11 Of The Biggest Candy Recalls Of All Time

As a childhood delight (and a guilty pleasure for adults), candy is often associated with joy, nostalgia, and indulgence. But behind the colored packaging and sweet goodies is the prolific history of candy recalls. The unfamiliar, darker side of the industry. With everything from metallic shavings in chocolate bars to unlabeled allergens in gummy bears plaguing factories, the world of confectionery has not been exempt from astounding safety issues. Despite the fact that most candy companies typically have strict quality control measures, a minor mistake in production or packaging can lead to a monumental recall, often involving millions of products across multiple countries.

Not only do these recalls lead to financial loss, but they can also demolish brand reputations and, importantly, jeopardize consumers. Spoiled or mislabeled candy, in some cases, has led to serious health complications, particularly among children or individuals with food allergies. The confectionery industry, and the food manufacturing sector in general, is subject to close scrutiny by government agencies such as the FDA in America and the CFIA (Canadian Food Inspection Agency) in Canada.

Here, we’ll be taking a closer look at some of the most prominent candy recalls in history — events that rattled consumer trust and rewrote the rules of food safety practices among companies. Many of these cases reveal that even the sweetest of treats have souring implications.

In October 2023, Candy Dynamics issued a voluntary recall of nearly 70 million units of Toxic Waste and Mega Toxic Waste brand Slime Licker Sour Rolling Liquid Candy. The Slime Licker candies were packaged in 2-oz and 3-oz bottles with a lick-able roller-ball applicator that distributed the sour liquid to consumers. The ball, however, was a high-choking hazard, as it might get dislodged and swallowed by children.

The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) confirmed two reports of the roller ball detaching, but no injuries were reported at the time of the recall. The recall spanned large retailers like Walmart, Five Below, Amazon, and other online sites; sales occurred from June 2015 to July 2023, with prices generally between $2–$4. This action was in line with a broader industry safety alert in March 2024: the CPSC urged parents to avoid all roller-ball candies after at least one verified child death from a similar choking incident. The agency emphasized the hazard posed by the detachable applicator balls, requesting a voluntary halt in the sale of the candies.

Consumers were instructed to stop using them at once, confiscate products from children, and contact Candy Dynamics for a refund on all unused units and postage paid. The recall was a sobering reminder that candy devices that look like toys can be as dangerous as they are enticing, prompting further scrutiny of seemingly harmless novelty candies. Candy Dynamic issued a subsequent apology with the statement of their voluntary recall, stating: “Candy Dynamics thanks you for your assistance and apologizes for any resulting inconvenience. We are quite aware of how frustrating this is for everyone; however, we take this step as customer safety is our highest priority.”

In late 2008 and early 2009, the Peanut Corporation of America (PCA) was at the center of one of America’s most lethal food safety outbreaks. A Salmonella strain that started at PCA’s Blakely, Georgia facility infected at least 714 people in 46 states and killed nine. At least 30 times more cases of infections could’ve occurred than reported, according to the CDC, meaning the infections probably far outweighed reported cases.

The crisis led to a record recall campaign: since January 2009, PCA initially recalled peanut butter and paste produced since mid-2008, and up to January 28, had expanded to include all peanut products produced at the Blakely facility since January 1, 2007, and also its Texas facility’s products — altogether over 3,900 products of at least 361 companies. Dozens of institutional distributors — schools, disaster relief groups, even FEMA — were swept up in the recall, triggering widespread dumping of emergency food stocks.

Investigations revealed horrid failures: FDA inspections revealed unsanitary practices, including mold, sewage pipe rupture leaks, rodent infestation, and shattered sanitation following contamination incidents. PCA was not rejecting positive salmonella lots but had “lab-shopped” for clean test reports and sold known-contaminated products. These activities triggered a federal criminal investigation, and in February 2009, PCA liquidated in Chapter 7 bankruptcy. Follow-up criminal prosecutions. PCA CEO Stewart Parnell and his brother, Michael, were convicted of conspiracy, fraud, and obstruction, with Stewart receiving a 28-year prison sentence, the longest in a U.S. food safety case. The disaster transformed food safety history in the U.S., showing us all the ruinous human and financial toll when corporate neglect meets systemic regulatory collapse.

