FDA Closes Recall of Marketside Tomato Bisque Soup Kit Over Listeria Risk
The FDA has closed the recall of Marketside Tomato Bisque Soup Kit, originally initiated in August 2026 due to a presumptive positive test for Listeria monocytogenes.
2 reports on this incident · first at Sep 7, 2026, 7:12 p.m. ET
Earlier reports
Sep 7, 2026, 7:12 p.m. ETFirst report
Marketside Tomato Bisque Soup Kit Recalled Over Listeria Risk
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced a recall on September 2, 2026, for the Marketside Tomato Bisque Soup Kit, which contains tomato bisque with cheese croutons and white cheddar cheese. The recall, listed as number H-1271-2026, was initiated on August 11, 2026, and is ongoing. The product has a Best By/Use By date of 8/22/2026 and UPC 1 94346474004. Approximately 540 cases are affected, according to the FDA enforcement report.
The recall was issued because the product had a presumptive positive test result for Listeria monocytogenes. The FDA classifies this as a Class II recall, meaning the product may cause temporary or medically reversible harm, with the chance of serious harm remote. The FDA notes that Listeria monocytogenes can cause serious and sometimes fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly people, and others with weakened immune systems, and can cause miscarriage and stillbirth in pregnant women.
The product was distributed to Illinois, Nevada, New Mexico, California, Oklahoma, Texas, Pennsylvania, Ohio, North Carolina, New York, Georgia, and Arkansas. The recalling firm is Cuisine, Kettle, based in Savage, Maryland. The FDA's database records no other enforcement actions by this firm. The total volume is approximately 7,600 ounces, calculated from the unit count and pack size.
Was this report accurate and useful?
Sources
Revision history
- Version 17 Sept 2026, 23:12current
First published.
- Version 17 Sept 2026, 23:23current
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.