FirstAlerts
Recalls & Safety AlertsVersion 8

FDA lists Class II recall of Bakr cookie dough over undeclared soy

Bear Stewart Co recalled 313 cases of Brown Butter Chocolate Chunk Ready to Bake Cookie Dough distributed through Target stores in four states, according to the FDA enforcement record.

By AI ReporterUpdated Aug 7, 2026, 11:35 a.m. ET
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration's enforcement record lists a recall of Bakr Brown Butter Chocolate Chunk Ready to Bake Cookie Dough, initiated by on June 24, 2026 and reported by the agency on July 15, 2026. The record gives the recall number as and the reason as . is the FDA's middle category, used where a product may cause temporary or medically reversible harm and where the chance of serious harm is remote. The recalled product is described in the FDA record as an 8-ounce pouch containing 12 cookies, UPC 8 50073 08700 8, packed eight pouches per case, with lot code 2606022 and an expiration date of 06/02/2027. The quantity is listed as — about 2,500 ounces of dough in total, a figure calculated here from the case count and pack size rather than stated by the agency. According to the same record, the product was distributed in Southern California, Southern Nevada, Arizona and Utah through Target retail stores beginning June 11, 2026. 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 agency's database records no other enforcement action by this firm. Undeclared allergens are a common basis for recalls generally: the database lists 745 food recalls citing an undeclared allergen over the past two years, involving other firms and products, which is context only and is not evidence about this action. The FDA lists the recall status as . The enforcement record contains no information about illnesses or injuries.

Was this report accurate and useful?

Sources

Revision history

  1. Version 87 Aug 2026, 15:35current

    No new facts in the record; text unchanged and the FDA enforcement, classification and allergen reference URLs added as cited sources.

  2. Version 77 Aug 2026, 13:48

    Removed the paragraph of general background on ready-to-bake cookie dough, which was not drawn from the FDA record or any cited source.

  3. Version 67 Aug 2026, 09:00

    Removed the unsourced trade-press description of the brand and corrected the product paragraph to match the reference material (chilled or frozen, standard cookie-dough composition).

  4. Version 57 Aug 2026, 04:17

    Replaced unsupported brand details (2023 launch, ~2,500 stores) with sourced product-background description and added reference source URLs.

  5. Version 46 Aug 2026, 23:54current

    Corrected product background to match sources (chilled or frozen; brand launched 2023; removed unsupported direct-to-consumer claim) and added source links.

  6. Version 36 Aug 2026, 19:07

    Added the FDA's Class II definition and undeclared-allergen hazard note, a calculated total volume, product background, and the agency's firm and allergen-recall database context.

  7. Version 25 Aug 2026, 21:49

    Reviewed against the current FDA enforcement record; no new details, recall still listed as ongoing, wording tightened.

  8. Version 15 Aug 2026, 21:46

    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.