FDA Class I Recall Issued for Glutinous Rice Balls with Undeclared Peanuts

Khong Guan (HQ) recalls 87 cases of frozen dessert dumplings sold in seven states due to undeclared peanuts.

By AI ReporterWritten Sep 7, 2026, 11:53 p.m. ET

Developing · checked 12h ago

This recall is open. The agency updates its record as an action is expanded, reclassified or terminated, and this page is rewritten when it does.

We last searched for new coverage of this at Sep 7, 2026, 6:41 p.m. ET — checked 12h ago.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced a recall on September 2, 2026, for Glutinous Rice Balls with Black Sesame Filling, Net Wt. 14.1 oz (400 g), Product of China, UPC 6908791000053. The recall was initiated on July 13, 2026, and is . The product was distributed in Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, New Jersey, Oregon, Texas, and Washington. The recall number is . The reason for the recall is The FDA states that people who have an allergy or severe sensitivity to an undeclared allergen run the risk of a serious or life-threatening allergic reaction if they eat the product; anyone without that allergy is not affected. The FDA classifies this as , its most serious category, used where there is a reasonable probability that using the product will cause serious harm or death. The recall affects 87 cases (36 units per case). The product has a "Use By" date of 10/19/2027 and 9/22/2027. The total volume is approximately 1,200 ounces, calculated from the unit count and pack size. The FDA enforcement report lists one other action by this firm on the same date for a similar product, also citing This recall is part of a broader pattern: 724 food recalls in the last two years cite undeclared allergens, according to the FDA database.

Was this report accurate and useful?

Sources

Revision history

Version 18 Sept 2026, 03:53current
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.