More than 10k cans of Coca-Cola voluntarily recalled over possible plastic contamination
More than 10,000 cans of Original Coca-Cola have been voluntarily recalled due to possible plastic contamination.
The recall was initiated by Coca-Cola manufacturer Reyes Coca-Cola Bottling on March 6 and was officially designated a Class II recall by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration on March 24, according to an FDA report.
According to the FDA, the Class II designation indicates that use of a recalled product could cause temporary or reversible health effects or that the probability of "serious adverse health consequences" is "remote."
In total, 864 12-count packs of Coco-Cola Original Taste cans are affected.
The recall only affects specific 12-ounce Coca-Cola Original cans produced by Reyes Coca-Cola Bottling, LLC in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Only certain batches distributed in Illinois and Wisconsin are included.
Recall on Diet Coke, Fanta Orange and Sprite due to possible contamination
To check if your Coca-Cola is part of the recall, look for the following details on the can or packaging:
Can UPC: 0 49000-00634 6
Pack UPC: 0 49000-02890 4
Date code: Sept. 29, 2025 (SEP2925MDA)
Time stamp: 1100-1253
Labeling: "Canned Under Authority of the Coca-Cola Company, Atlanta, GA 30313."
Reached for comment Tuesday, Coca-Cola referred ABC News to Reyes Coca-Cola Bottling. In a statement, a spokesperson for the bottling company confirmed the voluntary recall.
"The cases are being withdrawn because they did not meet our high-quality standards," the spokesperson said. "We are taking this voluntary action because nothing is more important to us than providing high-quality products to the people who drink our beverages."
More than 10k cans of Coca-Cola voluntarily recalled over possible plastic contamination originally appeared on goodmorningamerica.com
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Business Upturn
7 minutes ago
- Business Upturn
OneSource Specialty Pharma shares jump 3% after USFDA grants VAI classification for its Bangalore facility
By Aman Shukla Published on June 10, 2025, 09:22 IST Shares of OneSource Specialty Pharma Ltd jumped 3% in morning trade on June 10 after the company announced that its flagship facility in Bangalore received a 'Voluntary Action Indicated' (VAI) classification from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (USFDA). As of 9:21 AM, the shares were trading 3.61% higter at Rs 2,002.70. The classification follows a routine USFDA inspection conducted from March 20 to March 28, 2025. At the end of the inspection, the agency issued a Form 483 with four observations. The company responded with a comprehensive corrective action plan. After reviewing the response, the USFDA designated the outcome as VAI, indicating that while issues were noted, they were not serious enough to trigger regulatory or enforcement action. The VAI status also confirms that the inspection is now officially closed. The company did not disclose the specific details of the observations, but emphasized that the facility remains integral to its core manufacturing and development operations. A VAI classification is generally seen as a positive regulatory outcome, especially compared to more severe classifications like 'Official Action Indicated' (OAI). Investors reacted favorably to the news, pushing the stock higher. Disclaimer: The information provided is for informational purposes only and should not be considered financial or investment advice. Stock market investments are subject to market risks. Always conduct your own research or consult a financial advisor before making investment decisions. Author or Business Upturn is not liable for any losses arising from the use of this information. Aman Shukla is a post-graduate in mass communication . A media enthusiast who has a strong hold on communication ,content writing and copy writing. Aman is currently working as journalist at
Business Upturn
2 hours ago
- Business Upturn
Eternal shares in focus today after Blinkit's food licence suspended by Maharashtra FDA in Pune
By Aditya Bhagchandani Published on June 10, 2025, 09:04 IST Shares of Eternal Ltd. were in focus on Tuesday after reports emerged that Maharashtra's Food and Drug Administration (FDA) had suspended the food license of Blinkit in Pune's Balewadi area due to multiple regulatory violations, as reported by The Economic Times . According to the report, a June 5 investigation by the Maharashtra FDA revealed that the Blinkit-operated facility, managed by M/s Energy Darkstore Services near Mitcon College in Balewadi, lacked a valid Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) license required for producing, distributing, or selling food items. In addition to licensing gaps, serious food safety lapses were observed, including improperly stored food items on the floor and missing pest control audits. The FDA acted under Section 31(1) of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, suspending the facility's food business licence until the proper authorisation is obtained. This action follows rising scrutiny of dark store operations across India amid growing concerns over food hygiene and regulatory compliance. Blinkit has not yet responded to queries regarding the suspension. The development has sparked renewed market attention toward Eternal Ltd., which is believed to have exposure or links to service providers in the last-mile and food retail space. Aditya Bhagchandani serves as the Senior Editor and Writer at Business Upturn, where he leads coverage across the Business, Finance, Corporate, and Stock Market segments. With a keen eye for detail and a commitment to journalistic integrity, he not only contributes insightful articles but also oversees editorial direction for the reporting team.
Medscape
3 hours ago
- Medscape
Part D Cancer Drug Launch Prices Soar Past Inflation
Launch prices for Medicare Part D anticancer drugs have risen sharply since 2012, with a mean increase of $1694 per year. In 2025, the observed prices were 15%-200% higher than expected if the increases were due to inflation alone, but the gap between observed and inflation-adjusted prices narrowed over the study period. METHODOLOGY: The Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 introduced price negotiation for Medicare-covered drugs and required manufacturers to pay rebates to Medicare for price increases above inflation. But it did not address the launch prices of new drugs. Anticancer drugs, a protected drug class with mandatory Medicare Part D coverage, may now be especially prone to higher launch prices, in part because the Inflation Reduction Act limits out-of-pocket spending and price increases after market entry. Researchers identified 86 branded, self-administered, molecularly targeted anticancer therapies approved by the FDA between January 2010 and December 2024. Data on drug prices were obtained from the Medicare Prescription Drug Plan Formulary and adjusted for inflation. The researchers looked at launch prices by year and compared drug prices in 2025 with those expected if launch prices had increased due to inflation alone since the drug's market entry. TAKEAWAY: The mean monthly launch price increased from $10,954 for drugs first observed in the Medicare formulary in 2012-2014 to $27,891 for drugs first observed in 2023-2025. After adjusting for inflation, the mean launch price increased by $1694 per year ( P < .001). < .001). In 2025, actual drug prices were 14.8%-200.9% higher than expected if they had only kept pace with inflation. Although the gap between observed and inflation-adjusted prices narrowed over time, price increases continued to outpace inflation in 2023 and 2024, despite the Inflation Reduction Act rebate requirement, which will result in rebates to Medicare starting in fall 2025. IN PRACTICE: 'Launch prices for self-administered targeted anticancer therapies have grown precipitously, although no evidence was found of disproportionate increases in recent years. Instead, continued launch price growth for anticancer therapies was observed, consistent with prior research,' the study authors wrote. 'This suggests that companies were already engaging in price maximization for anticancer therapies and continued to do so after the implementation of the [Inflation Reduction Act].' SOURCE: This study, led by Stacie B. Dusetzina, PhD, Vanderbilt University School of Medicine in Nashville, Tennessee, was published online in JAMA . LIMITATIONS: This study used example indications to determine monthly doses and pricing. Additionally, variations in available price measures were noted over the study period. DISCLOSURES: This study was funded by Arnold Ventures. Several authors reported receiving grants or personal fees and having other ties with various sources.
