Documents reviewed by Food Safety News reveal that Food and Drug Administration (FDA) officials attempted to inspect Dixie Dew’s manufacturing facilities on March 3. When company representatives denied them access, the FDA issued a formal demand for facility records and permission for inspectors to enter. During their inspection, the inspectors noted several alarming conditions, including malfunctioning temperature controls, an infestation of flies and larvae, liquid dripping from the ceiling onto production areas, and food-making equipment stored on unsanitary floors. Supervisors testified that production machinery hadn’t been cleaned since 2015, and some equipment had been broken for 15 years.
The outbreak linked to contaminated soy paste produced by Dixie Dew has resulted in 29 illnesses across twelve states. SoyNut Butter Co., which utilized the paste in its I.M. Healthy soy nut butters and some granola products, issued a recall shortly after the inspection and has expanded it twice. These products were distributed to retail stores, schools, and daycare centers, but the FDA did not disclose which locations sold or distributed the affected items. Moreover, the agency only identified Dixie Dew as the manufacturer of the contaminated soy paste when compelled to do so by the Seattle law firm Marler Clark, which named the company in a civil lawsuit.
Other food safety agencies, such as the Food Safety and Inspection Service, typically disclose retailers and manufacturers in their recall notices. So why doesn’t the FDA do the same? The agency claims it is adhering to a law that prohibits the revelation of trade secrets. While making sales and distribution information public could negatively impact businesses, critics argue that the FDA’s interpretation of the law is convoluted, and that public safety should take precedence over commercial interests. Richard Raymond, who advocated for greater recall transparency while serving as undersecretary of agriculture for food safety under President George W. Bush, expressed that the FDA has succumbed to pressures from the food industry. “I suspect they don’t want that fight themselves,” he told The Washington Post.
As a result, consumers are left uninformed, hoping that companies will be responsible enough to alert them if they have purchased contaminated products. Retailers and manufacturers certainly have no desire for their products to cause illness, but any lack of transparency can damage their reputation at a time when consumers demand higher accountability. This situation also poses a significant risk to public health.
It raises questions about how conditions at Dixie Dew deteriorated to such an extent and remained unaddressed for so long. Food safety protocols have evolved significantly in recent years, with inspectors increasing scrutiny of plant conditions following the salmonella outbreak that resulted in nine deaths and lengthy prison sentences for executives at the Peanut Corporation of America, as well as the extensive listeria outbreak that prompted new testing protocols at Blue Bell. If Dixie Dew was already on the FDA’s radar, it is unclear why they were not revisited sooner.
The Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA), which is being implemented across the industry, mandates strict testing and quality control measures. Although Dixie Dew may not have been required to comply with FSMA’s preventive control regulations due to its size, the manufacturer should have started working towards compliance with the new law, which establishes stringent guidelines that often lead to recalls even before any illnesses occur.
In light of these developments, the importance of consumer awareness and transparency cannot be overstated. For instance, products like Citracal Plus Vitamin D highlight the need for rigorous testing and accountability in food safety. As consumers become increasingly vigilant about the products they purchase, companies must prioritize transparency to maintain trust and ensure public health.