Stage 2 World Baby Thailand; Roasted Pumpkin & Coconut Rice, 3.5 oz. pouch.
Plum Inc recalled this product and the FDA reported the enforcement action on 2 April 2014 as Class II. The recall was initiated by the firm. Intermittent damage to the plastic spouts during manufacturing of two varieties of Plum products on two production dates may cause plastic fragments to break loose and cause a potential choking hazard.
The record
Every field below is published by the FDA in the openFDA food enforcement database. Check the FDA notice before acting on any recall: this page is a reading of the public record, not a substitute for it.
Product
Stage 2 World Baby Thailand; Roasted Pumpkin & Coconut Rice, 3.5 oz. pouch. Product of USA distributed by Plum Inc., Emeryville, CA
Reason for recall
Intermittent damage to the plastic spouts during manufacturing of two varieties of Plum products on two production dates may cause plastic fragments to break loose and cause a potential choking hazard.
11,595 total cases, both varieties. 12 x 3.5 oz pouches per case.
Distribution
US and small quantities exported to Hong Kong, Singapore and Malaysia.
Initiated
4 March 2014
Reported by FDA
2 April 2014
Terminated
17 July 2015
Firm notified by
Two or more of the following: Email, Fax, Letter, Press Release, Telephone, Visit
Product codes
Best Before 10SEP14
Reading this record
Five things about this record are not in the record itself, and each one changes how it should be read.
Class II means the FDA judged a remote probability of serious harm, or a probability of temporary or medically reversible harm. The class is assigned by an agency health hazard evaluation under 21 CFR 7.41, not by the firm.
The firm started this recall itself. Most FDA food recalls are voluntary, and a recall is a food safety plan working rather than failing. The circumstances in which the agency asks for one instead are set out in 21 CFR 7.45.
This is one of 2 records covering the same recall event. The FDA opens one enforcement record per product code, so a recall of a product line appears here many times. Counting these records as 2 separate recalls, which almost every published figure does, overstates it by a factor of 2. All 2 of them are listed on this page.
The recall ran for 16 months, from 4 March 2014 to termination on 17 July 2015. Termination means the agency judged that all reasonable effort had been made, under 21 CFR 7.55, and it says nothing about whether product remained in circulation.
The FDA published the enforcement report 4 weeks after the firm began the recall.
Recalls of a grain, flour or pasta product run a median of 6 months, so this one was longer than usual for its category. Flour is a raw agricultural product that consumers treat as though it were cooked, which is the whole reason raw flour recalls exist: nothing in milling is a kill step, and the hazard only appears when somebody eats the dough.
A foreign material recall means something that is not food was found in food: metal, plastic, glass, wood or insect matter, usually shed by equipment during processing.
A preventive controls plan covers foreign material under the clauses below. This is where the control belongs, not a finding against any firm named on this page: a recall record states a reason, and most of these recalls were initiated by the firm itself.
21 CFR 117.40
Equipment and utensils: plant equipment designed and maintained so it cannot contaminate food with lubricants, fuel, metal fragments or contaminated water.
21 CFR 117.80(c)
Manufacturing operations: the measures that protect food from contamination during processing, including the effective ones against metal and other extraneous material.
21 CFR 117.150
Corrective actions: what a facility does when a preventive control was not properly implemented, including identifying and correcting the problem and evaluating the food for safety.
The FDA opened 2 enforcement records for this one recall, one per product code. This page carries all of them; the 1 below each have their own page with that product’s lot codes and distribution, and search engines are pointed here for the recall as a whole.
Intermittent damage to the plastic spouts during manufacturing of two varieties of Plum products on two product dates may cause plastic fragments to break loose and cause a potential choking hazard.
Class II
Other grains, flour and pasta recalls for the same reason
These are the closest records in the corpus: the same kind of food, recalled for a hazard this record also names. Unlike the firm’s own records below, they come from different companies, which is what makes them a pattern rather than a history.
Intermittent damage to the plastic spouts during manufacturing of two varieties of Plum products on two product dates may cause plastic fragments to break loose and cause a potential choking hazard.
21 CFR 117.40 is the clause behind this recall, and it is one somebody has to produce evidence for at their next audit. Krolda maps supplier documents to the clause they satisfy in FSSC 22000, IFS Food and 21 CFR 117, and routes the corrective action when the evidence is missing.
Recall records come from the openFDA food enforcement API, published by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in the public domain. Krolda adds the hazard classification and the clause mapping; neither is an FDA determination. Always check the FDA notice before acting on a recall.
