FDA Terminates Recall of Galliker Dairy Ice Cream Mix
The Food and Drug Administration has closed its recall of DQ Chocolate Reduced Fat Ice Cream Mix previously recalled for metal shavings.
2 reports on this incident · first at Aug 20, 2026, 1:22 a.m. ET
Earlier reports
Aug 20, 2026, 1:22 a.m. ETFirst report
Galliker Dairy Recalls Ice Cream Mix Over Metal Shavings
On August 5, 2026, Food and Drug Administration enforcement records reported a recall initiated on May 21, 2026, by Galliker Dairy Co, Inc. of Altoona, involving DQ Chocolate Reduced Fat Ice Cream Mix, 5 GAL (18.9L).
According to FDA enforcement records for recall number H-1191-2026, 74 cases were recalled after foreign material identified as metal shavings was found in the product. The product carries the identifying code JUN1226 and is labeled to keep refrigerated. Calculated from the unit count and 5-gallon pack size, the total volume is about 370 gallons. Distribution was to PA, DE, NJ, MD, and NY.
FDA guidance defines a Class II classification as the agency's middle category, used where a product may cause temporary or medically reversible harm and where the chance of serious harm is remote. Agency records list the status of recall H-1191-2026 as terminated and record no other enforcement actions for Galliker Dairy Co, Inc.
Was this report accurate and useful?
Sources
Revision history
- Version 120 Aug 2026, 05:22current
First published.
- Version 120 Aug 2026, 05:24current
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.