Ice Cream Recall Map Shows States With New Warning
Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content.
DFA Dairy Brands, LLC, is recalling the Friendly's brand of Cookies & Cream ice cream due to undeclared soy and wheat concerns.
Newsweek reached out to the company via email on Wednesday for comment.
Why It Matters
Numerous recalls have been initiated this year due to the potential for damaged products, foodborne illness, contamination and undeclared food allergens.
Millions of Americans experience food sensitivities or allergies every year. According to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the nine "major" food allergens in the U.S. are eggs, milk, fish, wheat, soybeans, Crustacean shellfish, sesame, tree nuts and peanuts.
People with a wheat or soy allergy could experience a "serious or life-threatening allergic reaction if they consume these products," the FDA warns.
What To Know
In the alert, the FDA says that the recalled products were packaged mistakenly in Friendly's Vanilla Bean cartons with a Cookies & Cream lid.
The recalled products were distributed through UNFI to retail locations in Pennsylvania, Maryland and Virginia.
Below is a map showing the states impacted by the recall:
The ice cream was sold in 48-fluid ounce containers with a best-by date of November 26, 2025. No other Friendly's products are impacted by the recall, the FDA alert notes.
What People Are Saying
The FDA in the alert, in part: "The voluntary recall was initiated after it was discovered that a limited quantity of Cookies & Cream ice cream was mistakenly packaged in Friendly's Vanilla Bean ice cream cartons that did not identify the soy and wheat ingredients. No illnesses or adverse reactions have been reported. This recall is being made with the knowledge of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration."
In an email to Newsweek in January, the FDA said: "Most recalls in the U.S. are carried out voluntarily by the product manufacturer and when a company issues a public warning, typically via news release, to inform the public of a voluntary product recall; the FDA shares that release on our website as a public service.
"The FDA's role during a voluntary, firm-initiated, recall is to review the recall strategy, evaluate the health hazard presented by the product, monitor the recall, and as appropriate alert the public and other companies in the supply chain about the recall.
"The FDA provides public access to information on recalls by posting a listing of recalls according to their classification in the FDA Enforcement Report, including the specific action taken by the recalling company. The FDA Enforcement Report is designed to provide a public listing of products in the marketplace that are being recalled."
Additional information on recalls can be found via the FDA's Recalls, Market Withdrawals, & Safety Alerts.
What Happens Next
Customers who have purchased the recalled product are urged to return the ice cream to the original place of purchase for a refund, the FDA alert notes.
People with additional questions may contact DFA Dairy Brands, LLC, via phone at 800- 587-2259.
Further recalls or updates are possible as investigations continue, and consumers are encouraged to monitor FDA alerts for developments.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Atlantic
21 minutes ago
- Atlantic
Children's Health Care Is in Danger
Alison Chandra was thrilled and gutted. She was pregnant with a much-wanted second child. But her baby had a rare disease called Heterotaxy, causing heart defects and organ abnormalities. He might not survive, her doctors warned her, describing his condition as 'likely incompatible with life.' Chandra is a nurse. She 'grew up on the far right, and very staunchly in that pro-life, single-issue-voter camp,' she told me. 'That was the first time that I had to come face-to-face with what being pro-life actually meant.' She chose not to terminate the pregnancy. Because she and her husband had no income—they had spent the past half decade volunteering on a medical ship off the coast of West Africa—the family decided to sign up for Medicaid. 'I was someone who really thought Medicaid is just for moochers and leeches,' she told me. 'Quote-unquote good people should never have to need Medicaid. It was really hard for me to walk into that office and hand over my paperwork.' But she did. 'It obviously changed the trajectory of everything because at that point we were able to pursue the best care.' Medicaid covered her prenatal visits, her son's delivery, and two open-heart surgeries. Eleven years later, her son is thriving, and Chandra is working in suburban Utah as a nurse specializing in the care of children with complex health needs—kids covered, as she and her son once were, by Medicaid. Soon she might not be able to provide that care. This summer, Congress passed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, Donald Trump's sweeping second-term domestic legislation. The bill does not cut Medicaid, the White House insists. It slashes taxes and offsets the revenue losses by tamping down on what Republicans describe as waste, fraud, and abuse in the health-insurance program. Annie Lowrey: A big, bad, very ugly bill Yet the Congressional Budget Office foresees that the law will drain close to $1 trillion of Medicaid's financing in the next decade and cause 11 million Americans to lose their insurance coverage. Experts anticipate a cascade of effects. Private-insurance premiums and medical-bankruptcy rates will climb. Wait times for appointments with specialists will rise. Care deserts will expand. Hospitals and clinics will have to shut down. The most fragile sectors of our health-care system will be in danger of collapsing. And pediatric care might be first on that list. The law does not target children's-health coverage or children's-health initiatives. But nearly half of American children are enrolled in Medicaid or the related Children's Health Insurance Program. If the One Big Beautiful Bill Act goes into effect as written, sick babies will end up paying for tax cuts for the wealthy. The bill 'strengthens' Medicaid, as Republicans put it, by stripping insurance coverage from adults. For the first time, the country is