The Most Dangerous Recalled Products of 2022

November 10, 2023

In the world of consumer products, safety should always be paramount. However, in 2022, several products fell short of this vital requirement, leading to their recall from the market.


The top offenders on the list are Big Olaf Creamery, and Insignia Pressure Cookers, with Takata Airbags being listed as the most dangerous recalled product of 2022. Other notable mentions include:

  • Johnson and Johnson’s Neutragena Brand Aerosol Sunscreen Products
  • Nestle Cookie Dough
  • Ford Explorer 

Disclaimer: The information contained may have changed since the publication of this article. 


Where Are They Now?

Tragically, some product recalls led to fatalities. Most notably, 33 people lost their life and at least 400 more have been injured from exploding Takata Airbags. This makes the Takata Airbag recall one of the deadliest in 2022. 


As of today, many of the recalled products have undergone modifications to address the safety concerns raised. Companies like Big Olaf underwent extensive investigations to find the source of listeria and stopped production until the issue was deemed non-threatening. Nestle took similar steps to ensure the safety of their products.


In some cases, recalls can be so severe that it causes companies to go bankrupt as was the case for Takata. The airbag recall affected more than 42 million cars in the US alone, making it the largest automotive recall in US history. 


Product recalls are a serious matter that can affect consumer trust and safety. As consumers, it is essential to stay informed about the products we use daily.


What Can You Do When A Product is Recalled?

First and most importantly, stop the use of the product immediately (to the greatest extent possible). Next, you can visit Recall.gov to read more about the product recall. Recall.gov has information about why the product was recalled and what to do to get a repair/refund/replacement. If you were injured by a recalled product, you may be entitled to file a claim against the company for causing bodily harm. We have experience in representing victims of faulty products when a recalled product has caused injury. If you or someone you know has been harmed by a recalled product please reach out to our office to speak with one of our experienced attorneys today at 713-221-6500


While this article provides general legal information, it does not constitute legal advice. The best way to get guidance on your specific legal issue is to contact a lawyer.


Contact Us

By submitting this form you agree to receive text messages.

By Rebecca Rivera December 9, 2025
As reported in the Washington Post December 5th, 2025 by Amudalat Ajasa A prominent scientific journal, Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, has retracted a widely cited 2000 study that previously concluded the active ingredient in Roundup, glyphosate, posed no cancer risk to humans. The retraction was initiated after evidence emerged suggesting the study was heavily influenced by the herbicide's seller, Monsanto (now owned by Bayer), in an apparent effort to disguise potential health risks. Specific concerns cited by the journal include the strong possibility that Monsanto employees contributed to the writing without proper acknowledgment, that the authors may have received undisclosed payments from the company , and that the findings were based solely on unpublished Monsanto studies. This misconduct, discovered through internal company emails during federal litigation, is significant because the faulty research served as a bedrock for regulatory decisions regarding glyphosate for decades. Summary of Alleged Faulty Study and Monsanto's Influence The Study and Its Conclusion: The retracted paper, published in 2000, was a "bedrock study" that concluded: "under present and expected conditions of new use, there is no potential for Roundup herbicide to pose a health risk to humans." The Retraction: The scientific journal retracted the study due to a loss of confidence in its results and conclusions, citing the need to "maintain the integrity of the journal." Evidence of Undisclosed Influence: The co-editor in chief cited evidence suggesting that Monsanto employees "may have contributed to the writing of the article without proper acknowledgment as co authors." Undisclosed Payments: The retraction also noted that the study's authors may have been paid by Monsanto without disclosing it . Basis of Findings: The journal stated that the study's findings about cancer risk were "solely based on unpublished studies from Monsanto." Discovery of Influence: Monsanto's influence over the study was reportedly discovered through internal emails released during federal litigation against the company in 2017. Impact: The study "had a significant impact on regulatory decision-making regarding glyphosate and Roundup for decades," and was one of the most-cited papers on glyphosate safety, underpinning federal regulations for the pesticide. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) even cited it in its 2016 review of glyphosate. Context and Aftermath Bayer's Defense: Bayer (which acquired Monsanto in 2018) defended the chemical's safety and argued that Monsanto's involvement was appropriately cited in the acknowledgments, stating that glyphosate is the most extensively studied herbicide and that the "vast majority of published studies on glyphosate had no Monsanto involvement." Regulatory Stance: The EPA stated the retraction would not affect its current stance —which is that glyphosate is "not likely to be carcinogenic to humans"—because the agency does not directly rely on review articles like this one, but uses them to find other relevant individual studies. Litigation: Bayer has spent approximately $10 billion to settle lawsuits arguing the company did not warn customers about the negative health impacts of using Roundup. Read the full article in the Washington Post
By Rebecca Rivera November 14, 2025
In this series premiere episode, Founder & President of SOSCSA, Child Sexual Abuse Survivor & BSA Bankruptcy Claimant, Curtis Garrison interviews attorney Jason J Joy for an update on the BSA bankruptcy and discussing childhood abuse litigation for which Jason is an outspoken and experienced advocate. Jason's firm is actively litigating cases for many clients his law firm represents. This podcast is recommended for clients already represented, and for those who are still contemplating coming forward to establish a claim. Topics covered in this episode: Recent BSA Bankruptcy Trust report Lajun Claimants (Guam) v. Boy Scouts of America and their recent Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court The 1.5% initial payment, possible second payment time / total percentage Future Claims, BSA Councils, BSA Charters (churches, schools, etc) which there are over 100,000 entities possibly getting free of liability Mixed Claims explained We did not vote for this plan, they promised we would be paid in “Paid in Full” Plans to file an Amicus Brief Statute of Limitations 
By Rebecca Rivera November 6, 2025
The Boy Scouts of America bankruptcy case, involving tens of thousands of survivors of childhood sexual abuse, is among the largest and most contentious mass tort proceedings in U.S. history. In this podcast, Attorney Jason Joy breaks down the latest ruling from the Third Circuit Court, which leaves many survivors of childhood sexual abuse with drastically underfunded compensation.