FDA Closes Recall of Hondashi Seasoning Over Unlabeled Fish Allergen
The agency has closed its enforcement action for Pack'n Fresh LLC's Hondashi seasoning, considering the recall carried out.
2 reports on this incident · first at Aug 19, 2026, 10:14 p.m. ET
Earlier reports
Aug 19, 2026, 10:14 p.m. ETFirst report
FDA Classifies Recall of Hondashi Seasoning Over Missing Fish Allergen Label
On August 12, 2026, the Food and Drug Administration published an enforcement report regarding an ongoing recall of seasoning from Grand Prairie, Texas-based Pack'n Fresh LLC.
According to FDA enforcement report recall number H-1194-2026, the firm initiated the recall on July 9, 2026. The affected product is "*Hondashi 0.25oz" seasoning packed in silver plastic/metallic pouches inside brown paperboard cartons containing 600 packets per carton. The carton label reads in part: "Hondashi 0.25oz600bags/ctn, Ingredients: salt, sodium glutamate, bonito, cornstarch, maltodextrin, water, flavored sodium nucleotide, glucose, soybean protein powder Allergen: Soybean, 1025 Ave S, Ste 150, Grand Prairie, TX 75050***". The recall covers 109,600 units—a total volume of about 27,400 ounces, calculated from the unit count and pack size—and was initiated because the allergen fish was missing from the contains statement.
The enforcement report notes the product was distributed in New Jersey and California, and the agency classified it as a Class II recall on August 12, 2026. According to the FDA, a Class II recall is used where exposure to a product may cause temporary or medically reversible adverse health consequences, or where the probability of serious adverse health consequences is remote. FDA enforcement records show no other recall history for Pack'n Fresh LLC.
Was this report accurate and useful?
Sources
Revision history
- Version 120 Aug 2026, 02:14current
First published.
- Version 120 Aug 2026, 02:23current
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.