implementing a nationwide work requirement for the program. Any state with an expanded Medicaid initiative (meaning that the state offers coverage to all low-income adults, not just those with a disability or another qualifying condition) will have to verify that enrollees are working, volunteering, or attending school, and kick them off the rolls if they're not. The work requirement is not expected to spur more people to get a job; studies have found that nearly every adult on Medicaid already works if they can. But states will have to spend millions of dollars to implement it, diverting cash from delivering actual health care. And 8 million Americans are predicted to lose coverage as they struggle to keep up with the paperwork. The bill also contains a series of technical changes to Medicaid's financing, altering the taxes that states levy on medical providers and the payments they make to them. Experts warn that dropping parents from Medicaid will mean dropping kids, even if those children continue to qualify in their own right. Parents are twice as likely to enroll their children in a public-insurance program if they are enrolled themselves, and states that cover a small share of low-income adults tend to cover a small share of low-income kids too. Already, more than 4 million American children lack health coverage. Hundreds of thousands more might join them in a year or two. A rising uninsurance rate among children is a crisis in and of itself. Kids without insurance are less likely to have a pediatrician monitoring their well-being and development. They're more likely to be sick, less likely to get immunizations and prescription medications, less likely to be treated for severe health conditions, and more likely to be hospitalized. They are also more likely to die before reaching adulthood. At the same time as the number of uninsured children rises, states are expected to slash spending on 'optional' or 'nonessential' Medicaid initiatives, such as in-home care for children with chronic health problems and disabilities. These services allow disabled kids to learn in classrooms and sick kids to sleep in their own bedroom, alongside their pets, siblings, and stuffies, rather than in pediatric-hospital wards. Providing care at home reduces emergency-room visits, and slashes the rate of hospital admissions. It is also essential for families, Chandra told me, her tone oscillating between tempered rage and measured despair. 'Those are my patients,' she said. 'Those are the kids I love.' Medicaid already has an 'institutional bias,' explains s.e. smith, the communications director of Little Lobbyists, an advocacy group for children with disabilities and complex health needs. The program covers care in hospitals and clinics more comprehensively than care provided at home or in the community. When state Medicaid programs face financing crunches, they tend to slash in-home services first. The bill will lead to much greater cuts, separating kids 'from loving families, depriving them of a free and appropriate public education, and denying them an opportunity to participate in society,' smith told me. Jonathan Chait: They didn't have to do this As at-home care is reduced and demand for in-hospital treatment rises, the bill will make it harder for parents and caregivers to access institutional services too. Over the past decade and a half, health systems have gotten rid of 20 percent of pediatric beds and 30 percent of pediatric-care units. That's because hospitals make more money admitting adults than children: Kids are much more likely to be on Medicaid, and Medicaid offers lower reimbursement rates than Medicare and private-insurance plans do. As a result, pediatric care has become concentrated in specialty children's hospitals that cannot meet the existing demand. The country has too few hospital beds for babies and teenagers, too few pediatric-health specialists to make diagnoses and provide treatment, and far too few pediatric-health providers in low-income and rural areas. What institutions exist are fragile: Nonprofit children's hospitals have profit margins of 2.7 percent, versus 6.4 percent for all hospitals. The system is a rickety structure, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act a hurricane-force wind. With fewer kids covered by Medicaid, revenue per patient will go down, giving health systems a yet-greater incentive to focus on providing care to adults and seniors; hospitals will close, affecting not only kids with Medicaid but all children; in surviving pediatric institutions, demand will rise, given that families will have fewer options for treatment. Doctors foresee panicked parents driving their ill and injured kids for hours and hours to a children's ER or ICU—only to find it overflowing. Health experts anticipate exactly the same dynamic playing out in rural medical care. 'This is going to impact 62 million Americans,' Alan Morgan, the CEO of the National Rural Health Association, told me. 'If you're in a rural area, it's impacting your ability to access health care, because you're reducing the bottom line of these facilities and the ability of these facilities to stay in the community.' They see the same dynamic playing out in nursing-home, rehabilitative, and long-term care as well. A law intended, putatively at least, to get adults to work might end up destroying fragile institutions for the country's most vulnerable, and weakening those providing health care to everyone. The bill's work requirements do not come into effect until after the 2026 midterm election—a sign that, perhaps, Republicans understand just how catastrophic and unpopular the party's policies are. Aides on Capitol Hill and hospital executives believe that Congress might soften the bill or push parts of it back. But there are tax cuts to pay for, and people with disabilities and cancer available to pay for them. 'I have lived and worked in countries where people lack access to health care. I know what that looks like,' Chandra told me. 'It is heartbreaking to me that we are facing, potentially, some of the same challenges that I've dealt with in some of the poorest countries in the world. It should not be the case anywhere, but especially not in the richest country in the world.'
