Waitrose apologises as product recalled due to 'health risk'
The pasta poses a 'possible health risk' to some customers as it contains mustard which is not mentioned on the label.
The affected pasta has a use by date of August 27, 2025 and comes in packs of 375g.
A spokesman for the Food Standards Agency (FSA) said: 'Waitrose is recalling the above product from customers and has been advised to contact the relevant allergy support organisations, which will tell their members about the recall.
'The company has also issued a point-of-sale notice to its customers.
'These notices explain to customers why the product is being recalled and tell them what to do if they have bought the product.
'If you have bought the above product and have an allergy to mustard, do not eat it. Instead return it to your local Waitrose & Partners branch for a refund.
'You can contact Waitrose Customer Care on 0800 188 884, Option 4.'
A Waitrose spokesman added: 'We apologise that it has been necessary to recall this product and for the inconvenience caused.'
Recommended Reading:
What is a product recall?
If there is a problem with a food product that means it should not be sold, then it might be 'withdrawn' (taken off the shelves) or 'recalled' (when customers are asked to return the product).
The FSA issues Product Withdrawal Information Notices and Product Recall Information Notices to let consumers and local authorities know about problems associated with food.
In some cases, a 'Food Alert for Action' is issued.
This provides local authorities with details of specific actions to be taken on behalf of consumers.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Wales Online
30 minutes ago
- Wales Online
The nuclear button has been pressed but WRU must now get out of the URC
The nuclear button has been pressed but WRU must now get out of the URC The WRU has laid its cards on the table with a radical plan. Steffan Thomas looks at the potential holes in it Picture shows (from left) Richard Collier-Keywood, WRU chairman, Dave Reddin, WRU director of rugby and elite performance and Abi Tierney, WRU chief executive (Image: Huw Evans Picture Agency Ltd) The Welsh Rugby Union hit the nuclear button yesterday when it put forward proposals to cut the number of professional teams in Wales by half. A formal consultation process will begin in September where the WRU will consult with a number of key stakeholders including the current four professional clubs - Cardiff, Dragons, Ospreys and Scarlets - along with supporters, present and former players and the Welsh Rugby Players' Association. The WRU believe radical change is needed to drag the game in Wales out of the doldrums along with providing the platform to win the Six Nations and become "genuine wild-card World Cup winners" in the future. But a reduction to two teams is the WRU's optimal option; this could change during the consultation process where there is likely to be significant kick-back. Sign up to Inside Welsh rugby on Substack to get exclusive news stories and insight from behind the scenes in Welsh rugby. After a press conference which lasted well over an hour at the Principality Stadium yesterday and a document of more than 100 pages there remain questions which need answering. Steffan Thomas has been through the document to pick out the key points, issues and questions, as he sees it. What is the optimal solution? The optimal solution focuses on two clubs with a men's and women's team. Each squad will consist of 50 senior players and operate with playing budgets of £7.8m, while there will only be room for two non-Welsh qualified players in each side. It favours a heavily centralised system in line with the New Zealand model. In terms of the ownership model the WRU wants control of all rugby operations with the current investors taking charge of the commercial element of the club. In its own words the WRU wants "unified management and contracting of all elite players (professional men's and women's teams, national team and national academy) to align decisions on selection and talent development with players and clubs". The union insists "that PRA-style arrangements are a particularly challenging choice due to an inherent mismanagement between stakeholder objectives". In other words there is a significant lack of trust between the WRU and the four professional clubs with both parties often pulling in different directions. The WRU sees this as an opportunity to "optimise collaboration" if it can seize control of all rugby operations. Controversially it wants to build a new national campus and base the two professional clubs there. In terms of players development the main point put forward is the return of a national academy-style system and significant investment being poured into Super Rygbi Cymru. The idea behind the two-club scenario is to concentrate talent which in turn creates more competition for contracts and starting places. It's a case of elitism on steroids, with the aim of driving up standards on and off the field. Is there likely to be pushback during the consultation and what might change? Having spoken to numerous high-ranking sources within the game there will be significant pushback. Clearly clubs are going to be fighting for their lives and the first priority will be survival. On that note we do not yet know whether the WRU will simply scrap two teams or create two