Hacizade Pismaniye Pashmak (Cotton Candy with Rose), Net Wt. 250-g (8.80-oz.), UPC…
Turkana Food Inc. recalled this product and the FDA reported the enforcement action on 24 June 2015 as Class III. The recall was initiated by the firm. Presence of 16255 - Ponceau 4R (E124) - Acid Red 18
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
Hacizade Pismaniye Pashmak (Cotton Candy with Rose), Net Wt. 250-g (8.80-oz.), UPC 8697407913372
UPC
8697407913372
Reason for recall
Presence of 16255 - Ponceau 4R (E124) - Acid Red 18
Five things about this record are not in the record itself, and each one changes how it should be read.
Class III means the FDA judged that the product was unlikely to cause harm but violated FDA labelling or manufacturing regulation. 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 record is the only one the FDA opened for its recall event, so it covers a single product code.
The recall ran for 2.0 years, from 19 March 2015 to termination on 28 March 2017. 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 distribution pattern names 3 states, and the FDA published the enforcement report 3 months after the firm began the recall.
Recalls of a snack or confectionery product run a median of 7 months, so this one was longer than usual for its category. Snacks and confectionery recall for allergens more than for anything else, because a chocolate or a coated snack passes through shared equipment carrying milk, soy and nuts, and the label is the only control between them and the consumer.
Named in the distribution pattern: New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania. Those pages count recalls by where the RECALLING FIRM sits, which is a different question from where this product went.
These are the closest records in the corpus: the same kind of food. Unlike the firm’s own records below, they come from different companies, which is what makes them a pattern rather than a history.
The firm discovered that certain units shipped to the U.S. retail stores only has "foreign languages" on the label. Product has undeclared wheat, soy, milk, eggs and tree nut (coconut).
Behind every recall is a clause 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.