Cadbury-Schweppes initiated a spontaneous recall of over one million Easter eggs and chocolate bars in June 2006 when it found a Salmonella Montevideo strain in its milk chocolate crumb. The origin was traced to a leak in a waste-water pipe at its Marlbrook factory in Herefordshire, which allowed contaminated water to trickle into the filling that went into a number of products.

Affected products included Dairy Milk Turkish, Caramel, and Mint (250 g) bars, eight‑chunk Dairy Milk, 1 kg bars, Freddo, and Dairy Milk Buttons Easter eggs. At least 37 to 45 human laboratory-confirmed cases of salmonella infection occurred between February and June of that year, including three hospitalizations of a baby, a child, and an adult. Although Cadbury discovered the contamination in January, the U.K.’s Food Standards Agency (FSA) only heard in mid‑June (well after the sale of some 500,000 contaminated bars). The FSA insisted that trace amounts of salmonella in ready‑to‑eat foods are not acceptable, leading to this recall.

Cadbury responded by revamping safety procedures, recalling all affected products, and adding more testing and cleaning routines to the Marlbrook factory. But Cadbury faced criticism and legal scrutiny for belated notification, eventually pleading guilty to nine food safety charges and paying a £1 million fine in 2007. The affair cost Cadbury about £20 million in the recall, lost business, and safety-enhancing investments — and profoundly remodeled the company’s food safety and transparency policy.

In 2016, Mars Incorporated launched a voluntary recall of millions of chocolate items (Snickers, Mars, Milky Way, and Celebrations) in at least 55 countries due to a customer in Germany who discovered a piece of red plastic within a Snickers bar purchased on January 8, 2016. The plastic was traced to come from the Mars factory in Veghel, Netherlands, as the culprit was a safety cover employed in the manufacturing process.

The voluntary recall by the company included products made between December 5, 2015, and January 18, 2016, at Veghel with “best-before” dates between June 19, 2016, and January 8, 2017. The nations included most of Europe (the U.K., France, Germany, Belgium) and parts of Asia (Vietnam and Sri Lanka).

Although nobody was hurt, the recall was not made lightly due to the potential for choking on pointed bits of plastic. Mars described the incident as an “isolated incident” and precautionary recall but conceded it was necessary to secure consumer protection amid doubt over contamination in other products. Industry specialists referred to a severe financial impact: tens of millions of dollars in short-term losses, damaged reputation, and potential shifts in customer purchasing behavior. In an official response, Mars investigated and enhanced the quality assurance procedures at the Veghel facility, reinforcing inspection measures and equipment maintenance to avoid future risks. The recall of 2016 sheds light on the necessity of care in food production.

When China’s massive melamine-tainted milk scandal erupted in September 2008, China’s well-known milk candy, White Rabbit Creamy Candies, was at the forefront of international attention. Canadian regulators, via the CFIA, issued a health hazard warning on September 25, recommending that the public avoid all White Rabbit candies due to potential melamine contamination and initiated a voluntary recall with importers and retailers. Around the same time, Hong Kong’s Centre for Food Safety detected White Rabbit products had melamine in them, and U.K. supermarket chain Tesco removed them from shelves as a precaution.

Analysis revealed melamine content of between 67 and 160 mg/kg in packs well over the EU safety level of 2.5 mg/kg, prompting recalls in the U.K., Canada, Australia, Singapore, and elsewhere. Queensway Foods in California was recalled in the United States after FDA and Connecticut laboratory tests indicated contamination.