33 minutes ago
Americans get more than half their calories from ultra-processed foods, CDC report says
Most Americans get more than half their calories from ultra-processed foods, those super-tasty, energy-dense foods typically full of sugar, salt and unhealthy fats, according to a new federal report. Nutrition research has shown for years that ultra-processed foods make up a big chunk of the U.S. diet, especially for kids and teens. For the first time, however, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has confirmed those high levels of consumption, using dietary data collected from August 2021 to August 2023. The report comes amid growing scrutiny of such foods by Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who blames them for causing chronic disease. 'We are poisoning ourselves and it's coming principally from these ultra-processed foods,' Kennedy told Fox News earlier this year. Overall, about 55% of total calories consumed by Americans age 1 and older came from ultra-processed foods during that period, according to the report. For adults, ultra-processed foods made up about 53% of total calories consumed, but for kids through age 18, it was nearly 62%. The top sources included burgers and sandwiches, sweet baked goods, savory snacks, pizza and sweetened drinks. Young children consumed fewer calories from ultra-processed foods than older kids, the report found. Adults 60 and older consumed fewer calories from those sources than younger adults. Low-income adults consumed more ultra-processed foods than those with higher incomes. The results were not surprising, said co-author Anne Williams, a CDC nutrition expert. What was surprising was that consumption of ultra-processed foods appeared to dip slightly over the past decade. Among adults, total calories from those sources fell from about 56% in 2013-2014 and from nearly 66% for kids in 2017-2018. Williams said she couldn't speculate about the reason for the decline or whether consumption of less processed foods increased. But Andrea Deierlein, a nutrition expert at New York University who was not involved in the research, suggested that there may be greater awareness of the potential harms of ultra-processed foods. 'People are trying, at least in some populations, to decrease their intakes of these foods,' she said. Concern over ultra-processed foods' health effects has been growing for years, but finding solutions has been difficult. Many studies have linked them to obesity, diabetes and heart disease, but they haven't been able to prove that the foods directly cause those chronic health problems. One small but influential study found that even when diets were matched for calories, sugar, fat, fiber and micronutrients, people consumed more calories and gained more weight when they ate ultra-processed foods than when they ate minimally processed foods. Research published this week in the journal Nature found that participants in a clinical trial lost twice as much weight when they ate minimally processed foods — such as pasta, chicken, fruits and vegetables — than ultra-processed foods, even those matched for nutrition components and considered healthy, such as ready-to-heat frozen meals, protein bars and shakes. Part of the problem is simply defining ultra-processed foods. The new CDC report used the most common definition based on the four-tier Nova system developed by Brazilian researchers that classifies foods according to the amount of processing they undergo. Such foods tend to be 'hyperpalatable, energy-dense, low in dietary fiber and contain little or no whole foods, while having high amounts of salt, sweeteners and unhealthy fats,' the CDC report said. U.S. health officials recently said there are concerns over whether current definitions 'accurately capture' the range of foods that may affect health. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the Agriculture Department recently issued a request for information to develop a new, uniform definition of ultra-processed foods for products in the U.S. food supply. In the meantime, Americans should try to reduce ultra-processed foods in their daily diets, Deierlein said. For instance, instead of instant oatmeal that may contain added sugar, sodium, artificial colors and preservatives, use plain oats sweetened with honey or maple syrup. Read food packages and nutrition information, she suggested. 'I do think that there are less-processed options available for many foods,' she said. ___
Yahoo
38 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Research on reversing Alzheimer's reveals lithium as potential key
Seven years of investigation by scientists at Harvard Medical School has revealed that the loss of the metal lithium plays a powerful role in Alzheimer's disease, a finding that could lead to earlier detection, new treatments and a broader understanding of how the brain ages. Researchers led by Bruce A. Yankner, a professor of genetics and neurology at Harvard Medical School, reported that they were able to reverse the disease in mice and restore brain function with small amounts of the compound lithium orotate, enough to mimic the metal's natural level in the brain. Their study appeared Wednesday in the journal Nature. Subscribe to The Post Most newsletter for the most important and interesting stories from The Washington Post. 'The obvious impact is that because lithium orotate is dirt cheap, hopefully we will get rigorous, randomized trials testing this very, very quickly,' said Matt Kaeberlein, former director of the Healthy Aging and Longevity Research Institute at the University of Washington, who did not participate in the study. 