Grain Millers Recalls 63,000 Pounds of Oats Due to Plastic Risk, FDA Says
Grain Millers, one of the largest oat processors in North America, is recalling more than 63,000 pounds of oats because they might be contaminated with plastic, according to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
According to USA Today , the voluntary recall involves two types of oats: Regular Rolled Oats #5 and Quick Rolled Oats #21.
Specifically, 20 large totes of Regular Rolled Oats weighing 1,800 pounds each and 17 totes of Quick Rolled Oats weighing 1,600 pounds each were affected.
These oats were shipped to distributors in California and Indiana, based on FDA reports.
The FDA classified this as a Class II recall, meaning the oats could cause temporary or medically reversible health problems, but the risk of serious harm is considered low. The recall began on February 11, 2025, and was officially closed on April 25, 2025.
Grain Millers, based in Eden Prairie, Minnesota, says on its website that it processes about a quarter of all oats in North America and is the world's largest organic oat processor.
Their regular rolled oats are often used in breakfast foods and baking, while quick rolled oats are typically found in instant oatmeal packets. FDA Alert: Grain Millers Oats Could Pose Choking Hazard
Even though no injuries have been reported so far, experts urge anyone who might have these oats to be cautious.
Eating oats contaminated with plastic could cause choking, injuries to the mouth or throat, or even digestive problems if swallowed.
The recalled products are regular Rolled Oats #5 with product ID 810239153 with code 250131N-1 and Quick Rolled Oats #21 with product ID 811176 with code 250202N-2, TheKitchn said
If you live in California or Indiana and think you may have purchased these oats, check the packaging carefully. If you find matching product numbers, do not eat them. Instead, throw them away or return them to where you bought them for a refund.
Grain Millers did not issue a public press release about the recall and has not responded to media questions as of April 27.
Originally published on vcpost.com
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Int'l Business Times
2 days ago
- Int'l Business Times
Anna Forsythe Built Oncoscope to Give Doctors What They Actually Need: Usable Intelligence
In today's healthcare landscape, oncologists are drowning in data. Thousands of studies are published each month, new FDA approvals roll out regularly, and guidelines change constantly. Yet, despite this flood of information, many doctors still struggle to make the best treatment decisions for their patients. The problem is not a lack of data. The problem is a lack of usable insights. Nowhere is this more critical than in oncology, where every day and every decision can change the course of a patient's life. Anna Forsythe, founder of Oncoscope-AI, an AI-powered oncology intelligence platform, has spent her career at the intersection of science, economics, and clinical practice. She believes the answer is not to add more data to the pile but to transform it into clarity. "We do not need to give physicians more to read," Forsythe says. "We need to give them the right information, in real-time, that is relevant to the patient in front of them." It is a reasonable expectation, but one that the current system sometimes fails to meet. Oncology guidelines can span hundreds of pages, often outdated by the time they reach clinical use. "While there have been recent attempts to address this problem with a chatbot approach, it is the human/AI combination that is key in achieving usability and physicians' trust." Forsythe's platform, Oncoscope, solves this challenge by merging human expertise with trained artificial intelligence. It automatically reviews and organizes clinical trials, cross-referencing them with regulatory approvals and treatment guidelines. The result is a curated, reliable, and immediately usable knowledge base that oncologists can access in seconds. It works like this: a doctor inputs three basic clinical parameters—the stage of the disease, the genetic profile, and any prior treatments. In return, they receive a tailored, human-reviewed list of relevant studies, including survival outcomes and progression data, with immediate links to guidelines, approvals, and original publications. There is no need to scroll through irrelevant abstracts or search multiple databases. Everything is in one place, organized and actionable. This kind of tool is not just a convenience. It is a necessity. According to Forsythe, she was inspired to create Oncoscope after seeing people in her own life receive outdated or suboptimal cancer treatments. In one case, a friend with late-stage breast cancer was placed on chemotherapy despite the existence of a newer, more targeted therapy. The doctor had not yet seen the recent study supporting it. Forsythe found it in three clicks. "That story is not an exception," she says. "It is happening every day. And it is not because doctors are careless. It is because the information is not delivered in a way they can use quickly." This is a systemic flaw, and it has consequences. When oncologists default to older treatments because they cannot keep up with new evidence, patients can miss out on therapies that could extend or improve their lives. In a field where even a few months of added survival can mean everything, delays in information are delays in care. Forsythe and her team designed Oncoscope to cut out these delays. The system prioritizes the most rigorous research, flagged for relevance and clinical significance. Each entry is reviewed by experts to ensure it meets regulatory-grade standards. Doctors are not asked to interpret raw data—they are given the insights they need to make decisions now. Critically, Oncoscope is free for verified healthcare professionals. Forsythe calls it an altruistic venture, at least for now. Her goal is simple—to give doctors a tool they can trust and patients the care they deserve. "If we want better outcomes in cancer care," she says, "we do not need more information. We need smarter information. That is what changes lives."
