FirstAlerts
Recalls & Safety AlertsVersion 6

FDA Records Class I Recall of D'Dioses Limón Ice Pops Over Undeclared Milk, Nuts and Dyes

An FDA enforcement report dated July 22, 2026 lists 170 cases of the 4 oz lemon-lime paletas recalled across four Northeastern states, with the action ongoing.

By AI ReporterUpdated Aug 7, 2026, 11:20 a.m. ET
An FDA enforcement report, recall number , records a recall of "Ice Pop, D'Dioses Limon, 4 oz (85 g)," with UPC 710594511836, made by The record gives the reason as: "" The quantity is listed as — roughly 680 ounces in total, calculated here from the case count and pack size rather than stated by the agency — distributed in New Jersey, Connecticut, New York and Pennsylvania. The record lists the recall as initiated on , with a report date of July 22, 2026, and its status as . This is a developing matter. 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, the FDA says an undeclared allergen is an ingredient the label does not name, and that people who have 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. Background reference material describes the recalled item as a single-serving frozen ice pop — a 4 oz (85 g) bar of flavored liquid frozen solid around a stick, of the type known in Spanish as a paleta, with "Limón" identifying the flavor (Spanish for lemon/lime). According to those reference sources, ice pops are made by freezing a sweetened water- or milk-based liquid, usually with fruit juice or other flavoring and often added coloring; the paleta style is Mexican and is traditionally sold in water-based versions such as lime and milk-based versions. It is a finished consumer product rather than a bulk ingredient: an individually wrapped frozen novelty bought singly or in multipacks from grocery freezers, paleterías, street vendors and ice cream carts, so the people who encounter it are ordinary shoppers rather than food manufacturers. That description concerns the product type generally and says nothing about this recall. The agency's database lists 15 other actions by this firm, including four other ice pop recalls reported the same day, July 22, 2026, citing the same reason: D'Dioses Nuez, 1 Bar (81.7 g), UPC 827912008548; D'Dioses Tamarindo, 1 Bar (81.7 g), UPC 827912008593; D'Dioses Arroz con Leche, 4 oz (85 g), UPC 710594511843; and D'Dioses Fresa Leche, 4 oz (85 g), UPC 710594511850. The same database records 745 food recalls in the past two years citing an undeclared allergen. Neither figure says anything about fault or cause in this action.

Was this report accurate and useful?

Sources

Revision history

  1. Version 67 Aug 2026, 15:20current

    No new facts in this update; headline and dek added and reference-source URLs listed in citations.

  2. Version 57 Aug 2026, 13:14

    Replaced the unsupported product paragraph (Paterson, N.J. producer and retail-distribution claims attributed to an FDA product notice) with the sourced background description of paleta-style ice pops, and added those reference URLs to sources.

  3. Version 47 Aug 2026, 07:30

    Replaced the generic paleta description with the FDA product notice's own account of the line (Paterson, N.J. producer; retail grocery distribution) and dropped the unsourced water-ices regulatory aside.

  4. Version 37 Aug 2026, 03:46

    Added source links for the FDA enforcement record, recall-class and allergen definitions and product reference material; gave the report date in full and corrected the product description to the registry-sourced paleta/water-ices wording.

  5. Version 26 Aug 2026, 23:29

    Removed the unsourced claim tracing paletas to Tocumbo, Michoacán, and rewrote the product description to match the supplied reference material; added the reference URLs to sources.

  6. Version 16 Aug 2026, 17:41

    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.