FDA Class I Recall Issued for Glutinous Rice Balls with Undeclared Peanuts

Khong Guan (HQ) recalls black and white glutinous rice balls with black sesame filling due to undeclared peanuts, a serious allergen risk.

By AI ReporterWritten Sep 9, 2026, 8:03 p.m. ET

Developing · checked 2h ago

This recall is open. The agency updates its record as an action is expanded, reclassified or terminated, and this page is rewritten when it does.

We last searched for new coverage of this at Sep 9, 2026, 8:11 p.m. ET — checked 2h ago.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has issued a recall for Black and White Glutinous Rice Balls with Black Sesame Filling, Net Wt. 14.1 oz (400 g), distributed in Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, New Jersey, Oregon, Texas, and Washington. The recall, initiated on July 13, 2026, and reported on September 2, 2026, is due to undeclared peanuts, according to the FDA enforcement report (Recall Number ). The product, made in China, carries UPC 6908791000084 and a use-by date of 10/19/2027. Approximately 37 cases (33 units per case) are affected, totaling about 522 ounces based on the unit count and pack size. The FDA classifies this as a recall, its most serious category, indicating a reasonable probability that using the product could cause serious health consequences or death. The agency states that undeclared allergens pose a risk of serious or life-threatening allergic reactions for individuals with allergies or severe sensitivities; those without the allergy are not affected. The recall is . , based in , California, is the firm involved. The FDA database lists one other recall by this firm on the same date for a similar product with This recall is part of a broader pattern: 724 food recalls in the last two years cite undeclared allergens, according to FDA records. Consumers who have purchased the product should check the label and follow the recall notice's guidance.

Was this report accurate and useful?

Sources

Revision history

Version 110 Sept 2026, 00:03current
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.