The Surprising Reason Back To Nature Crackers Are Being Recalled

If you recently bought Back to Nature Cheddalicious crackers, you might be surprised when you open the box. The product's manufacturer, B&G Foods, shared with the FDA that its packing partner had accidentally filled boxes of Back to Nature Cheddalicious Cheese Flavored Crackers with animal shaped crackers made by an entirely different company. Besides the product mixup, the recall-worthy issue is that the Cheddalicious crackers are vegan, while the animal crackers contain milk and eggs, which may trigger allergic reactions among some consumers.

The error affects 1,855 cases of the popular vegan snacks, which have been recalled from the states of Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Maryland, Maine, New Jersey, New York, Tennessee and Wisconsin. The 6-ounce boxes have a UPC 8-19898-01491-0 and a best-by date of September 5, 2022. If you happen to have bought one of these boxes, you can return it to the store from which you purchased it for a refund. At the time of writing, there have been no adverse health reactions amid the cracker mishap.

Even if one were not allergic to milk or eggs, chances are they still might want to return the animal crackers anyway, as they aren't vegan. VegNews touted Cheddalicious crackers as a highly convincing "Cheez-It fakeout" for plant-based eaters, including them as one of the top 100 vegan products. It's worth nothing, though, that the product page for Cheddalicious crackers on Back to Nature's website admits that the snack is "made on the same equipment that processes milk." Presumably, the machines are cleaned so the milk allergen isn't present in the crackers, but this may not always be possible to guarantee.

Now, this won't bother some vegans. However, others maintain that properly vegan foods must be made in isolation from any animal products. For example, one vegan customer sued Burger King for preparing the Impossible Whopper on the same grill as its meat patties. Ultimately, as Reuters reported, the judge dismissed the case because the customer could've asked about the cooking conditions before ordering the burger.