Coaticook Aged Cheddar Cheese Recall Expanded in Canada Over Listeria Risk
The recall of Coaticook brand Aged Cheddar Cheese in Canada has been expanded due to possible Listeria monocytogenes contamination.
3 reports on this incident · first at Sep 1, 2026, 10:26 p.m. ET
Earlier reports
Sep 1, 2026, 10:31 p.m. ET
Coaticook Aged Cheddar Cheese Recall: Illnesses Reported to Agency
The Canadian agency has now received reports of illnesses linked to the recalled Coaticook brand Aged Cheddar Cheese, according to Food Safety News. The agency has not confirmed any patients, the outlet reported.
The recall, announced on September 1, 2026, covers Coaticook brand Aged Cheddar Cheese distributed in Canada due to possible contamination with Listeria monocytogenes, as reported by Food Safety News.
Sep 1, 2026, 10:26 p.m. ETFirst report
Coaticook Aged Cheddar Cheese Recalled in Canada Over Listeria Contamination
Coaticook brand Aged Cheddar Cheese is being recalled in Canada because of possible contamination with Listeria monocytogenes, according to a report from Food Safety News. The recall was reported on September 1, 2026.
No confirmed patients have been reported in connection with the contamination, Food Safety News reported. The recall applies to Coaticook brand Aged Cheddar Cheese distributed in Canada.
Was this report accurate and useful?
Sources
- Cheese recalled in Canada because of Listeria contaminationfoodsafetynews.com
Revision history
- Version 12 Sept 2026, 02:37current
First published.
- Version 12 Sept 2026, 02:26current
First published.
- Version 12 Sept 2026, 02:31current
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.