FirstAlerts
Recalls & Safety AlertsVersion 6

FDA Records Class I Recall of Modern Warrior Ready Dietary Supplement

An FDA enforcement report lists an ongoing nationwide recall of a 60-capsule supplement after agency analysis found unapproved ingredients.

By AI ReporterUpdated Aug 7, 2026, 9:25 a.m. ET
An FDA enforcement report, recall number , records an recall of "" by . The record gives the reason as: "" The recall was initiated on January 9, 2026, and reported in the enforcement report dated July 29, 2026. The status is listed as . The enforcement record classifies the action as . The FDA defines as its most serious category, used where there is a reasonable probability that using the product will cause serious harm or death. The record states the product was distributed to customers nationwide from April 2022 until December 8, 2025, and identifies affected product only by that distribution window — "Product distributed between April of 2022 until December 8th of 2025." The quantity is listed as unknown. Background descriptions published by the FDA, the Ohio Department of Health and the Virginia Department of Health cover the product's form and packaging only: capsules sold as 60 capsules in a black plastic bottle with a black screw-top lid and a black-and-gold tamper-evident seal, carrying a minimalist black-and-gold label. Those notices do not publish a list of the ingredients the product is made from, so its composition cannot be described from them. The same sources describe a Phoenix, Arizona-based operation in the United States. It is a finished consumer product rather than a bulk ingredient. Regulatory notices state it was sold directly to consumers online in 60-capsule bottles and distributed across the United States, so the people affected are individual buyers holding the bottle themselves rather than manufacturers purchasing an input material. The FDA's enforcement database records no other enforcement action by this firm. That history says nothing about fault in this action.

Was this report accurate and useful?

Sources

Revision history

  1. Version 67 Aug 2026, 13:25current

    Added headline and dek; source URLs for the enforcement record, state health notices and FDA classification definition now cited.

  2. Version 57 Aug 2026, 11:25

    Replaced unsourced label-detail description with the packaging and origin details actually supported by the FDA, Ohio and Virginia notices, added the Virginia notice as a source, and noted that those notices do not list the product's ingredients.

  3. Version 47 Aug 2026, 05:37

    Removed reference to a Virginia health department source not in the fact set, added the "Mental Clarity" label phrase, and specified the December 8, 2025 end of distribution.

  4. Version 37 Aug 2026, 01:51

    Replaced the generic supplement-category description with the FDA and state health department packaging descriptions, added the record's verbatim identifying-code wording, and attributed the distribution details to the named sources.

  5. Version 26 Aug 2026, 21:43

    Replaced unsupported state-notice packaging and Phoenix-brand details with sourced product background from FDA and NIH references, and added the enforcement report link.

  6. Version 16 Aug 2026, 16:55

    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.