'And I would say that it will be an embarrassment to the Alzheimer's clinical community if that doesn't happen right away.' Yankner, who is also the co-director of the Paul F. Glenn Center for Biology of Aging Research at Harvard, said: 'I do not recommend that people take lithium at this point, because it has not been validated as a treatment in humans. We always have to be cautious because things can change as you go from mice to humans.' He added that the findings still need to be validated by other labs. Although there have been recent breakthroughs in the treatment of Alzheimer's, no medication has succeeded in stopping or reversing the disease that afflicts more than 7 million Americans, a number projected to reach almost 13 million by 2050, according to the Alzheimer's Association. Lithium is widely prescribed for patients with bipolar disorder, and previous research indicated that it held potential as an Alzheimer's treatment and an antiaging medication. A 2017 study in Denmark suggested the presence of lithium in drinking water might be associated with a lower incidence of dementia. However, the new work is the first to describe the specific roles that lithium plays in the brain, its influence on all of the brain's major cell types and the effect that its deficiency later in life has on aging. Results of the study by Yankner's lab and researchers at Boston Children's Hospital and the Rush Alzheimer's Disease Center in Chicago also suggest that measuring lithium levels might help doctors screen people for signs of Alzheimer's years before the first symptoms begin to appear. Yankner said doctors might be able to measure lithium levels in the cerebrospinal fluid or blood, or through brain imaging. - - - How our brains use lithium In a healthy brain, lithium maintains the connections and communication lines that allow neurons to talk with one another. The metal also helps form the myelin that coats and insulates the communication lines and helps microglial cells clear cellular debris that can impede brain function. 'In normal aging mice,' Yankner said, 'lithium promotes good memory function. In normal aging humans,' higher lithium levels also correspond to better memory function. The depletion of lithium in the brain plays a role in most of the deterioration in several mouse models of Alzheimer's disease. Loss of lithium accelerates the development of harmful clumps of the protein amyloid beta and tangles of the protein tau that resemble the structures found in people with Alzheimer's. Amyloid plaques and tau tangles disrupt communication between nerve cells. The plaques in turn undermine lithium by trapping it, weakening its ability to help the brain function. Lithium depletion is involved in other destructive processes of Alzheimer's: decay of brain synapses, damage to the myelin that protects nerve fibers and reduced capacity of microglial cells to break down amyloid plaques. Lithium's pervasive role comes despite the fact that our brains contain only a small amount of it. After examining more than 500 human brains from Rush and other brain banks, Yankner's team discovered the naturally occurring lithium in the brain is 1,000 times less than the lithium provided in medications to treat bipolar disorder. Li-Huei Tsai, director of the Picower Institute for Learning and Memory at Massachusetts Institute of Technology and who was not involved in the study, called it 'very exciting,' especially when many in the field, including her own lab, have focused on genetic risk factors for Alzheimer's. 'But clearly genetic risk factors are not the only things,' said Tsai, who is also Picower professor of neuroscience. 'There are a lot of people walking around carrying these risk genes, but they are not affected by Alzheimer's disease. I feel this study provides a very important piece of the puzzle.' - - - Pathways for treatment Alzheimer's treatments mostly help to manage symptoms and slow the decline it causes in thinking and functioning. Aducanumab, lecanemab, and donanemab, all lab-made antibodies, bind to the harmful amyloid plaques and help remove them. Donepezil, rivastigmine and galantamine ― all in the class of medications known as cholinesterase inhibitors ― work by replenishing a chemical messenger called acetylcholine, which is diminished in Alzheimer's. Acetylcholine plays an important role in memory, muscle movement and attention. Yankner and his team found that when they gave otherwise healthy mice a reduced-lithium diet, the mice lost brain synapses and began to lose memory. 'We found that when we administered lithium orotate to aging mice [that had] started losing their memory, the lithium orotate actually reverted their memory to the young adult, six month level,' he said. Lithium orotate helped the mice reduce production of the amyloid plaques and tau tangles, and allowed the microglial cells to remove the plaques much more effectively. Yankner said one factor that might help lithium orotate reach clinical trials sooner is the small amount of the treatment needed, which could greatly reduce the risk of harmful side effects, such as kidney dysfunction and thyroid toxicity. Aside from its potential in treating Alzheimer's, Yankner said lithium orotate might also have implications for the treatment of Parkinson's disease, an area his lab is investigating. 'That needs to be rigorously examined,' he said. 'But we're looking at a whole slew of disorders.' Related Content Trump is threatening to take over D.C. Here's what he can and can't do. They once shared recipes. Now her family is going hungry in Gaza. Pets are being abandoned, surrendered amid Trump's immigration crackdown Solve the daily Crossword
