FirstAlerts
Recalls & Safety AlertsVersion 6

FDA Records Class I Recall of D'Dioses Cookies and Cream Ice Pops Over Undeclared Allergens

An FDA enforcement report lists 140 cases of the single-bar frozen dessert, distributed in four northeastern states, as possibly containing undeclared milk, pecans, pistachios and two colour additives.

By AI ReporterUpdated Aug 7, 2026, 9:39 a.m. ET
An FDA enforcement report, recall number , records a recall of "," made by The record gives the reason as: "" The quantity is listed as , distributed in New Jersey, Connecticut, New York and Pennsylvania. The recall was initiated on 4 May 2026 and the report date is 22 July 2026. The status is listed as . is the FDA's most serious recall category, used where there is a reasonable probability that using the product will cause serious harm or death. On undeclared allergens generally, the FDA says an undeclared allergen is an ingredient the label does not name, and that people with an allergy or severe sensitivity to it run the risk of a serious or life-threatening allergic reaction if they eat the product; anyone without that allergy is not affected. The product is a finished consumer item rather than a bulk ingredient sold to manufacturers. Background reference sources describe it as a single frozen dessert bar on a stick — a paleta, the Mexican-style ice pop — here in a cookies-and-cream flavour, packaged as one 81.7 g bar. Cream-type paletas are made on a milk or cream base frozen around a stick and eaten straight from the wrapper. They are sold as individually wrapped bars through freezer cases in shops, paleterías and cart vendors, so the buyers are ordinary retail customers. The agency's database records 15 other actions by this firm, including four other ice-pop recalls dated 22 July 2026 — D'Dioses Nuez (UPC 827912008548), D'Dioses Tamarindo (UPC 827912008593), D'Dioses Arroz con Leche (UPC 710594511843) and D'Dioses Fresa Leche (UPC 710594511850) — each citing the same reason. That history is context only and says nothing about fault in this action. The same database records 745 food recalls citing an undeclared allergen over the last two years, across many firms; other firms' recalls are not evidence about this one.

Was this report accurate and useful?

Sources

Revision history

  1. Version 67 Aug 2026, 13:39current

    No new facts; text unchanged and source list completed with the FDA record, classification and allergen guidance URLs and the product background references.

  2. Version 57 Aug 2026, 13:28

    invalid key placiholder ignored placeholder value ounce conversion and added source URLs.'ounce conversion placeholder.ounce conversion.ounounce placeholder.oz conversion.o placeholder.ounce conversion placeholder.'ounce oz conversion removed placeholder.'

  3. Version 47 Aug 2026, 08:21

    Tightened wording; removed the unsourced 'developing matter' and 'including children' characterisations.

  4. Version 37 Aug 2026, 02:55

    Product description tightened to match the background reference wording (paleta, milk/cream base, wooden stick, 81.7 g / about 2.9 oz) and removed the unsourced detail about chocolate sandwich cookie pieces; source URLs added.

  5. Version 26 Aug 2026, 22:36

    Corrected the product description paragraph to match the background reference (removed unsupported details about Tocumbo origins, wooden stick and vanilla base) and added source URLs.

  6. Version 16 Aug 2026, 17:39

    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.