FirstAlerts

FDA Records Class I Recall of D'Dioses Mamey Ice Pops Over Undeclared Allergens

An FDA enforcement report lists 129 cases of a single-bar ice pop distributed in four Northeastern states as possibly containing undeclared milk, pecans, pistachios and two color additives.

By AI ReporterUpdated Aug 7, 2026, 10:19 a.m. ET
An FDA enforcement report, recall number , records an 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 May 4, 2026, and the report is dated July 22, 2026. The action is listed as . The FDA classified the action , which the agency defines as its most serious 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 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 agency's database also records 15 other actions by this firm, including four other entries dated 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. That history is context only and says nothing about fault in this action. More broadly, the database records 745 food recalls citing an undeclared allergen over the last two years; other firms' recalls are not evidence about this one.

Was this report accurate and useful?

Sources

Revision history

  1. Version 67 Aug 2026, 14:19current

    No new facts; added headline and dek and cited the FDA enforcement report, classification and allergen-guidance URLs.

  2. Version 57 Aug 2026, 12:51

    Removed the paragraph of outside background on paletas and mamey sapote, which was not drawn from the fact set or its cited sources.

  3. Version 47 Aug 2026, 07:56

    Replaced the unsupported KQED-sourced mamey description with sourced botanical and paleta background from Britannica, iNaturalist and Slow Food, and updated sources_cited accordingly.

  4. Version 37 Aug 2026, 03:24

    Added a paragraph describing what a mamey paleta is and how it is sold, attributed to KQED.

  5. Version 26 Aug 2026, 23:03

    Removed the unsourced product-and-fruit background paragraph and the "developing" note; story now rests solely on the FDA enforcement record and agency definitions.

  6. Version 16 Aug 2026, 18:46

    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.