FDA Expands Recall of Baxter Sodium Chloride Injections Over Possible Fiberglass Contamination
The FDA has expanded a recall of certain sodium chloride injections distributed across 14 states due to possible fiberglass contamination.
3 reports on this incident · first at Aug 27, 2026, 3:16 p.m. ET
Earlier reports
Aug 27, 2026, 3:21 p.m. ET
FDA Reports Injuries in Baxter Sodium Chloride Injection Recall
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has received reports of injuries or illnesses associated with Baxter International's recalled sodium chloride injections, according to WNDU. The agency had previously announced the recall of certain lots due to possible fiberglass contamination.
The recall covers products distributed in Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Louisiana, Maryland, Missouri, North Carolina, New Jersey, Nevada, New York, Ohio, South Carolina, Texas and Virginia. The affected lots are identified by codes Y495523 and Y495523A.
The FDA advises consumers to stop using the affected product immediately and to report any adverse effects through the agency's MedWatch reporting program. The agency has not specified the nature or severity of the reported injuries or illnesses.
Aug 27, 2026, 3:16 p.m. ETFirst report
Sodium Chloride Injections Recalled Over Possible Fiberglass Contamination
Baxter International is recalling certain sodium chloride injections that may be contaminated with fiberglass, according to a report from WNDU.com. The recall affects product codes Y495523 and Y495523A, distributed in Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Louisiana, Maryland, Missouri, North Carolina, New Jersey, Nevada, New York, Ohio, South Carolina, Texas and Virginia.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced the recall, advising consumers to stop using the affected product immediately and to report any adverse effects through the FDA's MedWatch reporting program. As of the report, no injuries or illnesses had been reported.
The recall was reported on August 27, 2026.
Was this report accurate and useful?
Sources
Revision history
- Version 127 Aug 2026, 19:22current
First published.
- Version 127 Aug 2026, 19:16current
First published.
- Version 127 Aug 2026, 19:21current
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.