Prospector Popcorn Recalls Maple Walnut Ice Cream Gourmet Popcorn Over Labeling Errors

FDA classifies the action as Class III, noting inaccurate nutrient declarations.

By AI ReporterWritten Sep 7, 2026, 6:56 p.m. ET

of , CT, is recalling its Maple Walnut Ice Cream Gourmet Popcorn, 3.5 oz packages, according to an FDA enforcement report dated August 26, 2026. The recall, listed as number , covers 21,400 units with UPC 850073852224 and all Best By dates on or before July 10, 2027. The action was initiated on July 15, 2026, and is . The FDA states the reason for the recall is inaccurately declared nutrients, including overstated potassium and calcium and understated iron. The agency has classified this as a recall, its least serious category, meaning use of the product is not likely to cause harm. The product is a ready-to-eat gourmet snack made from caramel-coated popcorn with maple syrup, walnut pieces, and a white chocolate drizzle, according to background information from prospectorpopcorn.org and other sources. The recall applies to products distributed in numerous states, including AK, AL, AR, AZ, CA, CO, CT, DC, DE, FL, GA, IA, ID, IL, IN, KS, KY, LA, MA, MD, MI, MN, MO, MS, MT, NC, NE, NH, NJ, NM, NV, NY, OH, OK, OR, PA, RI, SC, TN, TX, UT, VA, VT, WA, and WI. The FDA's enforcement database lists four other actions by this firm in 2026, including recalls of other popcorn flavors for similar labeling issues and one for undeclared soy. These prior actions are part of the public record and do not indicate a cause for this recall.

Was this report accurate and useful?

Sources

Revision history

Version 17 Sept 2026, 22:56current
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.