In spring 1932 a series of poisonings linked to a widely sold antiseptic solution prompted coordinated action by public health officials and the manufacturer, an episode historians and regulatory scholars often cite as the first known consumer product recall in the United States. Background By the early 20th century consumer manufacturers sold a growing range of chemical preparations for household and personal use. Labeling and regulatory oversight lagged behind market expansion; the federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act that later strengthened U.S. consumer protections did not yet exist. Instead, enforcement and public warnings relied on state health departments, local physicians, newspapers and, occasionally, voluntary manufacturer responses. The incident In April 1932 clinicians and public health officers reported multiple cases of severe poisoning associated with ingestion or improper use of a commercially available antiseptic/cough remedy. Investigations traced the cause to mistaken formulation or contamination that rendered the product toxic when used as directed or when accidentally ingested by children. News coverage at the time described clustered hospital admissions and fatal outcomes in some cases, prompting urgent public warnings. Response and recall Following confirmation of the link between the product and the poisonings, the manufacturer issued a notice withdrawing the affected lots from sale and advising consumers to stop using the product. State and local health departments amplified the warning through bulletins and newspaper notices. Pharmacies and dealers returned stock under instructions from distributors and the producer. Contemporary accounts frame this coordinated withdrawal and public advisory as a recall: an organized removal of a consumer product from the market due to safety concerns. Significance Scholars point to the 1932 event as an early example of modern recall practice because it combined epidemiologic investigation, public health advisories, and voluntary manufacturer action to remove a dangerous product from circulation. The episode highlighted gaps in labeling, quality control and regulatory authority that contributed to later reforms. It also illustrated how press coverage and local health systems played a central role in consumer protection before robust federal oversight. Limitations and sources Documentation from 1932 is uneven. Contemporary newspaper reports, public health bulletins and company notices provide the primary record, but they vary in detail about the exact formulation, corporate communications and the full scope of affected lots. Some later histories reference this event as precedent for formal recall procedures, but there is no single centralized federal recall protocol in place at the time to standardize terminology. Where specifics remain unclear in the archival record, historians note uncertainty rather than asserting unverified facts. Legacy The 1932 poisoning and withdrawal contributed to evolving expectations that manufacturers and public health authorities should act quickly when consumer products pose acute risks. Over subsequent decades, such incidents informed regulatory development, consumer advocacy and the institutionalization of recall mechanisms at state and federal levels. For readers seeking primary documentation, contemporary newspaper archives and state public health reports from April–May 1932 are the most direct sources; secondary analyses of early 20th-century consumer safety policy discuss this episode as an illustrative early recall.