FDA issues highest-level recall for Alma Pak organic blueberries over Listeria contamination
Tired of too many ads?
Remove Ads
What's affected?
Product: Organic blueberries from Alma Pak International LLC (Georgia-based)
Quantity: 400 boxes, each weighing 30 pounds (totaling 12,000 pounds)
Lot Numbers: 13325 G1060 and 13325 G1096
Distribution: Shipped to a single customer in North Carolina
Why the urgency?
Check their blueberries for the affected lot numbers
Avoid consuming any recalled product
Contact the retailer for a refund
Seek medical attention if symptoms of listeriosis develop after consumption
Company response and background
Tired of too many ads?
Remove Ads
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has issued a Class I recall—the highest possible risk level—for 400 boxes of organic blueberries distributed by Alma Pak International LLC, following the detection of Listeria monocytogenes during routine testing. The recall, first initiated on June 9, 2025, was elevated to Class I status on July 1, signaling a 'reasonable probability' that consuming the affected product could lead to serious health consequences or even death, according to the FDA's official definition.Listeria monocytogenes is a dangerous bacteria that can contaminate various foods. Infection, known as listeriosis, is particularly hazardous for newborns, adults over 65, and individuals with weakened immune systems. Symptoms range from fever, muscle aches, nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea in milder cases, to severe complications such as headaches, neck stiffness, confusion, loss of coordination, and seizures in more vulnerable individuals. Listeria infection is the third leading cause of death from foodborne illness in the U.S., causing around 260 deaths annually.Consumers are urged to:The FDA's Class I recall status underscores the seriousness of this contamination, as the agency warns that exposure to the tainted blueberries could result in life-threatening illness.Alma Pak International LLC has voluntarily recalled the product and is cooperating with authorities. Notably, this is not the company's first recall—previous incidents have included recalls for other frozen berry products due to contamination concerns.This recall comes amid a broader trend of increased food recalls in 2024 and 2025, with a notable rise in hospitalizations and deaths linked to foodborne pathogens.If you have purchased Alma Pak organic blueberries, check your packaging immediately and follow FDA guidance to ensure your safety.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
The Fittest Doc reveals 5 daily habits to save your heart: No cost, just results
Think protecting your heart means strict diets and hours at the gym? Think again. According to Dr Nicholas Nwabueze, a US-based physician better known as The Fittest Doc, heart health doesn't need to be complicated. In fact, just five minutes a day can make a big difference, if you know what to focus on. Here are five small daily habits he swears by, and they're backed by science too. 1. Take a Short Walk After Every Meal Instead of sinking into the sofa after lunch or dinner, walk for 5–10 minutes. That simple step can help control blood sugar levels and reduce inflammation, two things that directly impact heart health. Even a 2-minute stroll after a meal helps your muscles absorb glucose from the bloodstream, keeping energy levels stable and your heart protected. It's not about burning calories, it's about keeping your system steady. 2. Catch the Morning Sunlight No, this isn't just about getting your daily dose of vitamin D. Morning sunlight helps regulate your body clock, which in turn improves your sleep quality, something deeply linked to heart health. Live Events Exposing your skin to sunlight in the first hour of waking resets your circadian rhythm, reduces stress hormones, and lowers the risk of high blood pressure and heart attacks. Think of it as a natural reset button for your heart every morning. 3. Ditch Plastic Food Containers Still heating your food in plastic containers? Dr Nwabueze says stop now. Many plastics release harmful chemicals like BPA and phthalates when heated, which mess with hormones and raise your heart disease risk. Swap plastic for glass or stainless steel, especially when storing or microwaving food. It's a small switch that protects your heart and your hormones. 4. Forget Motivation, Focus on Micro-Habits Waiting to feel motivated to start that health routine? Don't. According to Dr Nwabueze, it's the tiny actions we take daily, not big resolutions, that build real heart health. Try standing while taking phone calls, prepping meals once a week, or choosing the stairs over the lift. Small, steady habits add up, and over time, they become heart-saving rituals. 5. Move More, Sit Less Yes, even if you exercise regularly, sitting too long can still harm your heart. Studies show that people who sit more than 10 hours a day have a 34% higher risk of heart disease, even if they hit the gym later. The solution? Stand up and move every 30 minutes. Just 2–3 minutes of walking, stretching, or pacing is enough to improve circulation and lower your heart risk.
