The Biggest Butter Recalls To Hit US Shelves
From potentially dangerous organisms to tiny metal fragments, recalled butter may contain any number of unpleasant aberrations. While some of these incidents only affected a few hundred pounds of the dairy product, other recalls impacted thousands of pounds of inventory — and, by extension, put thousands of American consumers at potential risk.
Read more: False Things You Believe About Shopping At Aldi
In October 2024, Costco recalled 79,200 pounds of sweet cream butter, all of which was sold under its in-house label, Kirkland Signature. However, contrary to what you might expect, this incident wasn't caused by bacterial contamination. Instead, it was all the result of a labeling error.
As mandated by the FDA, manufacturers must declare major allergens on food packaging, and one of these eight major allergens is milk (others include eggs, fish, and tree nuts). While it may seem like common knowledge that butter contains milk, an undeclared allergen is still sufficient cause for a recall, as shoppers may note the absence of an allergen label on the butter's packaging and consider it safe, even if they usually avoid consuming milk. Since Kirkland's packaging for its Sweet Cream Butter failed to name this allergen and only listed cream — not milk — among its ingredients, the product was removed from shelves, and those who had already purchased the product were encouraged to return the item to their local Costco.
The error, brought to the warehouse chain's attention by a Texas wholesaler, appeared in Costco locations throughout the state and affected both salted and unsalted versions of the product. It's unclear whether or not this mislabeling affected any consumers directly, but as the latest expiration date for the recalled units passed on March 29, 2025, the risk has likely been mitigated.
Cabot Creamery landed a respectable seventh-place spot in our worst-to-best ranking of 16 popular butter brands, but that doesn't mean its products are always above reproach. On March 26, 2025, the brand's parent company, Agri-Mark, issued a voluntary recall of 189 cases (or 1,701 pounds) of its salted Extra Creamy Premium Butter. The product — sold in 8-ounce boxes, each containing two 4-ounce sticks — was "contaminated with elevated levels of coliform," according to an FDA release. Coliform is a bacteria found in human and animal waste, and it's also a common water system contaminant in Vermont, where some of the brand's products are manufactured.
Fortunately, the associated risk for this particular recall seems to be relatively low. The FDA designated the incident as Class III, meaning the product is unlikely to cause any adverse health effects. In more extreme cases, the presence of coliform can indicate fecal contamination, which may result in illnesses such as E. coli.
While the affected products reached seven states in total — Vermont, New York, Pennsylvania, Maine, Connecticut, New Hampshire, and Arkansas — Cabot Creamery shared in a statement that Agri-Mark "successfully recovered 99.5% of the lot of the recalled product before it was sold to consumers." The statement also clarified that Agri-Mark had identified and attended to the cause of the contamination, though the exact source of the contaminant is unclear. Only 17 packages of the tainted butter were sold, but anyone in possession of the product should either throw it out or return it to the store. The butter's "best by" date is September 9, 2025, and its UPC is 0 78354 62038 0.
This Land O'Lakes recall is a bit different from the others gathered here. For one thing, it took place over 20 years ago, and as such, information regarding the incident is scant. What we do know, however, and what really sets it apart from similar occurrences, is that this butter was recalled due to the potential presence of small pieces of metal.
Land O'Lakes voluntarily recalled 126,540 pounds of its Salted Stick Butter in July 2003 after determining that the product, which was sold in 1-pound packages, may have contained small metal fragments. How exactly the fragments first came into contact with the butter is unclear. The affected products were made in Kent, Ohio, and distributed across 22 states, including Illinois, Kansas, Michigan, Texas, and the Carolinas, among others.
Land O'Lakes shared the production codes for the affected units — KE107P, KE108P, and KE109P — and advised those who had already purchased the butter to return the product for a refund. Based on available reports, it doesn't appear as though any consumers were negatively impacted by the recall.
Back in 2022, we reported on a Wegmans butter recall that put consumers at risk. The store's 3.5-ounce black tubs of Lemon Dill Finishing Butter, produced by Epicurean Butter LLC, were flagged in August of that year for potential contamination by Listeria monocytogenes. Listeria is a type of bacteria that, according to the CDC, is the "third leading cause of death from foodborne illness" in the U.S. Approximately 1,600 people become infected each year, and about 260 of those cases are fatal.
