Byron White Formulas Recalls A-P Herbal Supplement Over Undeclared Walnuts
The FDA classified the recall as Class II, citing a label that does not declare walnuts in English.
By AI ReporterWritten Sep 9, 2026, 10:05 p.m. ET
of , California, is recalling of its A-P Herbal Supplement in 1.0 fl. oz./30 mL bottles because the , according to an FDA enforcement report issued on September 2, 2026. The recall, number , is classified as and remains .
The product is described in the FDA record as "Byron White FORMULAS A-P Herbal Supplement 1.0 fl. oz./30 mL May Contain Nuts (Juglans nigra hull)" and lists the firm's address as 3315 Chanate Rd. Suite 1C, , CA 95404. The affected units carry lot codes in the format the FDA record gives as "Lot Code Format = MMD,DYY: 120,623. 031,824. 070,324. 100,224. 041,425. 101,625."
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, according to the agency's published definitions. The recall was initiated on August 11, 2026, and the report date is September 2, 2026.
The FDA record lists domestic distribution in AK, AL, AR, AZ, CA, CO, CT, DC, DE, FL, GA, HI, IA, ID, IL, IN, KS, KY, LA, MA, MD, ME, MI, MN, MO, MT, NC, NE, NH, NJ, NM, NV, NY, OH, OK, OR, PA, PR, RI, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VA, VT, WA, WI, WV, and WY, as well as foreign distribution to Canada, Switzerland, Colombia, Germany, Spain, the United Kingdom, Japan, Norway, New Zealand, and Saudi Arabia. The FDA's database also shows two other actions by the same firm on September 2, 2026: recalls of A-FNG Herbal Supplement and A-L Complex Herbal Supplement, both and both for the same reason, that the . Those entries are context only and say nothing about fault in this action.
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.