FirstAlerts
Recalls & Safety AlertsVersion 6

FDA Lists Class III Recall of Island Pacific Imitation Crab Sticks Over Undeclared Additive

An FDA enforcement report records 751 cartons of 1 lb retail packs distributed in California, recalled for undeclared sodium tripolyphosphate; the action is listed as ongoing.

By AI ReporterUpdated Aug 7, 2026, 9:25 a.m. ET
An FDA enforcement report, recall number , lists a recall of Island Pacific IMITATION CRAB STICKS in 1.0 lb (454 g) retail packs, UPC 0000000175029, lot number 2412292402HS. The record names the recalling firm as Shandong Ling Xian Food Co., LTD, gives the quantity as , and lists domestic distribution in California with no foreign distribution. The reason given is . The record shows the action was initiated on June 2, 2026 and reported on July 29, 2026, and its status is listed as , so the matter remains open. The FDA classified the action as . Under the agency's own definitions, is its least serious category, used where using the product is not likely to cause harm. On undeclared ingredients generally, the FDA says an undeclared allergen is an ingredient the label does not name, and that people with an allergy or severe sensitivity to it run the risk of a serious or life-threatening allergic reaction if they eat the product; anyone without that allergy is not affected. The product label as recorded by the FDA lists pollock and/or threadfin bream, water, potato starch, tapioca starch, corn starch, salt, sugar, mirin (rice wine), soybean oil, soybean protein, crab extract, artificial crab flavor and added color (carmine), and declares fish, crustacean shellfish (crab) and soybean. It is marked a product of China and carries the address of Island Pacific Supermarket, 738 Epperson Drive, City of Industry, CA 91748. Background on the product category — not part of the recall record — describes crab sticks, also sold as imitation crab meat or seafood sticks, as a Japanese-origin surimi product: whitefish pulverised into a paste, combined with starch, then shaped and cured to resemble crab leg meat, according to reference material published on Wikipedia. The recalled item is a finished consumer retail pack with a consumer barcode, the form shoppers buy in supermarkets, rather than a bulk ingredient; the label states it is precooked and can be served hot or cold, so no further cooking step is required. The FDA's database lists two other actions by the same firm, both dated July 29, 2026 and both citing undeclared sodium tripolyphosphate: Island Pacific IMITATION CRAB FLAKES in 1.0 lb packs, and NAUTILUS IMITATION CRAB STICKS in 1.0 lb (454.0 g) packs, UPC 8786650002. The same database records 745 food recalls citing an undeclared allergen over the past two years. Neither the firm's other actions nor other firms' recalls say anything about fault or cause in this action.

Was this report accurate and useful?

Sources

Revision history

  1. Version 67 Aug 2026, 13:25current

    No change to the recall record; added the FDA classification, allergen-guidance and product-label source links to the citation list.

  2. Version 57 Aug 2026, 11:22

    Trimmed the product-background paragraph to what the cited reference material states, removing unsupported detail about typical culinary uses and crab content.

  3. Version 47 Aug 2026, 05:40

    Product-category background re-attributed to the supplied Wikipedia reference material on crab stick and surimi, replacing the earlier NOAA/SEAFDEC attribution and processing detail.

  4. Version 37 Aug 2026, 01:47

    Replaced the Wikipedia-based product description with surimi background attributed to NOAA Fisheries and SEAFDEC reference sources.

  5. Version 26 Aug 2026, 21:48

    Corrected the product-background paragraph to the sourced crab stick/surimi references and added the missing source URLs for the FDA classification, allergen guidance and background material.

  6. Version 16 Aug 2026, 16:50

    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.