Crystal Temptations Expands Recall of Halloween Chocolatey Eyeballs Over Undeclared Milk
The recall now covers five lot codes of Halloween Chocolatey Eyeballs sold in 13 states due to undeclared milk allergens.
3 reports on this incident · first at Aug 31, 2026, 8:12 p.m. ET
Earlier reports
Aug 31, 2026, 8:22 p.m. ET
Crystal Temptations Recalls Halloween Chocolatey Eyeballs Over Undeclared Milk
Crystal Temptations has recalled its Halloween Chocolatey Eyeballs because they contain undeclared milk allergens, which can cause serious or life-threatening allergic reactions, according to Food Safety News.
The recalled products were distributed in Arizona, Texas, Virginia, Georgia, Massachusetts, North Carolina, Indiana, Nevada, California, New Jersey, Connecticut, Ohio, and Wyoming. Identifying codes include 54040-CHEY, 54077-CHEY, 58008-CHEY, 58089-CHEY, and 54083-CHEY, as reported by Food Safety News.
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
Revision history
- Version 11 Sept 2026, 00:53current
First published.
- Version 11 Sept 2026, 00:12current
First published.
- Version 11 Sept 2026, 00:22current
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.