Over 5,000 lbs. of cheese recalled by FDA due to contamination concerns of 'serious and sometimes fatal' bacteria
More than 5,000 pounds of cheese products made by Middlefield Original Cheese Co‑op are being voluntarily recalled after the company discovered contamination by potentially deadly bacteria, according to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
The bacteria in question, Listeria monocytogenes, can cause serious or even fatal infections if ingested — especially in young children, pregnant individuals, the elderly and those with weakened immune systems.
Here's what you need to know about the recall.
Which products were affected?
The recalled cheeses were produced on June 16, 2025, June 24, 2025 and July 16, 2025, and sold in retail stores across the state of Ohio between July 14 and August 7, 2025.
There are four different items to look out for:
Middlefield Original Cheese Co-op 100% Grass-Fed Pepper Jack Cheese: 8 oz. packages, 5 Lb. loaves and 40 Lb. loaves with Lot Code 251661
Copia Collective 100% Grass-Fed Pepper Jack Cheese: 8 oz. packages with Lot Code 251661
Middlefield Original Cheese Co-op Horseradish Flavored Cheese: 8 oz. packages with Lot Code 2524061
Middlefield Original Cheese Co-op Monterey Jack Cheese: 8 oz. packages and 5 lb blocks with Lot Code 251672 and 40 lb. blocks with dates Coded as 7-16-25B
Farmers Cheese: 8 oz. packages and 5 lb blocks with Lot Code 251672 and 40 lb. blocks with dates coded as 7-16-25B
Has anyone gotten sick yet?
So far, no illnesses have been reported in connection with this recall, according to Middlefield.
If exposed, how worried should you be?
According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Listeria infection is 'rare, but serious.' The agency estimates that each year in the U.S., 1,600 people are infected with Listeria and 260 die from the infection.
Even healthy people may experience short-term symptoms like high fever, severe headache, stiffness, nausea, abdominal pain and diarrhea; infections during pregnancy may lead to miscarriage or stillbirth.
Treatment depends on severity. 'Most people recover from an intestinal illness without antibiotic treatment,' according to the CDC. 'Antibiotics are needed only for patients who are very ill or at risk of becoming very ill.'
What should you do if you bought the recalled product?
Discard it or return it to the place of purchase during normal business hours for a full refund.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Medscape
27 minutes ago
- Medscape
Smartwatches Won't Fix the Burnout Crisis in Medicine
This transcript has been edited for clarity. Welcome to Impact Factor , your weekly dose of commentary on a new medical study. I'm Dr F. Perry Wilson from the Yale School of Medicine. Burnout is a huge problem across multiple professions in the United States. Grades K-12 teachers have about a 50% burnout rate. So do people in quality assurance. But I was unable to find a profession with a higher rate of burnout, or a higher potential for harm from burnout, than — you guessed it — physicians. A 2022 survey found that 63% of physicians had burnout, rates that have been among the highest of all US workers since 2011. And this is a huge problem. When docs are burned out, they are more likely to commit medical errors, be named in malpractice suits, and even exhibit racial biases. Administrators of health systems have taken notice. But their solutions have often been criticized as tone-deaf. 'Mandatory burnout workshops' are not helping anyone's burnout, I promise you. So I was a bit concerned by a study that came out this week that offered a relatively simple solution to what is a really complex problem. Can you actually cut burnout in half by giving physicians a smartwatch? Before we dig into the study, let's talk about burnout a little bit. I think there's sort of a Potter Stewart definition of burnout: 'I know it when I see it.' But the real description comes from Christina Maslach, who characterized it as a psychological syndrome brought about by chronic occupational stress characterized by emotional exhaustion, depersonalization or cynicism, and a reduced sense of personal accomplishment. Sound familiar? I know. It's not uncommon. And it goes without saying that depersonalization and cynicism are just terrible traits to have in a doctor. It's not just workload that leads to burnout, according to most psychologists; it's this combination of workload and a feeling that you don't have autonomy. That you are not the master of your fate or the captain of your soul. Big issues. So how is a smartwatch supposed to help? Well, the idea isn't crazy. Smartwatches are miniature biofeedback devices. They tell you about your heart rate, your step count, how much you slept. Those little data points can lead to some real behavior change. This is anecdotal, but multiple people have told me they've cut back on drinking alcohol because they noticed that their smartwatch-reported sleep quality is worse on nights that they drink. Researchers at the Mayo Clinic and University of Colorado thought that maybe giving smartwatches to physicians would lead them to make small lifestyle changes, like getting more sleep, that would reduce this problem of burnout. Here's how the trial worked, as reported in JAMA Network Open . One hundred and eighty-four physicians — about half attendings, half residents and fellows, and about 60% female — were randomized to two groups. One group got a smartwatch, specifically the Venu 2 Plus from Garmin, to wear for 6 months. The other group got nothing. Well, to be fair, they got a smartwatch as well — just after a 6-month wait so the team would have 6 months of high-quality comparison data. At the beginning of the study and several times over those 6 months, the participants took surveys about their mental health: a resilience survey, a quality-of-life survey, a depression survey, a stress survey, a sleep survey