Nationwide Sweetener Recall Update As FDA Issues Risk Warning
Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content.
A recall of two sweetener products after a mislabeling error has been issued the second-highest risk warning by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
NuNaturals, Inc., based in Eugene, Oregon, initiated a voluntary recall for select lots of its Organic Pure Stevia and Pure Monk Fruit Sweetener on July 14. The FDA later issued a Class II risk classification for the recall on August 1.
Newsweek contacted NuNaturals, Inc. for comment by email outside of regular working hours.
A stock image shows a woman adding sweetener to a hot drink.
A stock image shows a woman adding sweetener to a hot drink.
GDA/AP
Why It Matters
A Class II risk classification—the second-highest of three classes—refers to a situation in which the "use of or exposure to a violative product may cause temporary or medically reversible adverse health consequences or where the probability of serious adverse health consequences is remote," according to the FDA.
Individuals with allergies to ragweed and related plants may also be sensitive to stevia, according to WebMD. While monk fruit allergies are rare, they are still possible.
Allergic reactions vary in severity from mild symptoms, such as hives and lip swelling, to life-threatening complications, such as anaphylaxis, that may include fatal respiratory problems.
What To Know
The products impacted by the recall are the following:
Pure Monk Fruit Sweetener - 78 bottles - UPC 7 39223 00187 6 - best-by: April 2028 - Lot number: 25104S
Organic Pure Stevia - 78 bottles - UPC 7 39223 00204 0 - best-by: April 2028 - Lot number: 25104S
The bottles labeled as Pure Monk Fruit Sweetener in fact contained stevia powder. Meanwhile, the recalled Organic Pure Stevia bottles contained monk fruit, according to the FDA.
The products were distributed to retailers and consumers nationwide, according to the FDA. They were packaged in plastic bottles with white caps, weighing 0.71oz and 1oz.
What People Are Saying
The FDA, on its website: "People with food allergies should read labels and avoid the foods they are allergic to. The law requires that food labels identify the food source of all major food allergens used to make the food."
It adds: "Food producers recall their products from the marketplace when the products are mislabeled or when the food may present a health hazard to consumers because the food is contaminated or has caused a foodborne illness outbreak."
What Happens Next
The recall is listed as ongoing, according to the FDA.
Consumers with allergies or sensitives to stevia, ragweed, related plants, and monk fruit should not consume the affected products.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
8 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Social Security Warning Issued by Solicitor General
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. The Department of Justice has warned that overturning tariffs imposed under the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) would risk a "1929-style" crisis that could endanger the country's social welfare programs. "In such a scenario, people would be forced from their homes, millions of jobs would be eliminated, hard-working Americans would lose their savings, and even Social Security and Medicare could be threatened," wrote the U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer, in a letter submitted to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Monday. Why It Matters The federal appellate court is soon set to decide whether to uphold the Court of International Trade's (CIT) May ruling that President Donald Trump overstepped his executive authority when imposing the majority of his tariffs. While this order invalidating Trump's actions, and another order from the District Court for the District of Columbia, have been temporarily stayed, the outcome of the legal battle, which Trump has called "America's big case," could hold wide-reaching implications for the president's trade agenda and the economy as a whole. What To Know The IEEPA is a federal law granting the president the power to regulate commerce to address "an unusual and extraordinary threat" to the United States during national emergencies. In the case of Trump, persistent trade deficits and fentanyl smuggling are among the emergencies invoked for his tariffs on Canada, Mexico and China, as well as the "reciprocal" duties placed on dozens of America's trading partners. "The court does not read IEEPA to confer such unbounded authority and sets aside the challenged tariffs imposed thereunder," the three-judge panel of the CIT wrote in its May ruling. White House officials accused the CIT of mounting a "judicial coup," and immediately appealed the decision. The federal appeals court granted the White House a stay on May 29. U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer testifies during his Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation hearing on February 26, 2025. U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer testifies during his Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation hearing on February 26, 2025. Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call via AP Images The court heard oral arguments in the case earlier this month, and Reuters reports that the 11-judge panel was skeptical about the administration's rationale for using the 1977 law to justify the tariffs. Since late May, the Trump administration has struck deals with a handful of trading partners hoping to bring down their tariff rates. These include agreements with the European Union, Japan and South Korea, and involve investment commitments together totaling well over $1 trillion. In Monday's supplemental letter, rather than the potential legality of the CIT's ruling and the invocation of the IEEPA, the DOJ argued that overturning tariffs would jeopardize these deals and investments. The latter are not direct payments to the U.S., but rather financing for private-sector projects. However, Sauer and Assistant Attorney General Brett Shumate said: "The President believes that our country would not be able to pay back the trillions of dollars that other countries have already committed to pay, which could lead to financial ruin." "These deals for trillions of dollars have been reached, and other countries have committed to pay massive sums of money," they added. "If the United States were forced to unwind these historic agreements, the President believes that a forced dissolution of the agreements could lead to a 1929-style result." The argument echoes those recently made by Trump over the "big case." "If a Radical Left Court ruled against us at this late date, in an attempt to bring down or disturb the largest amount of money, wealth creation and influence the U.S.A. has ever seen, it would be impossible to ever recover, or pay back, these massive sums of money and honor," the president posted on Truth Social last week. What People Are Saying Solicitor General D. John Sauer and Assistant Attorney General Brett Shumate, in Monday's letter, wrote: "There is no substitute for the tariffs and deals that President Trump has made. One year ago, the United States was a dead country, and now, because of the trillions of dollars being paid by countries that have so badly abused us, America is a strong, financially viable, and respected country again. If the United States were forced to pay back the trillions of dollars committed to us, America could go from strength to failure the moment such an incorrect decision took effect." Scott Lincicome, economist at the Cato Institute, posted on X in response to the letter: "This is a letter signed by the US government's top lawyer and submitted today in federal court (in VOS Selections v Trump). I'm honestly struggling to believe it's real, but here we are." Economist David L. Ortega told Newsweek: "Ending the tariffs would not threaten Social Security or Medicare, which are funded through payroll taxes, not tariff receipts. Historically, high and sustained tariffs have posed greater economic risks than their removal. We saw this with the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act in 1930. In fact, lifting these tariffs would more likely lower costs for U.S. producers and consumers than trigger a 1929-style collapse." Robert B. Koopman, a senior lecturer in Politics, Governance and Economics at the American University, told Newsweek that the letter was "factually incorrect" and "a pure political statement with no factual basis in economic or political reality." "This set of arguments [regarding Social Security] has no basis in fact or considered economic analysis—pure hyperbole." He added: "More economists are worried that the current set of [trade] agreements are likely to lead to economic slowdown and that U.S. growth would be stronger without them. No one is actually predicting a 1929 result with them or without them." What Happens Next In the letter, Trump's lawyers said that there exist alternative "tariff authorities" beyond the IEEPA that the president could employ depending on the outcome of the case. However, they described them as "short-term" and "not nearly as powerful," and said employing these would "render America captive to the abuses that it has endured from far more aggressive countries." It is unclear when the appellate court will issue its final ruling, but the case could potentially progress to the Supreme Court regardless of the outcome. Last week, former House Speaker Paul Ryan said the court was "more than likely" to strike down the president's use of the IEEPA for the bulk of his tariffs.