DW
06-06-2025
- DW
Fecal transplants: Study is a 'wake-up call' for the field – DW – 06/06/2025
They are hailed as a promising method to restore gut microbiomes, but a study suggests fecal transplants may bring unintended health risks. Fecal microbial transplants (FMTs) can be traced back to the 4th Century, but it is only since their approval by the US Food and Drug Administration in past decade that the procedure has entered wide practice. They have been hailed as a treatment for Clostridium difficile or a common bacterial infection that can cause inflammation and gastrointestinal issues. The FDA first approved FMTs as a treatment for in 2013 and approved the first drug for FMT treatment in 2022. Some think FMTs may also be an option for treating Crohn's disease— a chronic autoimmune condition — ulcerative colitis and irritable bowel disorder. But researchers warned in a study published June 6, 2025, that FMTs may introduce microbes that could hijack the host environment to suit their needs and thrive, potentially introducing new health risks. The study, which was performed in mice, human tissue samples and with a small volunteer group, found "mismatches" between the donor fecal matter and destination gut environment could have unintended consequences on the recipient's immune and metabolic function. "Even a single FMT will cause a change in the host-microbe relationships in these very different regions of the bowel that may be very difficult to reverse," said Eugene Chang, the study's senior author and a professor of medicine at the University of Chicago, US, in a press statement. How does a fecal transplant work? Every human has a unique mix of microbes in their gastrointestinal tract — the gut. This includes trillions of bacteria, fungi, viruses and other microorganisms that perform biological duties within the body. Collectively, this collection of microbes is called gut flora. For some people, this ecosystem of microbes is disrupted by infections, autoimmune issues and other problems. This disrupted state is called gut dysbiosis. FMT donors need to meet a range of requirements: For instance, they must be free of blood-related infections, such as hepatitis and HIV, and they cannot have gut issues themselves. Doctors usually perform a colonoscopy to extract the donor's stool and, after further preparation, insert the donor microbes via a long tube into the recipient's gut. How does a Fecal Microbiota Transplant work? To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video Colonizing the colon In the study, microbes were taken from three separate regions of the small and large intensities and implanted into mice recipients. Each batch of newly introduced gut flora appeared to take over — or, as described by the researchers, "terraform" — the entire intestinal tract of each mouse, rather than simply occupying the same region they originated from in the donor's gut. The colonizing microbes also transformed genes and proteins in the tissues of the recipient mice to make a more accommodating environment — even at a microbial level, these introduced species appeared to thrive. An assessment in seven human volunteers over a month also found high levels of microbe colonization in the small intestine. Because this caused modifications to immune and metabolic functions, the researchers say greater care should be given to designing fecal transplants that use specific, targeted microbes for the intestines. The gut is not only for digestion To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video A 'wake-up call' for the FMT field The study's lead author, Orlando DeLeon, University of Chicago, said it was a "wake-up call to the field that maybe we shouldn't willy-nilly put large bowel microbes into different parts of the intestine that shouldn't be there." OMT — omni microbial transplantation — administers a batch of good gut flora as a pill or through endoscopy, targeting specific intestinal regions with "matched" microbes. DeLeon said it's a better way forward for fecal transplants. "The microbes that were supposed to be there are better suited for it," said DeLeon, "so they're more naturally going to fill it even in the presence of other microbes." DW approached the research group for further comment but did not receive a response in time for publication. Ed Kuijper, an expert at the Leiden University Medical Centre, Netherlands, who was not involved in the study, told DW via email that the research "clearly demonstrates that FMT […] affects the microbiota composition throughout the entire intestinal tract, in both humans and mice." But Kuijper said he had concerns with the conclusion that FMT leads to "microbiota mismatches" and "unintended consequences" in various regions of the intestinal tract. Just as the research team acknowledged the limitations of only investigating seven human subjects over a month, Kuijper said a more extensive assessment in patients would be important to conclusively assess the potential negative health outcomes of fecal transplants. "A more appropriate conclusion would be that FMT induces changes in both the small and large intestines in mice, with systemic effects that vary depending on the region affected. It remains unclear if these changes persist in humans." In Europe, an inter-organization group called EurFMT exchanges research and information, and maintains a continental registry for patient follow-up. Edited by: Zulfikar Abbany
