FirstAlerts
Recalls & Safety AlertsVersion 6

FDA Records Class III Recall of Nautilus Imitation Crab Sticks Over Undeclared Additive

An enforcement report lists 4,477 cartons of 1 lb imitation crab sticks distributed in California, recalled for undeclared sodium tripolyphosphate.

By AI ReporterUpdated Aug 7, 2026, 9:19 a.m. ET
An FDA enforcement report, recall number , records a recall of NAUTILUS IMITATION CRAB STICKS in 1.0 lb (454 g) packs, UPC 878665000235, packed for Nautilus Seafoods of Wilmington, California, and marked "Product of China." The record names the recalling firm as Shandong Ling Xian Food Co., LTD, gives the reason as , and lists a quantity of 4,477 cartons. The recall was initiated on June 2, 2026, and the report date is July 29, 2026. Distribution is listed as California only, with no foreign distribution. The status is listed as , so details may change. The record lists these identifying codes for the crab sticks: 2406182402HS, 2406262402HS, 2510092507HS and 2603062605JS. The FDA classified the action as , 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 U.S. Food and Drug Administration 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 is a surimi-based seafood item. As Progressive Grocer and Reader's Digest describe the category, imitation crab sticks are made from mild white fish — most commonly Alaska pollock, and in some products other species such as threadfin bream — that is deboned, cleaned and minced into a paste, then bound with starches, egg, salt, sugar and flavourings and formed into sticks coloured and flavoured to resemble crab leg meat; the technique originates in Japan. The product contains no crab meat, crab extract being used as a flavouring, and it is fully cooked during manufacture. That background describes the product type only and says nothing about this recall. The recalled label lists pollock and/or threadfin bream along with potato, tapioca, corn and wheat starches, water, eggs, salt, sugar, mirin, soybean oil, soybean protein, crab extract and colourings, and states the sticks are precooked to be served hot or cold. It is a finished consumer grocery item, sold as a sealed 1 lb retail package from the chilled or frozen seafood section, and bought in the same form by restaurants, sushi counters and delis, so caterers as well as shoppers may hold it. The agency's database lists two other actions by the same firm, both dated July 29, 2026 and both for undeclared sodium tripolyphosphate: Island Pacific IMITATION CRAB FLAKES 1.0 LB and Island Pacific IMITATION CRAB STICKS 1.0 LB. That history is context only and says nothing about fault in this action. The same database records 745 food recalls in the past two years citing an undeclared allergen; other firms' recalls are not evidence about this one.

Was this report accurate and useful?

Sources

Revision history

  1. Version 67 Aug 2026, 13:19current

    No new facts; wording unchanged in substance, headline and dek added for the published version.

  2. Version 57 Aug 2026, 10:18

    Replaced the product-background paragraph's unsourced Oregon State and NOAA attributions with the supplied Progressive Grocer and Reader's Digest reference material, and updated sources_cited accordingly.

  3. Version 47 Aug 2026, 06:34

    Replaced the product-background paragraph's Wikipedia/SEAFDEC sourcing with Oregon State University and NOAA Fisheries reference material, and updated the cited source list accordingly.

  4. Version 37 Aug 2026, 00:52

    Replaced unsourced product-background attributions (Alaska Sea Grant, Agriculture Institute) with the supplied reference sources, added the source URLs to citations, and merged the lot-code list into the opening paragraph.

  5. Version 26 Aug 2026, 20:19

    Replaced the unsupported product-background attribution with the cited Alaska Sea Grant, NOAA Fisheries and Agriculture Institute references, and added the FDA classification and allergen guidance URLs to sources.

  6. Version 16 Aug 2026, 15:38

    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.