Newsweek
8 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Just 9 Minutes of Exercise Before Taking Tests Boosts Kids' Scores
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. A quick burst of exercise before class may be the key to sharper thinking and better grades, according to new research from the University of North Carolina Greensboro. The study found that just nine minutes of high-intensity interval training (HIIT) helped children score significantly higher on a standardized verbal comprehension test compared to when they sat still before taking it. "In the classroom, you have teachers that say, 'Let's take a movement break to get you focused again,'" said paper author and kinesiologist professor Eric Drollette in a statement. He continued: "We know that's the case anecdotally in the classroom, but we hadn't put the science to it." Positive girl exercising in group of classmates during dance class at school. Positive girl exercising in group of classmates during dance class at school. JackF Previous research on exercise and cognition in children has often involved lab-based setups, such as 20-minute treadmill sessions—methods that aren't practical for a typical classroom. In contrast, Drollette's team developed a set of movements that could be done in place without equipment—air squats, high knees, jumping jacks and lunges. Students aged between 9 and 12 performed each exercise for 30 seconds, followed by 30 seconds of rest, all while staying in one spot beside their desks. The researchers compared the HIIT session with two other pre-test conditions: a period of seated rest and moderate-intensity cycling. Only the high-intensity routine produced a notable improvement in test scores. According to Drollette, children showed an average 8-point gain on the KTEA-3 reading fluency scale—roughly half a standard deviation, or the difference between scoring in the 50th percentile and the 70th percentile. "In this sample, we didn't see clear, systematic differences by age, general fitness, or baseline academic performance—responses were consistent across children," Drollette told Newsweek. "Most kids engaged well with the short, fun, in-place movements, and the post-exercise benefits we measured did not hinge on a particular subgroup," he continued. "These findings may have important implications for teachers who are incorporating movement breaks into their classrooms and who might then see benefits to their students' academic performance," said paper coauthor and kinesiology professor Jennifer Etnier in a statement. The timing of the study is apposite: recess time has declined in many schools and only about 10 percent of elementary schools require regular movement breaks. The study offers a practical blueprint for making those short breaks count—without the need for treadmills or any other specialized equipment. The research also looked inside students' brains, using electroencephalogram (EEG) scans to measure a neural signal called error-related negativity, which spikes when someone makes a mistake. A high error-related negativity amplitude can indicate mental distraction and over-fixation on errors, hurting performance. After the HIIT session, students showed a lower error-related negativity response, suggesting they could more effectively recover from mistakes. "With interval exercise, we actually see this decrease in this error-related response," Drollette said. "This can be beneficial because it means that while a person made an error, the error itself is less salient thus they are able to effectively respond to the error or mistake in a mentally healthy way." Drollette told Newsweek that teachers could trade nine minutes for an immediate boost in a core academic skill. "Importantly, our boost was measured the same day and immediately after exercise, so the most realistic use is doing it shortly before test blocks," he said. "Teachers could slot this in during transitions or before reading blocks, tests, or any task that demands sustained attention, without rearranging the room or finding extra space." Drollette hopes future research will explore how exercise-driven brain changes might influence children's mental health and classroom behavior. "Physical education and physical activity are good for our rising generation," he said. "It's good for mental health. It's good for brain health. It's good for academic achievement." Do you have a tip on a science story that Newsweek should be covering? Do you have a question about exercising? Let us know via science@ Reference Drollette, E. S., O'Brokta, M. M., Pasupathi, P. A., Cornwall, A. S., Slutsky-Ganesh, A. B., & Etnier, J. L. (2025). The effects of short exercise bouts on error-related negativity (ERN) and academic achievement in children. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 79, 102847.
Bloomberg
8 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
Fertility Startup Gameto Raises $44 Million to Test Egg-Freezing Therapy in US
Gameto Inc., a biotech company working on stem-cell therapies for women's health, has raised $44 million in venture capital to help fund a clinical trial for its product that aims to improve the egg-freezing experience. The funding round, led by Overwater Ventures, will let Gameto bring its Fertilo therapy closer to US Food and Drug Administration approval. The technique, which uses stem cells that have been engineered into ovarian support cells, is intended to free patients from the grueling two weeks of injections that prompt ovaries to make enough eggs during fertility treatment. In a Phase 3 trial, patients are only given three days of injections, after which their eggs are extracted and matured by the engineered cells.
