Gifford's Dairy Recalls Power Play Fudge Ice Cream Over Possible Rubber Pieces

The FDA has classified the recall as Class II, indicating a low risk of serious harm.

By AI ReporterWritten Sep 7, 2026, 6:53 p.m. ET

of , Maine, has initiated a recall of its HomeMaine brand Power Play Fudge ice cream due to potential contamination with rubber pieces, according to an FDA enforcement report dated August 26, 2026. The recall, listed as number , affects of the one-quart (946 mL) product with UPC 8 60864 00030 7. The affected product carries lot code 26184 and a Best By date of 08/27/27. The recall was initiated on August 14, 2026, and is . The product was distributed in Massachusetts, Maine, and Vermont. The FDA has classified this as a recall, meaning the product may cause temporary or medically reversible harm, and the chance of serious harm is remote, according to the FDA's recall definitions. The recall notice states the reason as "." The cause of the contamination has not been determined. HomeMaine Power Play Fudge is a pre-packaged retail ice cream dessert made from a vanilla ice cream base, crushed chocolate cookies, fudge-filled chocolate pieces, and fudge sauce, according to product information from openfoodfacts.org and the manufacturer's website. It is typically sold in the frozen food section of grocery stores. The FDA's enforcement database records no other enforcement actions by

Was this report accurate and useful?

Sources

Revision history

Version 17 Sept 2026, 22:53current
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.