and, importantly, a burnout survey. At baseline, 50% of people in the intervention arm were burned out and 43% were burned out in the control arm. After 6 months, burnout dropped to 41% in the intervention arm and rose to 51% in the control arm. The difference here was not technically statistically significant, but after accounting for the fact that burnout was higher at baseline in the intervention group, the team concluded that the odds of burnout were about 50% lower after 6 months of the smartwatch intervention. I know statistics can get confusing in situations like this. I think sometimes it helps just to look at the graph and make your own judgment: Burnout down a bit with a smartwatch, up a bit without a smartwatch. Fine. There was also about a 20% improvement in resilience scores, while there were no differences in quality of life, depression, or stress scores. So… is that it? Have we solved this problem plaguing all of healthcare and multiple other industries across the United States? Smartwatches? My fear is that some C-suite execs will look at this study and think they can cut burnout rates in half by sending a bunch of smartwatches around. Maybe it seems obvious to you that it wouldn't actually work, but let's break down a bit how the results of this study may be somewhat skewed. The most important thing to note is that this study was not blinded. The people in the smartwatch group knew they were in the smartwatch group because… they were wearing the smartwatch. It's hard to imagine a way to blind this study, to be fair, although I suppose you could give everyone a smartwatch but half the people get fake data or something. But once you know that you are in the intervention group, biases in your answers creep in. Just imagine you're in the study. At baseline, you take these surveys, then they give you a smartwatch, and 6 months later you take a bunch of surveys again. Maybe you skew your answers a bit, even unconsciously, because you like the people running the study or science in general, or maybe even smartwatches. The authors acknowledge this but minimize it, suggesting that if this 'social desirability bias' was present, it should improve scores across all the surveys. I mean, okay, but to be honest, the score differences are pretty marginal across the board, so I don't find that argument very compelling. The real issue here is that this study puts the locus of control in the wrong place, as many burnout interventions do. It puts the responsibility for burnout on the shoulders of the burned-out physicians. It suggests we can tolerate our jobs better if we just change our outlook: Sleep more, meditate more, live in the moment, do tai chi, etc. But I would argue that the problem with burnout is not in the mind of the physician; the problem is the system in which we work. More than 75% of physicians in the United States today are employed by hospitals, health systems, or other corporate entities. The private-practice model is rapidly dying and the physician workforce is learning what it means to be labor instead of management. They are feeling what it is like to be exploited, for lack of a better word — pushed to see more patients in less time, pushed to generate more RVUs, pushed to work weekends and nights to increase margins. It's not what they signed up for. The problem of burnout is from the system. If you want to cut rates in half, you don't send docs a smartwatch. You give them more time to see fewer patients. You change the insurance system that leaves us on the phone arguing for prior authorization for hours at a time. And if that affects the bottom line of the health system, you look for cuts in the — and this is true — 10 administrators for each physician in the US. Look, I love my smartwatch. It helps me delete emails while I'm waiting for the elevator. But the solution to physician burnout is not here. It's out there.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
TNF Pharmaceuticals Strengthens Financial Position for Growth and Value Creation
Transforms present balance sheet with significant reduction in liabilities Largest shareholder is long-term strategic investor NEW YORK, August 19, 2025--(BUSINESS WIRE)--TNF Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Nasdaq: TNFA) ("TNF" or the "Company"), a clinical stage biopharmaceutical company committed to developing novel therapies for autoimmune and inflammatory conditions, today announced that is has significantly improved its financial position over the past 5 months through a material reduction in liabilities, while maintaining total assets of over $17 million as of June 30, 2025. "The recent significant improvement in our financial position gives TNF a stronger platform for growth opportunities and taking advantage of shareholder value creation opportunities," said TNF President and Chief Medical Officer, Mitchell Glass, M.D. "We are pleased to have the continued support of our largest investors, and look forward to updating investors on TNF's business developments in the near future, including our ongoing collaboration with Renova on GLP-induced inflammation and muscle damage." The improvements in the Company's financial position will be reflected in future financial statements of the Company. About TNF Pharmaceuticals, Inc. TNF Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Nasdaq: TNFA), a clinical stage pharmaceutical company committed to extending healthy lifespan, is focused on developing two novel therapeutic platforms that treat the causes of disease rather than only addressing the symptoms. Isomyosamine is a drug platform based on a clinical stage small molecule that regulates the immune system to control TNF-α, which drives chronic inflammation, and other pro-inflammatory cell signaling cytokines. Isomyosamine is being developed to treat diseases and disorders marked by acute or chronic inflammation. The Company's second drug platform, Supera-CBD, is