There was no report of disease, but the discovery was startling in the wake of melamine’s association with severe kidney disorders in infants, 300,000 hospitalizations, and six confirmed deaths as of December 2008. Guangshengyuan (Bright Foods) halted production and exports in late September and scaled back production after a switch to melamine‑free milk powder and government oversight testing.   Dairy firms across China issued a joint statement prior to the trial of multiple executives, simply saying: “We are deeply sorry for the harm caused to the children and the society. We sincerely apologise for that and we beg your forgiveness” (via Al Jazeera). This recall exposed the vulnerability of the globalized supply chain through deception and the abuse of industrial chemicals to deceitfully tinker with nutritional tests.

In January 2011, Circle City Marketing & Distributing, doing business as Candy Dynamics, voluntarily recalled all flavors of its Toxic Waste Nuclear Sludge Chew Bars — Cherry, Sour Apple, and Blue Raspberry — produced since 2007 and shipped from Pakistan. Testing on the smaller 0.3 oz bars also detected similarly elevated levels of lead from 0.101 to 0.311 ppm, which prompted the expansion of the recall to the bite-size versions previously sold in party packs and membership kits.

Despite the fact that no illness or injury was reported, officials were alarmed at the health impact, particularly among infants, toddlers, and pregnant women, as lead is toxic to neurological development. The recalled bars had been widely sold across the United States, Canada, Guatemala, Ireland, Jordan, Korea, Mexico, and El Salvador through retail and mail orders.

Candy Dynamics ceased production of the cherry flavor and had already suspended distribution of the other flavors. Consumers were advised to avoid consuming the product and call the company for disposal guidance. This event not only raised concerns regarding supply-chain vulnerabilities, as seen in prior cases across the industry but also specifically regarding the sourcing of products from regions that have different safety standards.

Denver, Colorado-based Hammond’s Candies recalled September 2024 its 4‑oz Dark Chocolate Filled Mini Waffle Cones due to undeclared milk, which is life-threatening to individuals who are allergic to milk or have a severe sensitivity to dairy. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) made the announcement on October 3, 2024.

Distribution reached 38 U.S. states and the Washington, D.C., metropolitan area and involved both retail outlets and Internet sales, including online mail orders via Hammond’s website and Amazon. The recall was initiated in response to a consumer complaint and allergic reaction from ingestion of the product, followed by an analysis that showed undeclared milk proteins. Through early October 2024, only a single allergic reaction had been officially reported.

Due to the severe health hazard — namely, the potential for anaphylaxis — the FDA classified this as a Class II recall, which is designated to a product that has the potential to cause temporary or medically reversible health consequences. Affected milk-allergic consumers were specifically warned not to consume the product and to return it for a full refund from where they originally bought it or by phoning Hammond’s at 1‑888‑226‑3999 directly. In its action, Hammond’s worked with regulators and retailers — such as Harris Teeter — to rapidly recall the affected batches from the shelves and offer refunds. The company further indicated that investigations into how milk ended up in the product are ongoing.

In February 2021, significant preemptive safety action was taken before Easter after the Thompson Chocolate Company, a See’s Candies contract producer, issued a voluntary recall of approximately 49,536 pounds of seasonal chocolates packaged under the See’s brand.

Regular safety tests in the Meriden, Conn., factory detected salmonella in raw materials bound for buttermilk and dark chocolate tanks. The contaminated lots had not yet been shipped to stores or made it to consumers, yet the U.S. Food and Drug Administration classified the recall as a Class I, indicating a likely potential risk of serious health consequences if the products made it onto store shelves. See’s Candies itself never even issued a consumer warning or experienced any reported illnesses because the recall occurred internally between Thompson and the FDA. Nevertheless, approximately 50,000 pounds of finished products were, in fact, destroyed in a move to ensure there was no risk.

The incident occurred during See’s busiest seasonal production, inadvertently disrupting Easter festival supplies. The company’s quick response was fueled by rigorous quality control, and it ended up preventing the contaminated candies from ever reaching store shelves. However, it also exposed the vulnerability of massive candy supply chains to contamination, even for finished goods not yet released into the marketplace. Industry onlookers view the recall as a cautionary story that stresses the importance of proactive microbial testing and contract manufacturer oversight in ensuring consumer confidence and food safety standards.