News18
an hour ago
- News18
COVID-19 Vaccines and Heart Attacks: What You Really Need to Know
Last Updated: COVID-19 vaccines are overwhelmingly safe, with far lower heart risks than the infection itself. Recent reports of sudden cardiac deaths, particularly in Karnataka's Hassan district where 23 people died of heart attacks within 40 days, have stirred public concern over a possible link between COVID-19 vaccines and heart complications. However, health experts and investigations by ICMR and AIIMS have found no evidence directly connecting these heart attacks to the COVID-19 vaccine. According to Dr. Basavaraj Utagi, Senior Consultant Cardiologist, Fortis Hospital, 'COVID-19 infection itself carries a far greater risk of heart-related issues than the vaccine. Inflammation of the heart muscle, or myocarditis, is much more likely after infection than after vaccination." While global health agencies, including the U.S. FDA, have acknowledged rare cases of myocarditis particularly in young men following mRNA vaccines like Pfizer and Moderna, these incidents remain extremely uncommon. Most cases are mild and resolve with minimal treatment. As a precaution, the FDA has mandated updated labeling to reflect these risks, promoting transparency rather than alarm. Dr. Jeffrey Carstens, Cardiovascular Medical Director, UnityPoint Health, echoes this perspective: 'Yes, myocarditis after vaccination can happen, but it's very rare and generally not severe. On the other hand, COVID-19 infection can trigger dangerous inflammation that leads to heart attacks, arrhythmias, or heart failure." In fact, several studies show that COVID-19 vaccines may actually reduce the risk of heart attacks and strokes. A UK-based study found that vaccinated individuals had a lower incidence of arterial blockages, while Mount Sinai researchers observed fewer major cardiac events among vaccinated COVID patients. COVID-19 vaccines are overwhelmingly safe and remain a critical shield especially for older adults and those with existing health issues. The risk of severe heart problems is far greater from COVID infection than from the vaccine itself. If you experience symptoms like chest pain or shortness of breath post-vaccination, seek medical advice—but know that such cases are rare. In the debate between fear and fact, science continues to back the vaccine.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
an hour ago
- Business Standard
Can a new project stop flawed medical research before it causes harm?
With trust in science under scrutiny, a global initiative seeks to catch manipulated or inaccurate medical studies before they influence clinical or policy decisions Sarjna Rai New Delhi Every day, clinical decisions, health policies, and patient treatments are shaped by scientific studies. But what if those studies are based on manipulated images, skewed data, or biased analysis? What if the medicine you are prescribed was approved based on flawed evidence? These are not just academic questions—they directly affect lives. Flawed medical research is a growing problem According to a report published by The Guardian last year, around 10,000 research papers were retracted by journals in 2023. Watchdog groups like Retraction Watch have tracked the surge in scientific retractions, often issued only after serious flaws or fabrications are uncovered. An analysis by Nature showed a steep rise—from just over 1,000 retractions in 2013 to more than 4,000 in 2022, with numbers crossing 10,000 in 2023 —signalling a deepening credibility crisis in research publishing. The pandemic accelerated this trend with a spike in pre-prints—scientific papers made public before peer review. While helpful in fast-tracking global knowledge sharing, this also allowed questionable research to bypass scrutiny. Between January 2020 and October 2021, 157 COVID-related papers were retracted, including some from top-tier journals, as reported by The New Indian Express. Notably, high-profile studies on hydroxychloroquine and blood pressure medication in COVID treatment were withdrawn after experts revealed serious data inconsistencies. In 2016, an inspection of Semler Research's facility in Bengaluru by the US FDA uncovered severe data falsification, including sample manipulation and substitution. The FDA declared the firm's studies unreliable, forcing sponsors to redo trials through alternate agencies. The World Health Organization and European Medicines Agency also took action, highlighting the global reach of flawed data. What is the Medical Evidence Project trying to do? The Medical Evidence Project aims to tackle the mounting crisis in research reliability. Funded by a $900,000 grant from Open Philanthropy, the project will focus on identifying manipulated or low-quality studies before they affect patient care or policy. Led by Boston-based research scientist James Heathers, the initiative will be run under the Centre for Scientific Integrity, the non-profit that also operates Retraction Watch. Heathers will collaborate with Ivan Oransky, the centre's executive director and co-founder of Retraction Watch. 'We originally set up the Centre for Scientific Integrity as a home for Retraction Watch, but we always hoped we would be able to do more in the research accountability space,' Oransky said in a statement. 'The Medical Evidence Project allows us to support critical analysis and disseminate the findings.' By combining editorial review, forensic screening, and whistleblower tips, the initiative hopes to build a stronger accountability model—preventing both misconduct and honest errors before they influence decisions. From whistleblowers to watchdogs: How the system will work The Medical Evidence Project will operate via a dual strategy—combining tip-offs from whistleblowers with systematic screening using digital tools. A core team of up to five investigators will use forensic metascience methods to analyse papers for signs of manipulation, bias, or methodological error. Their findings will be published on Retraction Watch, known for tracking research retractions. James Heathers described the process in a blog post: A flaw is identified in a published paper A detailed report is prepared If the flaw is serious, it undergoes internal peer review The findings are then made public In addition, the project will: Build software tools to automate parts of the verification process Follow up on anonymous tips through a dedicated whistleblower channel Pay external reviewers to independently verify and scrutinise findings The team aims to uncover at least 10 flawed meta-analyses per year, with the broader goal of raising the reliability of published medical literature. Why this matters to patients, policymakers, and the public A study in Misinformation Review by Harvard Kennedy School found that nearly two-thirds of sampled scientific papers on Google Scholar showed signs of being generated using AI tools like GPT. Roughly 14.5 per cent of these flagged studies were health-related—some even appearing in established journals. The problem is worsened by the fact that Google Scholar does not differentiate between peer-reviewed publications and unvetted content like preprints or student theses. Once flawed studies are cited in meta-analyses or referenced by clinicians, they can misguide patient care, misallocate public funds, and skew health policies. This is why initiatives like the Medical Evidence Project are vital—not as punitive measures, but as proactive efforts to improve transparency, raise research standards, and restore faith in evidence-based medicine. Conclusion Science thrives on credibility. The global push to catch flaws before they become crises marks a pivotal shift in how health research is verified. With ethical oversight, smarter tools, and dedicated investigators, the goal is clear and urgent: to ensure medical evidence truly serves the people who depend on it.