being developed to treat chronic pain, addiction and epilepsy. Supera-CBD is a novel synthetic derivative of cannabidiol (CBD) and is being developed to address and improve upon the rapidly growing CBD market, which includes both FDA approved drugs and CBD products not currently regulated as drugs. For more information, visit Cautionary Statement Regarding Forward-Looking Statements This press release may contain forward-looking statements. These forward-looking statements involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors which may cause actual results, performance or achievements to be materially different from any expected future results, performance, or achievements. Forward-looking statements speak only as of the date they are made and neither the Company nor its affiliates assume any duty to update forward-looking statements. Words such as "anticipate," "believe," "could," "estimate," "expect," "may," "plan," "will," "would'' and other similar expressions are intended to identify these forward-looking statements. Important factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those indicated by such forward-looking statements include, without limitation: unanticipated financial setbacks, the Company needing to pursue financing options that could adversely impact our liabilities due to adverse market conditions, the Company's ability to maintain compliance with the Nasdaq Stock Market's listing standards; the timing of, and the Company's ability to, obtain and maintain regulatory approvals for clinical trials of the Company's pharmaceutical candidates; the timing and results of the Company's planned clinical trials for its pharmaceutical candidates; the amount of funds the Company requires for its pharmaceutical candidates; increased levels of competition; changes in political, economic or regulatory conditions generally and in the markets in which the Company operates; the Company's ability to retain and attract senior management and other key employees; the Company's ability to quickly and effectively respond to new technological developments; and the Company's ability to protect its trade secrets or other proprietary rights, operate without infringing upon the proprietary rights of others and prevent others from infringing on the Company's proprietary rights. A discussion of these and other factors with respect to the Company is set forth in the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2024, filed by the Company on April 11, 2025, and subsequent reports that the Company files with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Forward-looking statements speak only as of the date they are made, and the Company disclaims any intention or obligation to revise any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise. View source version on Contacts Investor Contact: Sign in to access your portfolio
Axios
an hour ago
- Axios
Potentially radioactive shrimp recalled at Walmarts in a dozen states
The Food and Drug Administration warned Tuesday against eating certain brands of shrimp because they might be, uh, radioactive. Why it matters: This is not your chance to develop amazing crustacean-based superpowers. Any prolonged exposure to radiation could cause sickness or even death. Driving the news: The FDA said Tuesday that certain types of Great Value raw frozen shrimp sold at Walmart may be contaminated with Cesium-137, a radioactive isotope. U.S. Customs and Border Protection initially told the FDA that Cesium-137 had been detected in containers at four different U.S. ports, the FDA said. The FDA then found the isotope in one sample of breaded shrimp. Indonesia's BMS Foods allegedly violated the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, the FDA said, because the product "appears to have been prepared, packed, or held under insanitary conditions whereby it may have become contaminated with Cs-137 and may pose a safety concern." Yes, but: No shrimp that tested positive for the radioactive isotope have entered the U.S. commerce supply, according to the FDA. All products from BMS are banned "from coming into the U.S. until the firm has resolved the conditions that gave rise to the appearance of the violation," the FDA said. Worth noting: The FDA oversees safety of both domestic and imported seafood. The agency seeks out any immediate or potential threats when assessing products for safety. Which Walmart shrimp products are radioactive? Zoom in: The FDA shared three Great Value products that should not be shared, eaten or served to others: Great Value brand frozen raw shrimp, lot code: 8005540-1, Best by Date: March 15, 2027 Great Value brand frozen raw shrimp, lot code: 8005538-1, Best by Date: March 15, 2027 Great Value brand frozen raw shrimp, lot code: 8005539-1, Best by Date: March 15, 2027 Context: These were sold at stores in Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri, Mississippi, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Texas and West Virginia, according to the FDA. Walmart told Axios in an email Tuesday that it recalled the product from impacted stores and customers who purchased the shrimp are eligible for a full refund. "The health and safety of our customers is always a top priority," Kelly Hellbusch, a Walmart spokesperson, said in a statement. "We have issued a sales restriction and removed this product from our impacted stores. We are working with the supplier to investigate." Symptoms of radiation from shrimp, Cesium-137 The FDA said the amount of Cesium-137 found in the shipment was low enough that it "would not pose an acute hazard to consumers." However, the warning "is a measure intended to reduce exposure to low-level radiation that could have health impacts with continued exposure over a long period of time," the FDA said. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, ingesting Cesium-137 can increase the risk of cancer. What to do with recalled Walmart shrimp