new entities with new branding. Under the proposed optimal system private investors are still required to pour in £17m, which amounts to £1m a year. But why would any private investor want to pour money into a club if the WRU have complete control over player contracting and development? The original PRA25 involved circa £125m worth of WRU funding over five years, while their new 'optimal solution' of two teams results in £94 worth of WRU payments. But where is the remaining £26m? That has not been accounted for but may well be kept back to invest into a new national campus, the SRC and academy system. There will also be significant investment into improving the women's game, while competition income will likely decrease with a reduction of teams, as might broadcasting income. They have also spent £6m on a roof walk, while the cost of assuming ownership of Cardiff also has to be taken into consideration There is £121m worth of investment with the three equally-funded club solutions and £116m if they go to three teams under a tiered funding model. Private investors are required to put in £25m if it's four teams, £21m with three unequally funded teams, £21m with three in a tiered funding model and £17m if they reduce to two. The academy budget per club is £800k in every mode. Join WalesOnline Rugby's WhatsApp Channel here to get the breaking news sent straight to your phone for free They are now also proposing a salary cap of £7.8m-£8m in the optimal solution which is only marginally better than where they are now. This is close to the Gallagher PREM cap but short of some of their competitors in the United Rugby Championship. It seems they are hoping to drive a harder bargain with Welsh talent with limited number of overseas player spots at clubs in England and France. This is likely to be enough to be significantly more competitive if talent is concentrated into two teams, although to really compete in the latter stages of the Champions Cup it will need to be higher. Another area where there will certainly be a significant amount of pushback is with the idea of having two teams training at the same national campus. The WRU's director of rugby and elite performance Dave Reddin was quick to stress both teams would have separate team rooms at the facility and different identities. But there are many within the game who believe this is anti-competitive, with professional sport all about different styles and cultures. Union-owned sides allow for far greater control from the national coach and potentially greater cohesion in terms of on-field partnerships and playing styles, especially if the majority of the national squad are concentrated into two teams. But it is arguably not the job of the WRU to own and control its teams, but rather to facilitate the growth of the game in Wales. Union-owned teams are arguably anti-sport and is one of the reasons the URC is an inferior competition to the French Top 14 and the Gallagher PREM. Can the new 'optimal structure' win over supporters? This remains to be seen but the reaction has not been a positive one on social media. Wales has a club-based history and it is a very tribal nation so the very idea of creating two new teams is not going to go down well. There were hints during the media interviews this week the WRU saw the SRC as the "heritage league" where tribalism can thrive and old rivalries can continue. While this has not been confirmed they may prefer to have an East and West team playing in the professional game with the current four clubs downgraded to SRC level. Reading between the lines they may view a fan supporting east Wales the same as a Cardiff fan now supporting Wales. If they can be successful and challenge for silverware then they will attract supporters. But this is highly unlikely to get buy-in from current supporters of the four professional sides, with traditional club branding more likely to attract fans. Welsh rugby's tradition is rooted firmly in the club game. What competition will they play in? A reduction to two teams playing in the URC would be a complete and utter disaster because it is a competition which Welsh fans have never truly bought into. The vast majority of Welsh fans would much prefer to face the likes of Bristol, Bath, Gloucester, Northampton Saints, Exeter Chiefs and Leicester Tigers on a weekly basis. Get the latest breaking Welsh rugby news stories sent straight to your inbox with our FREE daily newsletter. Sign up here. It would be transformational for the Welsh game and a leading figure at a Welsh club told WalesOnline this week an Anglo-Welsh league would result in its commercial income rising by at least £3m. The WRU insist they are committed to the URC but if it really wants to deliver an 'optimal solution' it has to be in an Anglo-Welsh. Anything else is sub-optimal. According to numerous people within the upper echelons of the game PRL might expand to 12 or 14 teams but would only consider two Welsh teams. Article continues below It is worth noting teams who are owned by a governing body or has significant union control is unlikely to get accepted into an Anglo-Welsh league. Like it or not radical change is required to drag Welsh rugby out of the doldrums and unlike what some fans have been saying this is not a knee-jerk reaction. But it has to be the right change and the WRU's 'optimal solution' leaves a lot to be desired.