Int'l Business Times
20-05-2025
- Int'l Business Times
US Limits Covid Boosters To Over-65s Or Those At High Risk
The United States will limit Covid-19 boosters to people over 65 or those at risk of serious illness, while requiring vaccine makers to run fresh clinical trials before offering shots to younger and healthier individuals, officials said Tuesday. Writing in the New England Journal of Medicine, the Food and Drug Administration's Vinayak Prasad and Commissioner Martin Makary framed the policy shift as "evidence-based" and would align the United States more closely with guidance in Europe. But it comes as Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a longtime vaccine skeptic, pushes to remake federal public health policy. Kennedy previously led a nonprofit that was critical of immunization programs, and during the pandemic petitioned the FDA to revoke Covid vaccine authorizations, citing rare side effects including heart inflammation. Prasad and Makary praised the initial Covid-19 vaccine rollout as "a major scientific, medical, and regulatory accomplishment," but argued that the benefits of repeated boosters for low-risk individuals are uncertain. They criticized the US approach of recommending boosters for all adults regardless of age or health status, calling it a "one-size-fits-all" model based on the mistaken belief that Americans couldn't handle more nuanced, risk-based advice. Rather than building public trust, they wrote, it had backfired -- fueling vaccine hesitancy that has spilled over into skepticism toward childhood shots, including those for measles. The FDA said it would rely on lab test results to approve boosters for people who are over 65, or over six months old with at least one underlying condition. But for healthy individuals between six months and 64 years, regulators will now require data from randomized trials. "We simply don't know whether a healthy 52-year-old woman with a normal BMI (body mass index) who has had Covid-19 three times and has received six previous doses of a Covid-19 vaccine will benefit from the seventh dose," they wrote. Some infectious disease experts welcomed the shift. Amesh Adalja of Johns Hopkins University said it matched with the approach taken by other countries in a population that already carries significant immunity. "For lower-risk individuals, the goal has always been less clear, as protection against infection is transient and they don't have a high risk of severe disease," he told AFP. But others voiced concern about the practical consequences. Paul Offit, a leading vaccine expert at the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, said it could limit access for people who still want boosters. "Any use, say in a healthy 35-year-old, would be considered off-label, and you wonder whether an insurance company would pay for it," he told AFP. Under the revised framework, companies like Pfizer and Moderna will be encouraged to test updated boosters in adults aged 50 to 64. These studies should measure whether the vaccines reduce symptomatic infections, hospitalizations and deaths. Rather than comparing new shots to earlier formulations, Prasad and Makary suggested placebo-controlled trials -- with saline as the comparator -- to better evaluate both benefit and potential side effects. The proposal, first floated by Kennedy earlier this month, has proved divisive. Critics argue that using a placebo -- when authorized vaccines already exist -- could expose participants to unnecessary harm. "Imagine if there was a death or two in the placebo group," said Offit. "I don't see how you conscience that." Supporters of continued Covid-19 boosters often draw parallels to annual flu shots. But Makary and Prasad pushed back on that comparison, arguing the genetic changes in Covid variants haven't been significant enough to justify automatically updating the vaccine each year. The FDA officials also sought to reassure Americans concerned they might lose access to boosters under the new framework. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) definition of risk factors is "vast, including obesity and even mental health conditions such as depression," they wrote, noting that between 100 million and 200 million Americans would likely still qualify.
