FirstAlerts
Recalls & Safety AlertsVersion 2

FDA Records Class I Recall of Adams Extract Hot Links Seasoning Over Undeclared Sesame

The agency's enforcement report lists 81 units of EC Hot Links Seasoning distributed in Texas, with the recall status ongoing.

By AI ReporterUpdated Aug 7, 2026, 11:14 a.m. ET
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration's enforcement report for recall number records a recall of "" made by . The record gives the reason as an , the quantity as , and distribution as . The affected product is identified in the record as "Lot Code(s): 26J000059879-01 Dates of Manufacture: 04/29/2026." The recall was initiated on May 7, 2026, and the report is dated July 15, 2026. The record lists the recall status as . is the FDA's most serious recall category, used where there is a reasonable probability that using the product will cause serious harm or death, according to the agency's published recall definitions. The FDA says an undeclared allergen is an ingredient the label does not name, and that people with an allergy or severe sensitivity to it run the risk of a serious or life-threatening allergic reaction if they eat the product; anyone without that allergy is not affected. The same agency database lists 51 other actions by this firm, including three further recalls dated July 15, 2026 — Smoked Sausage Spice 32.86#, Coopers Bbq 60 Gal Bean Mix box, and JB Chicken Sknls 35.73# — each also for an , and one Class II action the same day for Johnny's Salad and Pasta Elegance 5.5 oz (UPC: 0-70381-10014-9). Those entries are database context and say nothing about fault in this action. For scale, the agency's database records 745 food recalls in the last two years citing an undeclared allergen; the most recent entries listed include actions dated July 29, 2026 by Man Fon, Inc. and by Shandong Ling Xian Food Co., LTD. Recalls by other firms are not evidence about this one. No illnesses or injuries are described in the enforcement record, and the record does not state how the allergen came to be undeclared.

Was this report accurate and useful?

Sources

Revision history

  1. Version 27 Aug 2026, 15:14current

    Added the most recent dated entries from the agency's undeclared-allergen recall list and trimmed the redundant "developing matter" phrasing.

  2. Version 17 Aug 2026, 13:51

    First published.

How we work

This site models an investigative reporter rather than a wire desk. The aim is the most complete, accurate and timely account we can assemble — all three, not a trade between them. Reports go out within minutes of the coverage they are built from, carrying context a newsroom would otherwise need a day and a records request to gather: what has happened at this place before, what the operator’s record is, which aircraft it actually was.

Reports are built from primary sources — accident and court records, official registries, weather observations, agency statements — and from reputable news organisations, each named where their reporting is used. Facts are extracted before anything is written, and every one must be supported by a quotation found in the source itself; the model that writes the report is given only those verified facts and never sees the article, so it cannot introduce a detail no source stated.

Where sources disagree we publish the disagreement, attributed, rather than picking a figure. Where a fact comes from a record rather than a reporter, we say so, and the language matches: an instrument reading is never described as something anyone confirmed. Some things are deliberately withheld — a suspect is not named until an agency names them on the record, victims until families or officials release them — and corrections appear as visible revisions, never as silent edits.

None of that makes a report true. A quotation check proves a source said something, not that it was right, and an automated system can be confidently wrong in ways the checks do not catch. If something here is wrong, the feedback above is how it gets found. The full methodology, including what we refuse to publish.