Crystal Temptations Recalls Halloween Chocolatey Eyeballs Over Undeclared Milk
The candy may contain undeclared milk allergens, posing a risk of allergic reaction, according to multiple reports.
3 reports on this incident · first at Aug 31, 2026, 8:12 p.m. ET
Earlier reports
Aug 31, 2026, 8:53 p.m. ET
Crystal Temptations Expands Recall of Halloween Chocolatey Eyeballs Over Undeclared Milk
Crystal Temptations has expanded its recall of Halloween Chocolatey Eyeballs because they contain undeclared milk allergens, which can cause serious or life-threatening allergic reactions, according to a report from Food Safety News. The affected products were distributed in Arizona, Texas, Virginia, Georgia, Massachusetts, North Carolina, Indiana, Nevada, California, New Jersey, Connecticut, Ohio, and Wyoming.
The recall now includes the following codes: 54040-CHEY, 54077-CHEY, 58008-CHEY, 58089-CHEY, and 54083-CHEY. No illnesses have been reported to date, according to Food Safety News.
Aug 31, 2026, 8:12 p.m. ETFirst report
Crystal Temptations Recalls Halloween Chocolatey Eyeballs Over Undeclared Milk
Crystal Temptations has recalled its Halloween Chocolatey Eyeballs because they contain undeclared milk allergens. The recall affects products distributed in Arizona, Texas, Virginia, Georgia, Massachusetts, North Carolina, Indiana, Nevada, California, New Jersey, Connecticut, Ohio, and Wyoming.
The recalled product is identified by lot codes 54040-CHEY, 54077-CHEY, 58008-CHEY, 58089-CHEY, and 54083-CHEY. The recall was prompted by the presence of undeclared milk, which could cause serious or life-threatening allergic reactions in individuals with milk allergies. No illnesses have been reported to date.
Was this report accurate and useful?
Sources
- Chocolate eyeballs recalled because of undeclared milkfoodsafetynews.com
- Halloween Chocolate Sold at TJ Maxx and Marshalls in Thirteen States Is Recalled Over Hidden Milkmedicaldaily.com
- Halloween Candy Sold at TJ Maxx, Marshalls Recalled in 13 States: Mapbiztoc.com
- Halloween Chocolate Eyeballs Recalled In 13 States Over Undeclared Milk Allergen, Sold At Marshalls, TJ Maxxibtimes.com.au
- Chocolate eyeball candy sold at Marshalls, TJ Maxx recalledbiztoc.com
- Halloween candy scare: FDA warns people to ‘destroy’ chocolate sold at 4 major retail chains in 13 states over life-threatening riskbiztoc.com
- Halloween Chocolatey Eyeballs Sold at TJ Maxx and Marshalls Recalled in Thirteen States Over Undeclared Milkmedicaldaily.com
Revision history
- Version 54 Sept 2026, 23:47current
Removed 'life-threatening' from the dek and body, replacing with 'serious allergic reactions' to align with the stated hazard without overstating. Kept all other facts and attributions unchanged.
- Version 44 Sept 2026, 23:42
Updated to reflect the recall date as September 1, 2026, per BizToc, and clarified the distribution conflict between Medical Daily and Food Safety News.
- Version 32 Sept 2026, 03:41
Added report date and BizToc as a source for distribution and recall date.
- Version 21 Sept 2026, 14:52
Updated to include both sources' distribution and reason details, and added contact remedy.
- Version 11 Sept 2026, 00:12current
First published.
- Version 11 Sept 2026, 00:53current
First published.
- Version 11 Sept 2026, 00:22
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.