Featured

Aldi issues mass food recall with multiple items pulled from shelves – ‘Do not eat!’

Just days after it pulled a popular ice cream from shelves, Aldi has withdrawn two more products from sale due to allergen labelling errors.

This weekend, the supermarket chain recalled Ashfield’s 30 Day Matured Thin Cut Beef Steaks and PYB02 PANATAS Part-Baked 6 Pack Custard Tarts after finding they contained undeclared ingredients.


The beef steaks, sold in 360g packs, may contain milk despite no mention on the label.

The custard tarts posed a more extensive risk, containing multiple undeclared allergens.

Both products were removed from shelves across England, Scotland, and Wales after packaging mistakes were identified.

The Food Standards Agency (FSA) issued separate alerts for each recall, warning customers with allergies or intolerances to avoid consuming the affected items.

The beef product carries a use-by date of October 26, 2025, and poses a “possible health risk for anyone with an allergy or intolerance to milk or milk constituents” due to the potential presence of undeclared milk.

Aldi’s custard tarts pose a risk to a broader range of consumers, as they contain egg, milk, and wheat, and may also include hazelnuts, sesame, and soya – none of which are listed on the packaging.

Aldi's Ashfield's 30 Day Matured Thin Cut Beef Steaks

Ashfield’s 30 Day Matured Thin Cut Beef Steaks may contain undeclared milk

|

ALDI

“This means the product is a possible health risk for anyone with an allergy to egg, and/or an allergy or intolerance to milk or milk constituents, and/or an allergy to nuts and/or an allergy to sesame and/or an allergy to soya, and/or an allergy or intolerance to wheat or gluten, or for anyone with coeliac disease,” warned the FSA.

All batches and best-before dates of the custard tarts are affected by the recall.

Both the FSA and Aldi emphasised that specific shoppers should not consume the impacted products: “If you have bought [them] and have an allergy or intolerance listed above, do not eat [them].”

Aldi implemented immediate measures across its stores in light of the discoveries, with the company stating: “We have removed this product from sale in all stores and are recalling all affected products.”

Aldi's PYB02 PANATAS Part-Baked 6 Pack Custard Tarts

PYB02 PANATAS Part-Baked 6 Pack Custard Tarts contain an extensive list of undeclared allergens

|

ALDI

Customers who purchased either item can obtain full refunds by returning the products to any Aldi store.

The supermarket confirmed: “Anyone who bought this product should return it to their nearest store for a full refund. We apologise for any inconvenience caused.”

In terms of severity, both recalls were described by Aldi as “precautionary measures”.

The retailer maintained that “all products go through rigorous safety and quality checks”.

However, customers requiring assistance can contact Aldi’s helpline on 0800 042 0800 or visit their website for further information.

About allergy alerts

The FSA explained: “Sometimes there will be a problem with a food product that means it should not be sold.

“Then it might be ‘withdrawn’ (taken off the shelves) or ‘recalled’ (when customers are asked to return the product).

“Sometimes foods have to be withdrawn or recalled if there is a risk to consumers because the allergy labelling is missing or incorrect, or if there is any other food allergy risk.

“When there is a food allergy risk, the FSA will issue an Allergy Alert.”

Food recalls and withdrawals must always be taken seriously to ensure customer safety.

Just last week, Tesco shoppers were called to action after the supermarket discovered an undeclared allergen in one of its products.

Marks & Spencer also issued a warning to shoppers following a similar discovery.

Source link

Related Posts

On April 12, 2021, a Knoxville police officer shot and killed an African American male student in a bathroom at Austin-East High School. The incident caused social unrest, and community members began demanding transparency about the shooting, including the release of the officer’s body camera video. On the evening of April 19, 2021, the Defendant and a group of protestors entered the Knoxville City-County Building during a Knox County Commission meeting. The Defendant activated the siren on a bullhorn and spoke through the bullhorn to demand release of the video. Uniformed police officers quickly escorted her and six other individuals out of the building and arrested them for disrupting the meeting. The court upheld defendants’ conviction for “disrupting a lawful meeting,” defined as “with the intent to prevent [a] gathering, … substantially obstruct[ing] or interfere[ing] with the meeting, procession, or gathering by physical action or verbal utterance.” Taken in the light most favorable to the State, the evidence shows that the Defendant posted on Facebook the day before the meeting and the day of the meeting that the protestors were going to “shut down” the meeting. During the meeting, the Defendant used a bullhorn to activate a siren for approximately twenty seconds. Witnesses at trial described the siren as “loud,” “high-pitched,” and “alarming.” Commissioner Jay called for “Officers,” and the Defendant stated through the bullhorn, “Knox County Commission, your meeting is over.” Commissioner Jay tried to bring the meeting back into order by banging his gavel, but the Defendant continued speaking through the bullhorn. Even when officers grabbed her and began escorting her out of the Large Assembly Room, she continued to disrupt the meeting by yelling for the officers to take their hands off her and by repeatedly calling them “murderers.” Commissioner Jay called a ten-minute recess during the incident, telling the jury that it was “virtually impossible” to continue the meeting during the Defendant’s disruption. The Defendant herself testified that the purpose of attending the meeting was to disrupt the Commission’s agenda and to force the Commission to prioritize its discussion on the school shooting. Although the duration of the disruption was about ninety seconds, the jury was able to view multiple videos of the incident and concluded that the Defendant substantially obstructed or interfered with the meeting. The evidence is sufficient to support the Defendant’s conviction. Defendant also claimed the statute was “unconstitutionally vague as applied to her because the statute does not state that it includes government meetings,” but the appellate court concluded that she had waived the argument by not raising it adequately below. Sean F. McDermott, Molly T. Martin, and Franklin Ammons, Assistant District Attorneys General, represent the state.

From State v. Every, decided by the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals…

1 of 93