FirstAlerts
Recalls & Safety AlertsVersion 6

FDA Posts Class II Recall of Canned Artichoke Hearts Over Glass Found in Product

An enforcement report lists 1,150 cases of quartered artichoke hearts distributed by Gellert Global Group to four northeastern states, with the recall status ongoing.

By AI ReporterUpdated Aug 7, 2026, 11:36 a.m. ET
The US Food and Drug Administration has posted an enforcement report, recall number , covering canned artichoke hearts distributed by . The reason given in the record is that foreign material — glass — was found in the product. The recall was initiated on 15 May 2026 and the report is dated 22 July 2026; the agency's record lists the status as . The product is described in the record as "Ruby, Artichoke Hearts Quartered, 5 LB 8 OZ (2500 G) DRAINED WT 3 LBS 6 OZ (1550G), Can, 6 cans per case, Store in dry conditions." Identifying codes listed are: P: 25/06/2026 BN: 186/2A E: 24/06/2028 Q.A NG. The quantity is given as — roughly 5,800 pounds, a figure calculated here from the unit count and pack size rather than stated by the agency. The record says the product was distributed to New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Connecticut. The FDA classified the action . Under the agency's own definitions, is the middle category, used where a product may cause temporary or medically reversible harm and where the chance of serious harm is remote. Background research on the product, which is not part of the recall record and says nothing about this recall, describes artichoke hearts as the trimmed tender inner portion of the unopened immature flower head of the globe artichoke (Cynara cardunculus, Scolymus Group), a large thistle in the daisy family grown commercially in the United States chiefly in coastal California, according to Oregon State University's Oregon Vegetables guide, the NC State Extension Gardener Plant Toolbox, University of California Agriculture and Natural Resources and the Missouri Botanical Garden Plant Finder. In this product the hearts are quartered and packed cooked in liquid in a sealed, shelf-stable can, which is why the label carries both a gross weight and a smaller drained weight. A can of this size, sold six to a case, is foodservice packaging rather than a household grocery unit; the direct holders would typically be restaurants, caterers, delis, cafeterias and other institutional kitchens, as well as wholesale buyers, with the contents drained and used in salads, pastas, pizzas, dips and antipasti. The FDA's enforcement database lists one other action by this firm: a 29 July 2026 Class I recall of Fusia Asian Inspirations Kimchi & Tofu Kimbap, 8.1 OZ (230 g), for an undeclared fish allergen. That record is context only and says nothing about fault in this action.

Was this report accurate and useful?

Sources

Revision history

  1. Version 67 Aug 2026, 15:36current

    Added citations to the FDA enforcement record, the FDA recall classification definitions and the botanical/extension references underpinning the product background.

  2. Version 57 Aug 2026, 12:35

    Corrected the product-background attribution to the reference sources actually supplied (Oregon State, NC State Extension, UC ANR, Missouri Botanical Garden), removed unsupported citations and Mediterranean-cultivation detail, and added the source URLs for the FDA enforcement record and classification definition.

  3. Version 47 Aug 2026, 08:12

    Corrected attribution of the product background to the sources actually supplied (Britannica, Oregon State, NC State Extension, UMass Amherst), removed the unsourced California-cultivation claim, and added the source URLs.

  4. Version 37 Aug 2026, 03:03

    Corrected the botanical naming to Cynara cardunculus (Scolymus Group), attributed the product background to the named horticultural references, and added the source URLs for the FDA enforcement record, the Class II definition and the plant references.

  5. Version 26 Aug 2026, 22:43

    Added source URLs; tightened product-format description to match the background research and removed the unsupported cash-and-carry and 400 g details.

  6. Version 16 Aug 2026, 18:07

    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.