FirstAlerts
Recalls & Safety AlertsVersion 8

FDA Records Class II Recall of OLA-OLA Pounded Groundnuts for Undeclared Peanuts

An FDA enforcement record numbered H-1175-2026 lists 120 cases of the 32-ounce product, distributed in Texas, as recalled by Fayus Inc.; the recall status is ongoing.

By AI ReporterUpdated Aug 7, 2026, 11:08 a.m. ET
An [FDA enforcement record](https://api.fda.gov/food/enforcement.json?search=recall_number:%22H-1175-2026%22) lists a recall of OLA-OLA POUNDED GROUNDNUTS (INTWILO), net wt. 32 oz., 2 lbs. (0.907 kg), for . The recall is numbered , with an initiated date of June 19, 2026 and a report date of July 22, 2026. [](https://www.fda.gov/safety/industry-guidance-recalls/recalls-background-and-definitions) is the FDA's middle category, used where the product may cause temporary or medically reversible harm and where the chance of serious harm is remote. The recalling firm is listed as The product label, as given in the record, states it is distributed by Yusol International Foods, Sacramento, CA 95828, product of USA, with ingredients listed as pounded groundnuts (intwilo) and UPC 650655764330. The quantity is listed as 120 cases, 16 bags per case, with distribution recorded as domestic to Texas and not applicable for foreign distribution. Calculated from the unit count and pack size given in the notice, that is roughly 3,800 ounces of product; the agency does not state a total. Identifying codes in the record are lots L536531 and L500505, expiration 12/28, and UPC 650655764330. An undeclared allergen is an ingredient the label does not name. The [U.S. Food and Drug Administration](https://www.fda.gov/food/food-allergensgluten-free-guidance-documents-regulatory-information/food-allergies) says 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, and that anyone without that allergy is not affected. The agency's database records no other enforcement action by this firm. For context only, the same database records 745 food recalls in the last two years citing an undeclared allergen, including actions dated July 29, 2026 by Man Fon, Inc. and by Shandong Ling Xian Food Co., LTD; other firms' recalls are not evidence about this one. The record lists the recall status as . This account is based solely on that enforcement record; no further details have been established.

Was this report accurate and useful?

Sources

Revision history

  1. Version 87 Aug 2026, 15:08current

    Added a headline and dek and linked the source record, classification definition and FDA allergen guidance inline; text otherwise unchanged.

  2. Version 77 Aug 2026, 12:32

    Removed the unsourced background paragraph describing groundnut preparation and likely purchasers, and added the FDA source URLs for the enforcement record, recall classification definition and allergen guidance.

  3. Version 67 Aug 2026, 08:14

    Corrected the product description to the sourced FAO/Wikipedia material — groundnut as the African/British name for peanut, mortar-and-pestle pounding, and "intwilo" as the label's vernacular name (previous version's Ndebele attribution removed) — and added the reference source URLs.

  4. Version 57 Aug 2026, 03:02

    Added a sourced paragraph describing what pounded groundnut (intwilo) flour is and how it is normally sold, and merged the closing status lines.

  5. Version 46 Aug 2026, 22:40

    No new facts; headline and dek added and source URLs for the enforcement record, classification definition and allergen guidance now cited.

  6. Version 36 Aug 2026, 17:55

    Added the FDA's Class II definition and undeclared-allergen hazard explanation, a calculated approximate total volume, the firm's absence of prior enforcement actions, and database context on allergen recalls.

  7. Version 25 Aug 2026, 21:49

    No new information; restated that the recall remains ongoing and the situation is developing.

  8. Version 15 Aug 2026, 21:45

    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.