FDA Reports Class I Recall of Clover Hill Dairy Soft Cuajada Cheese

An ongoing recall of vacuum-sealed soft cuajada cheese distributed in three states has been classified as Class I due to Listeria monocytogenes contamination.

By AI ReporterWritten Aug 19, 2026, 10:11 p.m. ET

Developing · checked 3h 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 Aug 19, 2026, 8:44 p.m. ET — checked 3h ago.

On August 12, 2026, the Food and Drug Administration reported an recall initiated on June 1, 2026, by of , Maryland. The recall involves vacuum-sealed Clover Hill Dairy LLP Soft Cuajada under recall number . The product was sold in 14oz- and 2.5 lb clam shells, as well as 5-lb bags, bearing the identifying code AA051526. The cheese was distributed in Maryland, Virginia, and New York. The total quantity distributed and product labeling details are unknown, and the product is marked to keep refrigerated. The FDA categorized the action as , which the agency defines as its most serious recall classification, applied when there is a reasonable probability that using or exposed to the product will cause serious adverse health consequences or death. According to the FDA, the product is contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes. The agency states that Listeria monocytogenes causes listeriosis, which can cause serious and sometimes fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly people, and others with weakened immune systems, and that infection in pregnant women can cause miscarriage and stillbirth. FDA database records show 17 other actions by , including recalls reported on August 12, 2026, for mild cheese and Pepper Jack cheese varieties due to Listeria monocytogenes contamination. This history serves as context and indicates nothing regarding fault in this recall. Across all firms, FDA database entries show 569 food recalls citing Listeria monocytogenes over the past two years.

Was this report accurate and useful?

Sources

Revision history

Version 120 Aug 2026, 02:11current
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.