. Opinion: Dementia care for families has an unexpected ally ‒ you My own experience with Alzheimer's and this ongoing journey alongside Charlie profoundly influenced me to make "Walk With Me," a documentary that traces our life together and the quiet, intimate struggles of caregiving. The film is a deeply personal view into what Alzheimer's looks like from the inside ‒ not just for the person living with it, but also for the family that bears it alongside them. "Walk With Me" will be screening on Tuesday, July 29, in Toronto, Canada, in the same week that more than 10,000 people will be gathered there at the Alzheimer's Association International Conference to discuss new research, care options and more. I will be at the Toronto conference with my hopes up. But what I fear most is that what the drug companies will be selling is not a cure yet but rather another hope. While hope is a powerful drug, we are due for a reality check. We need to learn to live better by strengthening caregiver supports ‒ this vast, unpaid workforce that underpins much of health care today. My hope is that my film sparks a conversation not just about the search for a cure but also about the necessity to care ‒ honoring the people we love and the caregivers who make their journeys more human and compassionate. According to Statistics Canada, 4 in 10 Canadians ages 15 or older provide unpaid care, amounting to more than $97 billion in annual economic value. In the United States, 1 in 5 Americans provide unpaid care, valued at over $470 billion a year. Let's stop selling hope and start funding better care for all. Heidi Levitt is a casting director in Los Angeles. Her documentary "Walk With Me" will be screening on July 29 at the TIFF Lightbox theater in Toronto, Canada. It is playing film festivals all over the United States and internationally with the goal to find distribution to play the film widely theatrically and online. Please check the website for updates.
Newsweek
2 days ago
- Newsweek
Is the FDA Doing Enough About Food Additives?
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Food additives have come under increasing scrutiny in recent months, and Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. recently announced a ban on eight frequently used food dyes from food and beverages. Two petroleum-based synthetic dyes are set to be phased out imminently, while the other six must be removed from products by the end of 2026. Kennedy Jr has been a vocal critic of food additives, based on their impact on health, particularly their potential neurological effect on children, and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has been approving alternative food dyes that come from natural, rather than synthetic, sources. Food dyes have been linked to a range of health effects, including increased cancer risk, behavioral issues in children, hormonal disruption, and a higher likelihood of obesity. However, the answer is not as simple as removing all additives from food. "Many additives are needed, are not harmful, and are an important part of food flavor, texture, and stability," Emily Broad Leib, director of both the Food Law and Policy Clinic and the Center for Health Law and Policy Innovation at Harvard Law School, told Newsweek. Although, that said, as "it has been so easy to create and add new additives to food," Broad Leib added, "we have really allowed companies to get out of hand with how many things they are adding, without having clear requirement that they benefit consumers and without enough knowledge about their impacts alone or cumulatively." What Is The FDA Doing About Food Additives? The FDA recently banned several food dyes: Citrus Red No. 2 and Orange B, which will lose their authorization soon, and six FD&C dyes which are scheduled for removal by 2026, Green No. 3, Red No. 40, Yellow Nos. 5 and 6, and Blue Nos. 1 and 2. The FDA has also requested that food companies remove FD&C Red No. 3 sooner than the 2027 to 2028 deadline previously required. Earlier this month, the FDA also approved the use of the color gardenia (genipin) blue in various foods, which is derived from the fruit of the evergreen, gardenia. This was the fourth naturally-derived color approved by the FDA for use in foods in the last two months. The FDA is also currently reviewing a number of other additives, with potassium bromate, propylparaben and titanium dioxide all on the FDA's list of "chemicals in the food supply under FDA review." According to the Environmental Working Group (EWG), titanium dioxide has been associated with potential immunotoxicity and neurotoxicity, while potassium bromate is associated with an increased risk of cancer. Propylparaben is thought to be a hormone disrupter. More recently, the FDA added butylated hydroxyanisole (BHA) and azodicarbonamide (ADA) to its list for reviewing and has moved to ban brominated vegetable oil (BVO) . BHA is believed to increase risk of cancer and cause hormone disruption, while ADA is believed to form carcinogenic byproducts, and