Edinburgh Live
32 minutes ago
- Edinburgh Live
Edinburgh Tour de France agreement delayed as council await details
Our community members are treated to special offers, promotions and adverts from us and our partners. You can check out at any time. More info A decision on whether to agree to host the start of the Tour de France has had to be delayed by Edinburgh Council, with organisers yet to provide details of the deal. Councillors had been expected to vote at a meeting on Thursday on whether to allow the signing of a host city agreement on its receipt by the council. But in a last-minute move, the item was pulled from the Culture and Communities Committee meeting agenda. A report by officers had recommended that the committee decide that any agreement would be signed on its receipt by the city, whether or not it had been seen by councillors. But it is understood that a decision was made to hold off on asking councillors to consider the report, in order to allow for more time for the agreement to be sent. The SNP group in the council had submitted an amendment to the original item, which if agreed would have seen the city not sign the agreement. Instead, it would see the council go to the Scottish and UK governments to ask for funding for the event, which is set to cost the Capital up to £1.7 million. And both the Green and SNP groups expressed concern that the agreement was delayed, with the report saying it was meant to be signed by July 31. The Green group's amendment would, if agreed, have seen the committee delay making a decision until councillors could view and consider the final agreement. It also would see an amendment added that ensured the advertising at the event was in line with council policies. A discussion on signing the agreement will be made by the same committee, though a special session may need to be held depending on when the agreement is received. Funds have already been approved for the event In June, councillors were told that council group leaders had approved of the city's hosting of the Grand Depart for the men's Tour de France race. But group leaders said they did not approve it, and that in October – when the decision was said to have been made – they were only supportive of council officers exploring it. At a council meeting in June, the city's chief executive said not seeking approval from councillors was 'inappropriate and should not have happened.' In response to questioning by Conservative councillor Phil Doggart, Paul Lawrence said: 'It's the view of senior officers, certainly my view, that that was a mistake, and that that should have happened in that process. 'The report sets out how we are going to remind all colleagues, including myself, actually, that that was inappropriate and should not have happened.' The 2027 edition of the Tour will be the first time that both the men's and women's races have started in the same country besides France. It will also be the first time the race has visited Edinburgh, and the fifth time it has had any of its route inside the UK. Some councillors have objected to the idea of the city hosting the event at all, citing the lack of information from councillors on its impact on and benefits to the Capital. At a full council meeting in June, SNP councillor Kate Campbell said: 'There is very little explanation, really, of why we're making those allocations. 'We've had no reports to councillors, no notes to the committee, about the value we're getting. We really don't know what the benefit to the city is.'
The Courier
an hour ago
- The Courier
Packaging firm's expansion plan for base near Forfar
Plans for a major redevelopment of a packaging firm's Angus premises have been revealed. Produce Packaging has its Scottish base at South Kingston in Kingsmuir, just east of Forfar. The company is a leading UK supplier of packaging for the fresh food industry. Its product range includes punnets, trays, sandwich packs and boxes. The Lincoln-based firm has been in operation for around 40 years. An application has now been submitted to Angus Council for an expansion of the village site. Produce Packaging wants to demolish existing buildings to create new warehousing and offices. Plans show a new 863 square metre warehouse alongside the company's existing facility. It would also include office space, a staff room and toilet/shower facilities. HGV parking and new entrance and exit gates are to be created. The site has a long business history. For many years it was the base of Forfar construction company Webster Contracts. The well-known firm was acquired by north-east housebuilder Scotia Homes in 2007 and retained as an Angus office. More recently, the premises were offered for let. Angus Council will decide on the Produce Packaging application in due course. Meanwhile, councillors recently approved a 139 child nursery plan for a three-storey Forfar building. The premises were Forfar Mart offices before being used by Angus Council. You can keep up with the area's applications and approvals in our weekly Planning Ahead series.
