Jaime's Spanish Village Jalapeno Ranch Dressing Recalled Over Undeclared Eggs
The FDA announced a recall of Jaime's Spanish Village Jalapeno Ranch dressing due to undeclared eggs, posing a risk of serious allergic reactions.
3 reports on this incident · first at Aug 26, 2026, 9:36 p.m. ET
Earlier reports
Aug 26, 2026, 9:54 p.m. ET
Jaime’s Spanish Village Jalapeno Ranch Dressing Recall Expanded Over Undeclared Eggs
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has expanded a recall of Jaime’s Spanish Village Jalapeno Ranch dressing because it contains undeclared eggs, a serious or life-threatening allergen, according to a report from Food Safety News. The recall now includes UPC #199284564923 and lot codes 69, 86, 108, 113, 116, and 121. The dressing is packed in 16 oz (45.5g) glass jars and was distributed at Central Market retail stores in Texas and local independent retailers in Austin. No illnesses have been reported to date, the report said.
Aug 26, 2026, 9:36 p.m. ETFirst report
Jalapeno Ranch Dressing Recalled Due to Undeclared Eggs
Jaime’s Foods ATX is recalling Jaime’s Spanish Village Jalapeno Ranch dressing because it contains undeclared eggs, which could cause serious or life-threatening allergic reactions in people with egg allergies, according to a report from Food Safety News. The recall was reported on August 26, 2026.
The product is packed in 16 oz (45.5g) glass jars and was distributed to Central Market retail stores in Texas and local independent retailers in Austin. The recalled jars carry UPC #199284564923 and lot codes 69, 86, 108, 113, 116, and 121. No illnesses have been reported to date, according to Food Safety News.
Was this report accurate and useful?
Sources
- Jalapeno ranch dip recalled because of undeclared eggsfoodsafetynews.com
- Austin Made Jalapeno Ranch Dressing Recalled from Texas Stores After Eggs Were Left Off the Labelmedicaldaily.com
- Austin Made Jalapeno Ranch Dressing Sold Since April Is Recalled Because Eggs Never Appeared on the Labelmedicaldaily.com
Revision history
- Version 227 Aug 2026, 11:46current
Corrected to state no illnesses have been reported, and clarified conflicting details between sources.
- Version 127 Aug 2026, 01:54current
First published.
- Version 127 Aug 2026, 01:36current
First published.
- Version 127 Aug 2026, 01:53
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.