Hampton Grocer Expands Recall of Lacnola Lactation Granola
The expanded recall applies to any bag purchased between October 21, 2025, and August 12, 2026.
3 reports on this incident · first at Aug 18, 2026, 11:35 p.m. ET
Earlier reports
Aug 18, 2026, 11:53 p.m. ET
No Confirmed Illnesses Reported in Lacnola Lactation Granola Recall
No cases of illness have been confirmed yet in connection with Lacnola Lactation Granola sold between October 21, 2025, and August 12, 2026, according to the FDA as reported by New Republic.
The product, manufactured by Hampton Grocer, is a nationally sold granola brand primarily sold on Amazon. The identifying codes cover any bag bought during the period from October 21, 2025, to August 12, 2026.
According to New Republic, one of the ingredients in Lacnola Lactation Granola, moringa powder, tested positive for salmonella bacteria. Salmonella poisoning can cause diarrhea, nausea, vomiting, and severe cramping.
Aug 18, 2026, 11:35 p.m. ETFirst report
Hampton Grocer Lacnola Lactation Granola Under Scrutiny After Salmonella Test
In a developing situation, Hampton Grocer's Lacnola Lactation Granola is under scrutiny after an ingredient tested positive for salmonella bacteria, according to newrepublic.com citing the FDA. The affected products encompass any bag bought between October 21, 2025, and August 12, 2026.
The granola is sold nationally and primarily distributed on Amazon. According to newrepublic.com, moringa powder, an ingredient in the granola, tested positive for salmonella bacteria. Salmonella poisoning can cause diarrhea, nausea and vomiting, and severe cramping.
No cases have been confirmed yet, newrepublic.com reported.
Was this report accurate and useful?
Sources
Revision history
- Version 119 Aug 2026, 03:54current
First published.
- Version 119 Aug 2026, 03:35current
First published.
- Version 119 Aug 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.