Bread sold at Kroger and Walmart in a dozen states is under recall for ‘life-threatening' problem
Hartford Bakery Inc. recalled its Lewis Bake Shop Artisan Style half-loaf bread after an internal packaging error resulted in visible hazelnuts, an undeclared allergen, in some loaves.
About 883 units from six production lots were mistakenly wrapped and labeled merely as 'May Contain Tree Nuts,' without specifying hazelnuts.
The contamination stems from a packaging changeover from a hazelnut-containing bread batch to the white loaf variant, the company said.
The recalled bread was distributed across 12 states, including Michigan, Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Kentucky, Tennessee, Georgia, Arkansas, Missouri, Alabama and Mississippi.
The company, headquartered in West Hartford, Connecticut, issued a recall for its 'Lewis Bake Shop Artisan Style 1/2 Loaf' on July 10, according to the FDA. The company warns that "people with a nut allergy or severe sensitivity to hazelnuts run the risk of serious or life-threatening allergic reactions" if they consume the bread.
The bread is packaged in a flexible plastic bag and can be identified by lot codes T10 174010206, T10 174010306, T10 174010406, T10 174020206, T10 174020306 and T10 174020406, which appear on the front panel.
The packaging also includes a net weight of 12 oz, a UPC of 24126018152 on the bottom and an expiration date of 07/13/2025 displayed on the front panel.
Hartford Bakery said it had removed all products linked to the six affected production lots.
The bakery had received complaints about visible nuts and reports one case of digestive discomfort, but no serious injuries or illnesses have been reported.
Consumers who have purchased the affected product are being urged to return it to the place of purchase for a full refund.
Solve the daily Crossword
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
18 minutes ago
- Yahoo
GM President Outlines Criteria for Next-Gen Camaro
⚡️ Read the full article on Motorious Could the Camaro Return as an EV? The Chevrolet Camaro may be gone for now, but General Motors President Mark Reuss has made it clear that the iconic pony car is not forgotten. Speaking with The Detroit News during last month's 24 Hours of Le Mans, Reuss shared insight into what would be necessary to bring the Camaro back – and hinted at the possibility of electrification playing a key role. Reuss, who has been a longtime advocate for GM performance vehicles, reflected on his personal connection to the Camaro. His first car was a 1967 model, purchased with his father for $1,300. 'It was high school, I was 16, and it brought so much joy to me,' Reuss said. 'Not because I was racing the car, but because it was a really pretty car.' That sense of beauty and joy, according to Reuss, would be central to a successful revival. 'I think that formula of beauty – and a little bit of functionality and fun – all of that is important,' he explained. 'If we were getting back into Camaro, that piece of it is really important.' However, Reuss also acknowledged the shrinking pony car market, citing Ford's sales success with the electric Mustang Mach-E over its traditional V8-powered counterpart. That could mean GM is considering a similar two-pronged approach: an electrified Camaro variant to meet modern market demands, paired with the possibility of a traditional performance-focused version to keep enthusiasts engaged. While Reuss stopped short of confirming any return, his comments suggest that GM has not closed the door on the Camaro nameplate. For fans mourning its 2024 discontinuation, this may be the clearest sign yet that a new Camaro—potentially with both EV and V8 options—could someday roar back to life.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Editorial: City Council makes fitful, but important progress on Chicago's housing woes
The cost of keeping a roof over your head keeps climbing for both Chicago buyers and renters. City officials say Chicago is short by at least 120,000 units of what it needs to balance supply and demand. There isn't one silver bullet that will make the situation better, and the City Council on Wednesday was faced with two such proposals. One advanced, and the other was delayed. Aldermen approved an ordinance that makes it simpler to waive mandatory parking rules for developments near public transportation, a move that could lower costs and increase housing availability. Some experts say such reforms can boost homebuilding by 40% to 70%. But aldermen deferred a measure to allow so-called granny flats, also known as accessory dwelling units (ADUs), in all 50 wards, postponing a vote. Several years back, the city launched a pilot program in five zones across Chicago to allow for these smaller units, built on the same property as a primary residence. First the good news: Softening parking requirements near transit appears to be a winner. Research from the Sightline Institute, a think tank in the Pacific Northwest, finds that fully flexible parking produces two to three times more new homes than encouraging granny flats or expanding apartment construction near transit. Hopefully, we'll see that kind of result from the council's action Wednesday. We were hopeful to see more movement on granny flats, but we don't believe Wednesday's deferral was the final word. This page has been a consistent supporter of the concept, believing that granny flats, done sensitively, can add to our housing stock without disrupting neighborhoods. To be sure, there hasn't exactly been a stampede of ADU development in parts of the city subject to the pilot program — just over 370 units have been added in four years. Ald. Bennett Lawson, 44th, who has long championed this issue in City Council, said during the hearing that 'we know from the pilot that very rarely do you see two on a block.' That's not a lot. But ADUs are part of a toolkit that needs as many implements as possible to reverse the housing trends that are making it too expensive to live in too many parts of the city. Yet there clearly still is substantial aldermanic resistance. Many aldermen are concerned that this proposal takes away their ability to control how development works in their wards. Ald. Anthony Beale, 9th, called it 'the first step to doing away with zoning in the city of Chicago' during the July 15 zoning meeting. 'You can keep it in your community, not mine,' Beale said. 