FDA Lists Class I Recall of Bulk Organic Moringa Powder Over Salmonella
An FDA enforcement record shows Green Jeeva LLC recalled 2,490 kg of bulk Organic Moringa Powder after the ingredient tested positive for salmonella; the recall is listed as ongoing.
Was this report accurate and useful?
Sources
Revision history
- Version 117 Aug 2026, 15:28current
No new facts; headline and dek added, wording unchanged.
- Version 107 Aug 2026, 11:35
Removed the general moringa background paragraph and its outside references, which were not supported by the supplied fact set.
- Version 97 Aug 2026, 05:30
Replaced Kew/IUCN botanical sourcing with the PubMed Central references now in the fact set and retightened the product-background paragraph to the supplied wording.
- Version 87 Aug 2026, 01:59
Product-background paragraph rewritten to match the cited reference sources (Kew/IUCN cultivation range, CBI on bulk export trade and organic certification), removing unsupported details about origin processing and end uses; IUCN and CBI market-entry sources added.
- Version 76 Aug 2026, 21:35
Corrected the product background to match the reference sources (native range, uses, bulk-trade format), removed unsupported culinary detail, added dates for the other cited moringa recalls, and linked the FDA enforcement record and trade sources.
- Version 66 Aug 2026, 17:06
Added the FDA's definition of a Class I recall and corrected the moringa native-range description to match Kew's record.
- Version 56 Aug 2026, 13:35
Added background on what moringa powder is and why a 15 kg bulk bag reaches businesses rather than shoppers, with Kew and Feedipedia cited.
- Version 46 Aug 2026, 12:57
Added FDA description of salmonella illness and agency-database context on the firm's recall history and other salmonella recalls.
- Version 36 Aug 2026, 12:56
No new information; wording tightened and the unsupported "matter is developing" line removed.
- Version 25 Aug 2026, 21:49
No new facts; headline and dek added summarizing the FDA record, body unchanged.
- Version 15 Aug 2026, 21:44
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.