In Dec 2017, ALDI, along with Hofer KG ZNL Schokoladefabrik, voluntarily recalled its 5.29 oz Choceur Dark Chocolate Bars when an ALDI employee discovered almond pieces placed within bars, although almonds were not defined as an ingredient. This was a severe allergy hazard, particularly for individuals who have tree nut allergies, as this group could react severely if inadvertently exposed.

The implicated product had brown‑and‑red colored packaging and a best‑by date of July 24, 2018. The distribution was widespread in a minimum of 24 states of the U.S., including Ohio, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Florida, New York, Texas, and Washington, D.C. There were no illness reports or allergic reactions thanks to safety precautions undertaken on a timely basis.

Consumers were instructed to return or dispose of the recalled grocery store chocolate bars for a full refund. The remaining inventory was also taken off store shelves to prevent further exposure. The FDA classified the recall as voluntary and closed the case following compliance. A single error, like an unexpected inclusion of almonds, would have had disastrous consequences on the health of consumers. ALDI’s response highlights the value of rigorous internal inspection protocols, especially in those items produced by third parties.

In June 2014, Nestlé USA voluntarily recalled close to 10,000 boxes of Häagen‑Dazs Chocolate Chocolate Chip Ice Cream because the packaging was mislabeled, causing a serious allergen risk. The issue was discovered after a consumer uncovered that the lid on the box labeled “Chocolate Peanut Butter” was not aligned with the flavor description on the container and misleadingly excluded peanuts from the ingredients, prompting the company to warn that “people who have an allergy or severe sensitivity to peanuts may run the risk of serious or life‑threatening allergic reaction if they consume this product” (via Tech Times). Lab tests confirmed that the cartons did indeed contain Chocolate Peanut Butter ice cream, but printed nutrition statements of ingredients were Chocolate Chocolate Chip, with no peanuts.

It was sold on the East Coast, in 10 states and the District of Columbia, including Delaware, Florida, Maryland, North Carolina, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Virginia, and West Virginia. Even though no allergic responses were reported, the FDA categorized this as a Class I recall, meaning exposure may have life-threatening or serious consequences on health — most significantly among individuals with a peanut allergy, where even trace exposure may be deadly.

Nestlé quickly countered by responding with collaboration with the FDA to initiate a consumer alert, collaborating with Food Allergy Research & Education for broad visibility, establishing a support hotline to handle customer calls. This ice cream recall was just another indication of industry-wide issues with accurate allergen marking and thorough packaging verification.

In April–June 2024, Wisconsin’s Clasen Quality Chocolate Inc. initiated a massive voluntary recall of 4,383,201 pounds of confectionery and bulk chocolate products due to potential salmonella contamination. The products, mostly sold as chocolate wafers, confectionery coatings, and flavored drops to be used as ingredients by other food companies, were distributed to nine U.S. states: Illinois, Utah, Georgia, California, Iowa, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Washington.

No disease had yet been reported as confirmed at the time the recall was enacted, but the withdrawal was among the largest chocolate recalls in recent years. It was a Class II event, which meant that there was a problem that might cause temporary or medically reversible adverse health consequences — but not a chance of death or a risk of serious physical injury to an immediate person.

Clasen Quality recalled approximately 2.24 million pounds of the same product in May of 2023 due to undeclared residue of peanut allergens. Food safety practitioners noted that the fact that large recalls were duplicated in consecutive years raised doubts regarding the company’s quality-control systems. Clasen, which manufactures large-volume products (including through its logistics operations), responded through action by expanding sanitation, microbial testing, and allergen control protocols. This case spotlights the requirement for aggressive microbial surveillance in bulk ingredient production plants, where cross-contamination might affect gigantic downstream product lines.