'To have this done by right without aldermanic approval, I don't know what alderman in their right mind wanna give up that authority. I don't know who would want to do that.' To be sure, Beale isn't just a naysayer — he is clearly a passionate advocate for his constituents. During the meeting, he also told of his fight for tax credits to develop 300 units in a vacant building in his ward. It's obvious that Chicago's housing shortage is being plagued by many issues. We acknowledge the valid concerns of bungalow belt aldermen who are worried about granny flat construction changing the character of their neighborhoods. In some parts of California, residents have complained that ADUs have become 'granny towers' that are taller than the primary structures. Those concerns should be addressed in the ordinance. We think Lawson and others working on the proposal have done a good job of trying to add sensible guardrails, and they should continue to do so. For example, in single‑family districts, building a granny flat would require an administrative adjustment from the zoning administrator, adding oversight without the cost and complexity of a full City Council zoning change. We think it's also worth noting that under the proposed change, these structures couldn't be used for short-term rentals such as Airbnb. Much of the resistance surely stems from Johnson's push at the outset of this debate to legalize development of ADUs by right throughout the city. That overreach — a direct attack on aldermanic prerogative, which City Council members zealously protect — undermined the trust now needed to forge a compromise. But by all appearances, the tone has shifted, and those championing ADUs, including the mayor, are open to negotiating. Housing is a complicated issue, and it's human nature to be protective of your neighborhood. But whether you're Team YIMBY or Team NIMBY, you have to agree that the city must do more to boost our housing stock. In our view, ADU advocates should be open to reasonable conditions, but the city shouldn't give aldermen carte blanche to wholesale bar the construction of granny flats. There's still lots work to be done on housing reform. But aldermen made progress Wednesday. Let's keep it going. Submit a letter, of no more than 400 words, to the editor here or email letters@ Solve the daily Crossword
Associated Press
3 hours ago
- Associated Press
Juul gets FDA's OK to keep selling tobacco and menthol e-cigarettes
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Food and Drug Administration is allowing vaping brand Juul to keep its e-cigarettes on the market, providing relief to a company that has struggled for years after being widely blamed for sparking the teen vaping trend. FDA regulators said Thursday that Juul's studies show its e-cigarettes are less harmful for adult smokers, who can benefit from switching completely to vaping. The FDA decision applies to both tobacco- and menthol-flavored versions of the reusable product, which works with nicotine-filled cartridges sold in two different strengths. Juul previously discontinued several fruit and candy flavors that helped drive its popularity but were favored by teens. Juul will be one of only two U.S. companies authorized to sell menthol-flavored vapes, which many adults prefer to tobacco flavor. 'This is an important milestone for the company and I think we made a scientifically sound case for the role that menthol can play in e-vapor,' Juul CEO K.C. Crosthwaite told The Associated Press. Parents, politicians and anti-tobacco groups are certain to oppose FDA's decision. They have argued for years that Juul products should be permanently banned due to their role in triggering a yearslong spike in underage vaping. 'It is a big step in the wrong direction to authorize sales of the product that was responsible for this public health crisis in the first place,' said Yolonda Richardson, CEO of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids in a statement. Juul was once valued at over $13 billion and its small, sleek e-cigarettes revolutionized the image and technology of the vaping industry. But the company has since been forced to slash hundreds of jobs and pay billions to settle lawsuits over its role in the rise of youth vaping. The FDA had ordered the company to remove its products from the market in June 2022. But then the agency abruptly reversed course days later and agreed to reopen its scientific review of Juul's application after the company pushed back in court. Juul said that regulators had overlooked thousands of pages of scientific data critical to its submission. Thursday's announcement is not an approval or endorsement, and the FDA reiterated that people who do not smoke should not use Juul or any other e-cigarettes. The FDA determination indicates that smokers who switch completely to Juul can reduce their exposure to deadly carcinogens and other chemicals found in traditional cigarettes. The FDA decision applies to Juul's original system, which is now roughly a decade old. Crosthwaite said the company hopes to win authorization for its next-generation device and is also considering applying to FDA for more flavors. 'It's critically important that American adults who use tobacco have regulated options,' Crosthwaite said. In recent years, the FDA has authorized a handful of e-cigarettes to help adult smokers cut back on cigarettes. Juul's main competitors, Vuse and Njoy, each previously received FDA permission to remain on the market. Njoy sells the only other menthol-flavored e-cigarettes authorized by FDA. To meet FDA requirements, companies must show that their products benefit public health. In practice, that means proving that adult smokers who use them are likely to quit or reduce their smoking, while teens are unlikely to get hooked on them. The brainchild of two Stanford University students, Juul launched in 2015 and within two years rocketed to the top of the vaping market. Juul quickly outpaced older brands with its high-nicotine, fruity-flavored cartridges, sold in mango, mint and creme brulé. The company's small, discrete devices provided a more potent, user-friendly alternative to older, bulkier devices. But the company's rise was fueled by underage use, and e-cigarettes quickly became ubiquitous in U.S. schools. In 2019, the company was pressured into halting all advertising and eliminating most of its flavors, leaving only tobacco and menthol-flavored options. By then the company was already the target of multiple investigations and lawsuits by federal, state and local officials as well as class action attorneys. In 2022, the company paid $1.7 billion to settle thousands of lawsuits brought by families of Juul users, school districts, city governments and Native American tribes. The company separately agreed to pay $1.1 billion to settle lawsuits or investigations from most U.S. states. Juul is no longer the top-selling e-cigarette brand and now trails Vuse, which is sold by tobacco giant Reynolds American, which also makes Camel and Newport cigarettes. Teens have shifted away from Juul amid a wider drop in vaping, according to the latest federal figures. The FDA reported last year that teen vaping dropped to a 10-year low, after stepped up enforcement against unauthorized brands imported from China, such as Elf Bar.
