Baxter Sodium Chloride Injection Recalled Over Possible Fiberglass Contamination
The FDA announced a recall of certain lots of 0.9% Sodium Chloride Injection due to potential fiberglass contamination; no injuries have been reported.
3 reports on this incident · first at Aug 27, 2026, 3:16 p.m. ET
Earlier reports
Aug 27, 2026, 3:22 p.m. ET
FDA Expands Recall of Baxter Sodium Chloride Injections Over Possible Fiberglass Contamination
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has expanded a recall of sodium chloride injections made by Baxter International, according to a report from WNDU. The injections may be contaminated with fiberglass, the FDA reported. No injuries or illnesses had been reported as of the report.
The recall now includes lot codes Y495523 and Y495523A, according to WNDU. The injections were distributed in Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Louisiana, Maryland, Missouri, North Carolina, New Jersey, Nevada, New York, Ohio, South Carolina, Texas and Virginia.
The FDA advises consumers to stop using the affected product immediately and to report any adverse effects through the FDA’s MedWatch reporting program.
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 228 Aug 2026, 20:11current
Corrected to state no injuries reported, added conflicting distribution and reason details, and removed unverified injury reports.
- Version 127 Aug 2026, 19:22current
First published.
- Version 127 Aug 2026, 19:16current
First published.
- Version 127 Aug 2026, 19:21
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.