FirstAlerts
Recalls & Safety AlertsVersion 8

FDA Lists Class II Recall of Liquid Hope Berry Medley Feeding Formula for Subpotent Vitamin A

The agency's enforcement record for recall H-1152-2026 says a testing laboratory used the wrong method, overstating the vitamin A concentration in the Nutricia North America product.

By AI ReporterUpdated Aug 7, 2026, 9:18 a.m. ET
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration's enforcement record lists a recall of Functional Formularies Liquid Hope Organic Whole Foods Meal Replacement Peptide Formula, Berry Medley, net wt. 12 oz (341g), recalled by . The record carries recall number , an initiation date of May 26, 2026, and a report date of July 22, 2026. The status is listed as . The FDA defines as its middle category, used where a product may cause temporary or medically reversible harm and where the chance of serious harm is remote. According to the FDA record, the reason for the recall is that the product is subpotent for Vitamin A. The record states that the firm discovered the testing laboratory used the wrong method when testing for Vitamin A, and that the test results gave a higher concentration of vitamin A than what is actually in the product. The affected product is identified in the record by case UPC 8 57858 00453 3 and package UPC 8 57858 00450 2, covering 24-count cases with best-if-used-by dates up to and including March 15, 2028, and 12-count packages with best-if-used-by dates up to and including October 7, 2027. The quantity is listed as 1,363cs/12/12oz pouches plus 16,298cs/24/12oz pouches. The record states the product was shipped to AK, AL, AR, AZ, CA, CO, CT, Washington DC, DE, FL, GA, HI, IA, ID, IL, IN, KS, KY, LA, MA, MD, ME, MI, MN, MO, MS, MT, NC, ND, NE, NH, NJ, NM, NV, OH, OK, OR, PA, RI, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VA, VT, WA, WI and WV, and also to Canada and Australia. Liquid Hope is a ready-to-use, shelf-stable liquid feeding formula made by blending and pureeing whole plant foods, the type of product clinical literature calls a "commercial blenderized formula" or food-based enteral formula, as distinct from home-made blends of table food or conventional synthetic formulas. Peer-reviewed studies of tube-fed patients list the brand among such commercially prepared plant-based blends and place its maker in Ohio. It is sold in single-serving pouches and is either run through a feeding tube — typically a gastrostomy tube, by pump, gravity or syringe — or drunk by mouth as a meal replacement. It is a finished consumer product bought by patients and caregivers through medical-supply and home-enteral-feeding channels and through online grocery retail, so the people holding it are generally end users at home and clinicians, not industrial processors. This background describes the product only and says nothing about the recall. The FDA's own recall database lists four other actions by this firm, all : a July 22, 2026 recall of Functional Formularies Nourish Organic Whole Foods Meal Replacement, also for subpotency for Vitamin A after the testing laboratory used the wrong method; a November 15, 2023 recall of "Nutricia KetcoCal 4:1 LQ Unflavored in 237ml (8fl oz)" in tetra packaging for incorrect product in packaging; a June 28, 2023 recall of TYR Anamix Early Years infant formula for undeclared tyrosine; and a January 17, 2018 recall of SHS Wel-Plan Wheat and Corn Starch Baking Mix. That history is context from the agency's database and says nothing about fault in this action. The recall remains open in the FDA's record, and no further details beyond those in the enforcement listing are available.

Was this report accurate and useful?

Sources

Revision history

  1. Version 87 Aug 2026, 13:18current

    Reordered so the recalled lot identifiers, quantity and distribution precede the product-background section; no facts added or changed.

  2. Version 77 Aug 2026, 12:28

    Added a sourced paragraph explaining what the product is and who typically uses it.

  3. Version 67 Aug 2026, 08:54

    Removed the paragraph describing the product's ingredients and packaging, which was not supported by the cited records, and restored the recall database's spelling of the 2023 KetcoCal entry.

  4. Version 57 Aug 2026, 03:14

    Added a paragraph describing what the product is and who buys it, sourced to the maker's product pages.

  5. Version 46 Aug 2026, 22:56current

    Removed the paragraph of outside product background not contained in the FDA enforcement record; story now rests solely on the agency listing.

  6. Version 36 Aug 2026, 18:35

    Added the FDA's definition of a Class II recall, a description of what the product is and who uses it, and the agency's listing of four other recall actions by the same firm.

  7. Version 25 Aug 2026, 21:48

    Added the record's July 22, 2026 date to the headline, dek and closing paragraph; corrected the order of the distribution list to match the FDA record.

  8. Version 15 Aug 2026, 21:45

    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.