Grand Central Bakery Recalls 517 Loaves After Pallet Nail Found in Bread
Food Safety News and Medical Daily both trace the recall to a pallet nail found in a Potato Sourdough loaf, but they describe the affected products, the hazard and the reported remedy differently.
4 reports on this incident · first at Aug 19, 2026, 1:15 a.m. ET
Earlier reports
Aug 19, 2026, 2:11 a.m. ET
Grand Central Bakery Recalls Potato Sourdough Bread Over Metal Nail Hazard
Grand Central Bakery distributed 517 loaves of potato sourdough bread on August 10 across the Seattle and Tacoma areas that are subject to a recall after a pallet nail was discovered in a loaf, according to Medical Daily. The recall is limited to that single production date, and no expansion has been announced.
The recall covers three products: the 20-ounce Potato Market Loaf sold in paper bags at grocery stores, the unpackaged 20-ounce Potato Table Loaf, and the unpackaged 12-ounce Mini Potato Loaf. The items were distributed to grocery stores, wholesalers, select restaurants, and four company cafes. According to Medical Daily, the FDA reported the foreign object as a hazard capable of causing traumatic injury or dental damage. Medical Daily reported that no injuries or illnesses have been reported.
Anyone who bought a potato sourdough loaf from the affected retailers or cafes on August 10 should throw it out rather than inspect it, according to Medical Daily. Refunds are available through the bakery's website contact page and through the retailer where the bread was purchased.
Aug 19, 2026, 1:56 a.m. ET
No Injuries Reported in Grand Central Bakery Potato Sourdough Recall
No injuries or illnesses have been reported following the recall of 517 potato sourdough loaves distributed on August 10, Medical Daily reported. The recall covers products from Grand Central Bakery that were distributed across the Seattle and Tacoma areas to grocery stores, wholesalers, select restaurants, and four company cafes.
The recall was initiated after a pallet nail was discovered in a loaf of Potato Sourdough Bread, according to Medical Daily. The Food and Drug Administration noted that the hazard is capable of causing traumatic injury or dental damage. The affected products include the 20-ounce Potato Market Loaf sold in paper bags at grocery stores, the unpackaged 20-ounce Potato Table Loaf, and the unpackaged 12-ounce Mini Potato Loaf.
Medical Daily reported that the recall remains limited to the single August 10 production date, with no expansion announced. Anyone who purchased a potato sourdough loaf from the specified retailers or cafes on August 10 should throw it out rather than inspect it. Refunds are available through the bakery's website contact page and through the retailer where the product was purchased.
Aug 19, 2026, 1:15 a.m. ETFirst report
Grand Central Bakery Recalls Potato Sourdough Bread Over Metal Nail Hazard
Grand Central Bakery is recalling 517 loaves of potato sourdough bread distributed in the Seattle and Tacoma areas, in a developing recall reported by Medical Daily. The FDA-reported recall was initiated after a pallet nail was discovered in a loaf "of Potato Sourdough Bread," posing a hazard capable of causing traumatic injury or dental damage. According to Medical Daily, no injuries or illnesses have been reported.
How to identify the recalled bread. The notice gives one identifying detail, and readers checking bread at home should match against it exactly as written:
- Distributed on a single day, August 10
There is no lot number or other code beyond that date. The recall covers three products: the Potato Market Loaf, a 20-ounce loaf sold in paper bags at grocery stores; the Potato Table Loaf, a 20-ounce loaf sold unpackaged; and the 12-ounce Mini Potato Loaf, sold unpackaged. These items were sold across the Seattle and Tacoma areas to grocery stores, wholesalers, select restaurants, and four company cafes.
Medical Daily reported that the recall is limited to one production date, and no expansion has been announced.
What to do. Anyone who bought a potato sourdough loaf from one of these retailers or cafes on August 10 should throw it out rather than inspect it. Refunds are available through the bakery's website contact page and through the retailer where the bread was purchased.
Was this report accurate and useful?
Sources
Revision history
- Version 219 Aug 2026, 07:24current
Rewrote the remedy passage so both sourced variants are reported in the third person as guidance described by each outlet, removing the directive phrasings ("should dispose of them," "should throw it out") that read as the story instructing readers; no remedy content was dropped \u2014 disposal, the do-not-inspect wording, and the two refund routes remain attributed to their outlets. Split the single dense middle paragraphs into separate product, distribution, cause, hazard and injury sections so each CONFLICT is presented as a sourced range naming both outlets without one being chosen. Kept all figures and dates exactly as given (517 loaves, single day August 10, 20-ounce, 12-ounce, report date August 18, 2026) and retained the FDA attribution to Medical Daily. Headline and dek revised to carry the quantity and to signal the source disagreement rather than assert a single product description.
- Version 119 Aug 2026, 06:11current
First published.
- Version 119 Aug 2026, 05:15current
First published.
- Version 119 Aug 2026, 05:56current
First published.
- Version 119 Aug 2026, 05:53
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.