The butter in question appeared in Wegmans stores across multiple states, namely New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, Virginia, North Carolina, and Washington D.C. The cause of contamination was the dill, which came frozen from Epicurean Butter's supplier, SupHerb Farms. This supplier was the party that alerted Epicurean Butter to the potential bacteria risk following a test of the product. The recall affected 1,000 tubs of butter across 12 lots, with expiration dates spanning from July 5 to November 17, 2022. No information has been revealed regarding potential infections among consumers.
Read the original article on Mashed.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Forbes
10 minutes ago
- Forbes
Generics Must Compete On Price, Not Safety
"Competition should always drive costs down—never quality," writes Pipes. NurPhoto via Getty Images America's generic drug market is one of our greatest health policy successes. Today, 91% of all prescriptions in the U.S. are filled with generics. That dominance saves patients and taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars every year—and it also drives innovation. Drugmakers know their monopoly on a new treatment will be temporary—typically only enjoying about 12-14 years of effective market exclusivity—which pushes them to keep inventing rather than coasting on old pharmaceuticals. This success rests on a simple but powerful principle: generics can compete on price, but never by sacrificing quality or safety. Patients and doctors trust generics because they are required to be clinically equivalent to their branded counterparts—matching on active ingredient, dosage, route of administration, therapeutic effect, and safety. The Hatch-Waxman Act of 1984 enshrined that principle, striking a balance that has made the U.S. generic market the strongest in the world—and the most affordable. Now, the FDA is putting that trust at risk. The FDA has issued new draft rules on aluminum contamination in certain injectable drug products. These medicines are building blocks of intravenous nutrition given to premature babies who can't yet feed normally. For these fragile newborns, too much aluminum is not a minor issue—it can stunt bone growth and impair brain development. For decades, the FDA insisted that aluminum exposure be kept to an absolute minimum. But the new guidance relaxes those limits. It effectively carves out generous allowances for each ingredient, even if the combined total pushes right up against the danger zone. The guidance also allows so-called 'skinny labels'—narrow instructions that assume hospitals will use the products only as written. But the FDA knows it has little control over how drugs are actually used in real-world hospital settings. The result is that some manufacturers will now be able to sell products with far more aluminum than the safest versions already on the market. That's a problem for two reasons. First, premature infants often need more than a handful of these nutritional components. When mixed together, the FDA's math simply doesn't add up—total exposure can easily overshoot the safety threshold. And worse, neither doctors nor parents will know exactly how much aluminum a premature baby is receiving from these products—information that is critical to making safe treatment decisions. Second, it punishes the companies that invested in cleaner, safer production methods. One brand-name manufacturer has shown it can reduce aluminum by nearly 98%. Instead of rewarding that innovation, the FDA's new approach tilts the field toward corner-cutters. The agency justifies this as a way to prevent shortages. But that's a red herring. The agency's own reporting has shown that the real causes of shortages are thin profit margins and poor manufacturing practices. Lowering safety standards won't fix those problems—but it will drive responsible producers out of the market and put vulnerable infants at risk. The stakes go beyond premature babies. If the FDA is willing to water down protections here, what's to stop it from doing the same elsewhere? The genius of Hatch-Waxman was its bright line: generics had to match the original drug in safety and effectiveness. The moment regulators blur that line, public trust in the entire system begins to unravel. Doctors hesitate to prescribe, patients resist switching, and costs rise for everyone. The more than 7,000 American babies born prematurely each week deserve uncompromising protection. Instead, the FDA's draft guidance sends the opposite message: that standards can be bent, and safety is negotiable. Competition should always drive costs down—never quality. The FDA should withdraw this misguided guidance before it harms vulnerable infants and undermines the trust that makes our generic system work.

Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Combination Cancer Therapies Surge: The Young Adult Treatment Revolution
As cancer rates climb 30% among adults under 50, combination immunotherapy companies are advancing breakthrough treatments and institutional investors are committing $243.62 billion to capture the rapidly expanding precision oncology market. A medical crisis is reshaping the cancer treatment landscape. Young adults under 50 are experiencing unprecedented cancer rates, with aggressive tumors requiring innovative combination approaches that go far beyond traditional single-drug therapies. According to Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, cancer incidence rates in women under 50 are now 82% higher than their male counterparts, up from 51% in 2002. The American Cancer Society reports that colorectal cancer has become the leading cause of cancer deaths among young men and the second leading cause among young women, fundamentally changing treatment priorities across the oncology spectrum. The market response reflects this urgency. Mordor Intelligence projects the global cancer therapy market will surge from $243.62 billion in 2025 to $403.99 billion by 2030, reflecting a 10.64% CAGR driven by demand for combination therapies specifically designed to combat the more aggressive cancers plaguing younger demographics. Keep reading to discover how combination immunotherapy approaches are revolutionizing treatment for young adult cancer patients and which companies are positioned to dominate this rapidly evolving market. For a detailed analysis of one company leading this transformation, click here. Leading Companies in the Combination Therapy Revolution Combination immunotherapy is attracting significant institutional investment, with these companies making strategic moves: AstraZeneca PLC (NASDAQ: AZN) --- AstraZeneca recently received FDA Priority Review and Breakthrough Therapy Designation for its Imfinzi immunotherapy in early-stage gastric cancers, with FDA decision anticipated in Q4 2025. The perioperative combination regimen showed a 29% reduction in disease progression risk, positioning the company to capture significant market share as gastric cancers increasingly affect younger populations with more aggressive disease patterns. Bristol Myers Squibb Company (NYSE: BMY) --- Bristol Myers Squibb recently secured FDA approval for its Opdivo-Yervoy combination as first-line treatment for unresectable liver cancer, converting a previous accelerated approval. The dual checkpoint inhibitor regimen directly competes with rival immunotherapy combinations and offers potential for longer survival compared to traditional targeted therapies, particularly relevant as liver cancers show rising incidence in younger adults. Amgen Inc. (NASDAQ: AMGN) --- Amgen recently gained FDA approval for Imdelltra, its breakthrough bispecific T-cell engager for extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer, with pricing at $31,500 per first cycle. The drug demonstrated a tripling of survival duration to 14.3 months median overall survival in a disease where median survival typically reaches only 5 months, addressing the urgent need for effective treatments in the deadliest form of lung cancer. Pfizer Inc. (NYSE: PFE) --- Pfizer recently showcased breakthrough data across its oncology portfolio at ASCO 2025, featuring combination approaches in breast, genitourinary, and thoracic cancers. The company's Braftovi combination doubled survival time for patients with aggressive colorectal cancer in late-stage trials, representing significant progress for a cancer type that disproportionately affects younger adults with traditionally poor prognosis and limited treatment options. The $403.99 Billion Combination Therapy Opportunity The convergence of rising young adult cancer rates and breakthrough combination immunotherapies is creating unprecedented market expansion across every segment of oncology treatment. Read: Mining Stocks Finally Wake Up as Gold Stays Hot Above $3,300 $40 Silver Breakout Imminent as Miners Enter High-Momentum Phase Encryption Is Dying—Here's What Comes Next for Cyber Defense FDA Fast-Track Cancer Treatments Drive $900B Market Growth Forecast Mining Stocks Outpace Gold's Historic Rally as Sector Primes for Breakout According to Mordor Intelligence, the global cancer therapy market will reach $403.99 billion by 2030, with combination immunotherapies representing the fastest-growing segment. The shift toward treating younger patients with more aggressive cancers requiring multi-drug approaches is fundamentally altering treatment economics and creating new revenue opportunities for companies developing sophisticated combination regimens. Precedence Research forecasts the cancer therapeutics market will expand from $194.67 billion in 2024 to $469.38 billion by 2034, representing a 9.20% CAGR. This explosive growth is being driven by the unique challenges of treating younger patients whose cancers often resist single-agent therapies and require novel combinations of checkpoint inhibitors, targeted therapies, and next-generation immunomodulators specifically designed for aggressive tumor biology. Global Market Insights projects the oncology market will reach $866.1 billion by 2034, growing at a 10.8% CAGR. The market expansion is being accelerated by the urgent need to address the 30% surge in young adult cancer cases projected through 2030, with combination therapies representing the most promising approach to combat the treatment-resistant, aggressive cancers increasingly diagnosed in this demographic. The Bottom Line The combination therapy revolution is accelerating rapidly, driven by the unprecedented cancer epidemic affecting young adults who require more sophisticated treatment approaches than traditional single-drug regimens can provide. With aggressive cancers becoming more prevalent in younger demographics, the demand for innovative combination immunotherapies is creating massive market opportunities. Institutional investors are positioning for explosive growth as companies develop next-generation combination platforms specifically designed to address the unique molecular characteristics and treatment resistance patterns exhibited by cancers in younger patients. While the companies mentioned represent established leaders in combination therapy development, one innovative biotech has quietly advanced a viral immunotherapy platform that combines multiple mechanisms of action in a single treatment approach. To learn more about this emerging opportunity, click here.


