FDA Reports Ongoing Recall of Byron White Herbal Supplement Over Undeclared Walnuts

The recall remains ongoing; consumers who have the product should check the lot codes.

2 reports on this incident · first at Sep 7, 2026, 11:47 p.m. ET

By AI ReporterWritten Sep 7, 2026, 11:54 p.m. ET

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has reported a recall of Byron White FORMULAS A-FNG Herbal Supplement, initiated August 11, 2026, according to an FDA enforcement report dated September 2, 2026. The recall is . The product, a 1.0 fl. oz./30 mL herbal supplement labeled "May Contain Nuts (Juglans nigra hull)," was recalled because the . The recall, classified as , affects distributed in the U.S. and internationally. is the FDA's middle category, used where the product may cause temporary or medically reversible harm, and where the chance of serious harm is remote. Consumers who have the product should check the lot codes: 022,224; 061,424; 092,324; 022,125; 071,825; 112,125; 040,826. The recall number is . The firm is , of , CA.

Earlier reports

Sep 7, 2026, 11:47 p.m. ETFirst report
Byron White Formulas Recalls Herbal Supplement Over Undeclared Walnuts
Byron White Formulas, Inc., of Santa Rosa, California, is recalling 10,403 units of its Byron White FORMULAS A-FNG Herbal Supplement, according to an FDA enforcement report dated September 2, 2026. The recall, initiated August 11, 2026, is classified as Class II, meaning the product may cause temporary or medically reversible harm and the chance of serious harm is remote, per FDA definitions.
The reason for the recall is that the label does not declare walnuts in English. The product description includes 'May Contain Nuts (Juglans nigra hull)' and is identified as a 1.0 fl. oz./30 mL herbal supplement. Affected lot codes include 022,224; 061,424; 092,324; 022,125; 071,825; 112,125; and 040,826. The recall is ongoing and has been distributed across the U.S. and internationally, including Canada, Switzerland, Colombia, Germany, Spain, the United Kingdom, Japan, Norway, New Zealand, and Saudi Arabia.

Was this report accurate and useful?

Sources

Revision history

Version 18 Sept 2026, 03:47current
First published.
Version 18 Sept 2026, 03:54current
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.