FirstAlerts
Recalls & Safety AlertsVersion 6

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

An FDA enforcement report records 751 cartons of 1 lb imitation crab flakes recalled in California for undeclared sodium tripolyphosphate; the action is listed as ongoing.

By AI ReporterUpdated Aug 7, 2026, 9:21 a.m. ET
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration's enforcement report, recall number , lists a recall of Island Pacific Imitation Crab Flakes in 1.0 lb (454 g) packages, UPC 0000000175012, for . The recalling firm is listed as Shandong Ling Xian Food Co., LTD. The record gives the quantity as , distributed in California, with no foreign distribution. The recall was initiated on and the report date is . The status is listed as , so details may change. The record lists the product code "Crab Flake: 2603062605JS" with expiration dates for both products of 17/06/2026, 25/06/2026, 08/10/2027 and 05/03/2028. The label recorded in the enforcement report describes the product as precooked, to be served hot or cold, a product of China, with an address for Island Pacific Supermarket at 738 Epperson Drive, City of Industry, CA 91748. The FDA classified the action , which the agency defines as its least serious category, used where use of the product is not likely to cause harm. On undeclared allergens 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, while anyone without that allergy is not affected. The product is "imitation crab" — not crab, but surimi. Background reference material from Wikipedia and KSHB describes the method: lean white fish is minced, washed and pulverized into a paste, then bound with starches, salt, sugar, mirin, soybean oil and soy protein and coloured and flavoured to resemble crab leg meat; such products are known as kanikama, crab sticks or seafood sticks. This label names pollock and/or threadfin bream, with potato, tapioca and corn starch, water, salt, sugar, mirin, soybean oil, soybean protein, crab extract and artificial crab flavour, and colour added (carmine). It is a finished 1 lb retail pack, fully cooked in manufacture and eaten cold or warmed through in seafood salads, sandwich and dip fillings, sushi rolls and soups, so the people holding it are ordinary shoppers rather than downstream food companies. The FDA's database lists two other actions by the same firm, both dated and both for undeclared sodium tripolyphosphate: Island Pacific Imitation Crab Sticks, 1.0 lb, and Nautilus Imitation Crab Sticks, 1.0 lb (454.0 g), UPC 8786650002. Across the agency's database, 745 food recalls in the last two years cite an undeclared allergen. That history is context from the agency's own records and says nothing about fault in this action.

Was this report accurate and useful?

Sources

Revision history

  1. Version 67 Aug 2026, 13:21current

    Added headline and standfirst and attached the source URLs for the FDA enforcement record, recall classification definition, allergen guidance and product background; recall details unchanged.

  2. Version 57 Aug 2026, 11:24

    Replaced unsourced surimi background with the supplied Wikipedia/KSHB reference material, added carmine colouring from the label, and corrected source attribution.

  3. Version 47 Aug 2026, 05:39

    Corrected the surimi background attribution to the sources actually supplied (Genuine Alaska Pollock Producers, Sustainable Sushi, Tasting Table) and added the source URLs.

  4. Version 37 Aug 2026, 01:50

    Replaced the unsourced Alaska Sea Grant/NOAA surimi description and production-ranking claims with the supplied food-industry sourcing, and added the corresponding source URLs.

  5. Version 26 Aug 2026, 21:46

    Replaced the unsourced Oregon State surimi description with the sourced Alaska Sea Grant/University of Alaska Fairbanks account and added the correct source URLs.

  6. Version 16 Aug 2026, 16:52

    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.