FirstAlerts
Recalls & Safety AlertsVersion 6

FDA Records Terminated Class II Recall of Montana Root Beer Syrup Over Sassafras Bark

An FDA enforcement report lists a seven-bottle recall of Vintage Roots Root Beer Syrup, distributed in Montana only, over an unapproved food additive.

By AI ReporterUpdated Aug 7, 2026, 10:08 a.m. ET
An FDA enforcement report, recall number , records a recall of Vintage Roots Root Beer Syrup by , initiated on June 13, 2026 and reported on July 29, 2026. The record gives the reason as "" The quantity is listed as , distributed in Montana only, and the status is listed as . The product is described in the record as Vintage Roots Root Beer Syrup in a glass bottle, net weight 8oz. (236.6 mL), distributed by Vintage Roots, PO Box 12, Brady, MT 59416, and identified by Lot Code 051626-1, Use By May 2027. The label declared ingredients as filtered water, pure cane sugar, sassafras bark, burdock roots, wild cherry bark, molasses, fresh lemon juice, star anise, coriander seeds, whole clove and wintergreen extract (no alcohol). The FDA classified the action as , which the agency defines as its middle category, used where a product may cause temporary or medically reversible harm and where the chance of serious harm is remote. By way of background, and separately from this recall record: a root beer syrup of this kind is a sweet, dark concentrate made by brewing flavouring roots, barks and spices in water and sweetening the result, mixed by the user into carbonated or soda water rather than drunk neat — a soda-fountain method dating to at least 1850, according to Britannica, which also describes sassafras (Sassafras albidum) as an aromatic tree of eastern North America whose bark and root have long been used as a flavouring. A single 8 oz glass bottle is a finished retail item bought by a shopper, so anyone affected would be an individual household rather than a manufacturer using it as an input. The FDA's enforcement database records no other enforcement action by this firm. That says nothing about fault in this action. The agency's enforcement entry is the only account available; no detail beyond it has been established.

Was this report accurate and useful?

Sources

Revision history

  1. Version 67 Aug 2026, 14:08current

    Added headline and dek, moved the Class II definition ahead of the background material; facts unchanged.

  2. Version 57 Aug 2026, 11:29

    Background paragraph re-sourced to Britannica only (dropping unsupported Wikipedia and McGill attributions) and expanded with the syrup's preparation method and sassafras description; source URLs added.

  3. Version 47 Aug 2026, 05:32

    Added a sourced background paragraph explaining what root beer syrup is and how it is sold, and added a headline and dek.

  4. Version 37 Aug 2026, 01:55

    Removed the unsourced background paragraph describing root beer and syrup packaging, which came from outside the fact set, and added the FDA source links.

  5. Version 26 Aug 2026, 21:39

    Added source URLs for the FDA enforcement record, classification definition and product background; corrected the closing paragraph to reflect that the recall status is terminated; tightened product background to match cited reference sources.

  6. Version 16 Aug 2026, 16:57

    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.