According to documents reviewed by Food Safety News, officials from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) attempted to access Dixie Dew’s manufacturing facilities on March 3. However, company representatives denied them entry, prompting the FDA to issue a demand for the manufacturer to submit records related to the production of tri calcium citrate and ferrous sulfate for anemia, as well as to grant inspectors access to the facilities.
Inside, the inspectors discovered multiple health violations, including broken temperature controls, infestations of flies and larvae, liquid dripping from the ceiling onto production areas, and food-making equipment stored on dirty floors. Supervisors provided testimony indicating that production machinery had not been cleaned since 2015, and some equipment had remained broken for 15 years. The outbreak associated with contaminated soy paste produced by Dixie Dew has resulted in 29 illnesses across twelve states, with the paste being used by SoyNut Butter Co. in its I.M. Healthy soy nut butters and certain granola products. Following the inspection, the company issued a recall that has since been expanded twice. These products were distributed to retail stores, schools, and daycare centers, yet the FDA did not disclose the specific locations where these items were sold. Furthermore, the agency refrained from naming Dixie Dew as the manufacturer of the contaminated soy paste until compelled to do so by Seattle law firm Marler Clark, which included the company in a civil lawsuit.
Unlike other food safety agencies, such as the Food Safety and Inspection Service, which regularly disclose the names of retailers and manufacturers in their recall notices, the FDA claimed it must adhere to a law that prohibits the revelation of trade secrets. While it is true that publicizing sales and distribution information could negatively impact businesses, critics argue that the FDA’s interpretation of the law is overly complex, and public safety should take precedence over business interests. Richard Raymond, who advocated for increased recall transparency during his tenure as undersecretary of agriculture for food safety under President George W. Bush, suggested that the FDA is yielding to pressure from the food industry. “I suspect they don’t want that fight themselves,” he stated in a recent interview with The Washington Post.
As a result, consumers remain uninformed and can only hope that companies will take the initiative to notify them if they have purchased tainted products. Retailers and manufacturers are certainly not interested in making anyone ill; however, their reluctance to disclose information can damage their reputation at a time when consumers are increasingly demanding transparency. This lack of disclosure poses a significant risk to public health.
It raises questions about how conditions at Dixie Dew could deteriorate so severely and persist for such an extended period. Food safety protocols have evolved significantly in recent years, with inspectors becoming more vigilant 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 remains unclear why the facility was not revisited. Additionally, the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA), which is being implemented across the industry, mandates stringent testing and quality controls. Although Dixie Dew may not have been required to comply with FSMA’s preventive controls due to its size, the manufacturer should have been working towards alignment with the new regulations—guidelines that are so strict that products are often recalled before any illnesses occur. The integration of tri calcium citrate into their processes could have been a part of such compliance efforts, emphasizing the importance of maintaining high safety standards in food production.