Medscape
2 hours ago
- Medscape
Where Do We Stand on COVID Vaccine Recommendations in 2025?
This transcript has been edited for clarity. This edition of Medicine Matters takes a closer look at the future of COVID vaccines for fall 2025. The current status of COVID vaccines can be best described as unclear. There is confusion, conflicts of interest, and chaos. A lot has happened, so here is a brief recap of major developments over the past few months. New COVID Vaccine Approvals and a New Vaccine Formula On May 22, the FDA announced the new COVID vaccine formula, a monovalent JN.1 lineage — preferably using the LP.8.1 strain. On May 16, the FDA fully licensed the Novavax COVID vaccine but limited its use to those 65 or older, and to those aged 12-64 years with at least one high-risk medical condition. Later in May, these same restrictions were applied to the approval of Moderna's new lower-dose mRNA COVID vaccine, mNEXSPIKE. FDA's 'New' Way of Evaluating COVID Vaccines On May 20, in a sounding board article in The New England Journal of Medicine , the FDA Commissioner, Martin Makary, MD, MPH, and the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research Director, Vinay Prasad, MD, MPH, announced new changes on how FDA would evaluate COVID vaccines. Additional clinical trials, including placebo-controlled trials using a saline placebo, would be required. They said the FDA anticipates that it will make favorable risk-benefit findings for adults 65 or older and for those 6 months or older with one or more risk factors that put them at high risk for severe COVID outcomes. Both pregnancy and recent pregnancy were on their list of underlying medical conditions that increase a person's risk for severe COVID. HHS Secretary Kennedy Issues His Own COVID Vaccine Directive One week later, on May 27, HHS Secretary Kennedy issued his own directive and unilaterally removed COVID vaccines from the immunization schedule for healthy children and for pregnant women. He made this announcement on social media. No new evidence was cited to support this decision. Absent from this announcement was any representative from the CDC or ACIP. Kennedy's actions triggered the resignation of several key and well-respected CDC employees in the COVID vaccine space. I've served on ACIP's COVID vaccine work group since the beginning. Our work group had not been consulted. In fact, work group meetings had been suspended. ACIP Members Ousted Before June Meeting Updated COVID vaccine recommendations had been expected to be on the June ACIP meeting agenda. But on June 9, just 2 weeks prior to the June ACIP meeting, HHS Secretary Kennedy removed all 17 ACIP members and then replaced them with his own handpicked group of eight — many of whom have preconceived bias against vaccines. At the June meeting, there was not a vote on COVID vaccines. However, CDC staff did present updates on COVID epidemiology. Here are some highlights: Most pediatric hospitalizations (57%) occur in children less than 2 years of age. Most hospitalized children in this age group have no underlying medical conditions. Rates of COVID-associated hospitalizations are highest among infants less than 6 months of age, followed by those aged 6-23 months. None of the COVID vaccine products are approved for infants under 6 months of age, so protection can only come from maternal antibodies. The majority (89%) of children and adolescents hospitalized for COVID had not received a dose of the most recently recommended vaccine. These data show why Kennedy's directive to withhold COVID vaccines from children and pregnant women is so absolutely ridiculous. FDA Mandates, Restrictions, and Authorizations Also on June 25, the FDA mandated a label change for COVID vaccines, warning about risk for myocarditis — but did not mention that the risk for myocarditis from COVID infection is greater than the risk for myocarditis after COVID vaccination. In July, more restrictions were placed on COVID vaccines for young children. Moderna's mRNA COVID vaccine, Spikevax, was FDA-approved for everyone aged 65 years or older. Spikevax was also approved for individuals aged 6 months to 64 years old, but only those with at least one medical condition that puts them at increased risk for COVID. Then in August, news reports indicated that Pfizer's COVID vaccine may lose its emergency use authorization for healthy children under the age of 5 years. Although it was expected to be available for children aged 5-11 years, no official announcement has been made. To be clear, if the FDA doesn't renew Pfizer's authorization (or fully approve the vaccine) for children 6 months through 4 years old, healthy children in that age group will have no officially sanctioned option for COVID vaccination. The only way to administer COVID vaccination to healthy children would be to give the Moderna vaccines off-label. If that happens, we could end up having a vaccine shortage. And COVID hasn't gone away. On August 5, CDC's wastewater analysis showed that COVID-19 infections were growing or likely growing in 45 states — indicating a late summer COVID wave. Medical Organizations Step Up to the Plate On August 19, the Vaccine Integrity Project released "From Data to