BVO is believed to harm the nervous system, reproductive system and thyroid hormone system, according to EWG. An FDA spokesperson told Newsweek the FDA has also recently released for public comment its Post-market Assessment Prioritization Tool for ranking chemicals in the food supply, enabling it to "determine which chemicals the agency would prioritize for post-market assessments." This will allow the FDA to "allocate resources more efficiently, ensuring that the agency focuses on food chemicals that may present the greatest potential public health risk, including risk to sensitive populations, and are of high public concern," they said. "Determining if a chemical—either one intentionally added to food or a contaminant that is not intentionally added—needs to be further evaluated based on new information takes a structured and science-based approach to ensure that the FDA's reviews are protective of the health of consumers," FDA spokesperson said. "The FDA is committed to radical transparency as the agency develops processes for prioritizing chemicals in food for a post-market assessment. These processes will help to ensure that FDA is taking a risk-informed approach in reviewing data and information about the safety of chemicals in the food supply to protect the health of consumers." Photo-illustration by Newsweek/Getty What States Are Doing About Food Additives California was the first state in the country to ban certain food dyes, and it has already enacted legislation banning the sale, distribution, and production of food products containing BVO. Since then, more states have followed suit with similar proposals. Many other states now have pending legislation introduced this year to ban food dyes and additives—particularly in school settings to protect children from potential health risks. Florida proposed legislation to ban schools serving food containing BHA, ADA, BHT and BVO, and many other additives. However, the bill (SB 560) died in the Senate Appropriations Committee on June 16. Iowa, Minnesota, Michigan, New York, North Carolina, South Carolina, Vermont and Washington, are also considering bans on BVO and other additives under FDA review in school meals, while New Jersey and Wisconsin are seeking to ban ADA as well as BVO and others. Pennsylvania is trying to ensure any products containing BHA come with a clear warning. Some states like Hawaii, Illinois, and Ohio have sought to ban the use of single-use food packaging and serving containers being intentionally manufactured to have "forever chemicals," known as PFAS, which are carcinogenic to humans. Broad Leib told Newsweek that some states, including Louisiana, are also trying to ban the use of aspartame, an artificial sweetener, cottonseed oil, and grapeseed oil. Does the FDA's Review of Food Chemicals Go Far Enough? Sheela Sathyanarayana, a professor of pediatrics and environmental and occupational health sciences at the University of Washington and Seattle Children's Research Institute, told Newsweek it was "absolutely not" the case that the FDA's current process for regulating and reviewing additives in food went far enough. "We have some of the most lax regulations through generally recognized as safe (GRAS) provisions," she said. "While FDA focusing on dyes and these three additives is a good first step, it is very minuscule in the scope of the broader picture." "I think that FDA has been a little haphazard in their review of chemicals to date," Broad Leib said. Last fall, the agency introduced a discussion paper on how to better manage the process for post-market review of chemicals, however, Broad Leib said that, in her opinion, this "was not strong enough." The Harvard Food Law and Policy Clinic suggested in a comment to the FDA on its proposal that if a state or peer jurisdiction bans a chemical, it should trigger an immediate 120-day review period for FDA to assess the chemical in question. Broad Leib said that FDA has not yet issued any "general response to that docket and has not put out an updated discussion paper." Commenting on the agency's release of a new document for public comment on how to prioritize chemicals for review, Broad Leib said: "I think [it] shows that they are thinking about the issue and trying to get better at flagging chemicals of concern." Overall, despite the FDA's efforts, Broad Leib said that she thought "there are some serious gaps in FDA's review of chemicals, both premarket and post-market." She said that there is a "loophole" in premarket review, whereby companies can "self-designate a substance to be GRAS and thus avoid the additive process, avoid FDA oversight, and even avoid FDA notification." All of these processes are voluntary for GRAS substances, meaning that this enables many substances to sneak into food "without FDA even having them on its radar," she added. She said that the FDA "has long been without a strong process for transparently identifying substances of concern, quickly reviewing evidence, and then taking decisive action when needed."