Decisions: The Evidence Base for 2025 Fall/Winter Immunizations." This livestream presentation looked at recently published and publicly available data and found no notable safety or effectiveness issues. Also on August 19, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) issued its own evidence-based immunization schedule for children. For COVID protection, AAP recommends the COVID vaccine for infants and children 6 months through 23 months of age — recognizing that children in this age group are at highest risk for severe COVID. AAP also recommends a single dose of age-appropriate COVID vaccine for all children and adolescents age 2 through 18 years in the following risk groups: Children at high risk for severe COVID Residents of long-term care facilities or other congregate settings Children who've never been vaccinated against COVID Children with household contacts at high risk for severe COVID AAP also recommends that the COVID vaccine be available for children aged 2-18 years who do not fall into these risk groups, but whose parent or guardian desires them to have the protection of the vaccine. AAP recommends that the most updated version of the COVID-19 vaccine available should be used. We can likely expect more medical organizations to issue recommendations based on this new Vaccine Integrity Project review. Concern About the Integrity of Future COVID Vaccination Recommendations According to the ACIP website, another ACIP meeting is planned for August/September, but no date is currently given. We can only hope there will be a truly evidence-based vote on the new-formula COVID vaccines — but I'm not optimistic. On July 31, HHS Secretary Kennedy removed ACIP liaisons from the vaccine work groups. These work groups review vaccine data and develop recommendations that are then presented to ACIP at the public meetings for vote. Now, the work groups are populated only with Kennedy's new ACIP members — most of whom have a proven history of bias against vaccines — and CDC staff that could ostensibly be fired by Kennedy if they don't do what he says. Without liaisons and work groups, we have no way of ensuring that evidence-based science is being applied as these work group recommendations are developed and presented to the full ACIP. To make matters worse, Kennedy recently cut nearly $500 million in research funding aimed at developing better mRNA vaccines; 22 research grants for COVID and flu vaccines were targeted. The reason he gave for these cuts was that vaccines made using this platform were not effective and were unsafe. That's not true. The head of the NIH, Jay Bhattacharya, MD, PhD, offered another explanation for the cancellation. He said the platform wasn't viable because the public doesn't trust it. These cancellations leave us highly vulnerable for the next pandemic — and there will eventually be one. It also puts development of lifesaving mRNA-based cancer treatments at risk. Misinformation Can Be Dangerous On Friday, August 8, a shooter unleashed nearly 500 rounds at CDC buildings in Atlanta. One security officer was killed. The shooter died of a self-inflicted gunshot wound. Authorities found documents in his house expressing discontent with COVID vaccines. Susan Monarez, the new CDC director, was quoted in news reports as saying, "We know that misinformation can be dangerous..." As we also know, Kennedy has been most prominent in spreading misinformation and voicing distrust of vaccines, long before he even became HHS secretary. The case against mRNA technology offered by Kennedy and his new team is unbound by science or evidence. The attack on mRNA vaccines is unscientific foolishness perpetuated by people with a bias against vaccines. They use scientific words in a most unscientific way to create misinformation, vaccine hesitancy, confusion, and mistrust. The recent shooting at CDC is an example of mistrust fueled by vaccine skeptics. Let's not forget it was mRNA vaccines, developed in 1 year through Operation Warp Speed, that saved the world during the COVID pandemic. Billions of doses of mRNA COVID vaccines have been administered worldwide, making them among the most studied vaccines in history. mRNA vaccines are safe and effective. No other vaccine platform can produce vaccines so quickly. HHS Secretary Kennedy's assault on the viability of ACIP and the destruction of our vaccine development infrastructure continue. We still don't have any ACIP recommendations for updated COVID vaccines for fall. We still don't have a date set for the August/September ACIP meeting, and when that meeting date is set, will a vote on COVID vaccines be on that agenda? And if it is, will it be truly evidence-based? The CDC and the HHS secretary are supposed to put forward vaccine policy that can bring health and happiness and prevent death and illness in our country. America's physicians must stand up for our patients, as should everyone who believes in public health. We must push back on misinformation, medical foolishness, and quackery. And the chain of events I have described in this segment is exactly that. Misinformation leads to mistrust in vaccines, mistrust reduces vaccine uptake, and reduced vaccine uptake sickens and kills our patients.