According to documents examined by Food Safety News, officials from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) initially attempted to access Dixie Dew’s manufacturing facilities on March 3. However, company representatives denied them entry, prompting the FDA to issue a formal demand for the manufacturer to provide facility records and permit inspectors to enter. Upon inspection, the officials recorded numerous violations, including malfunctioning temperature controls, an infestation of flies and larvae, liquid seeping from the ceiling onto production areas, and food-making equipment stored on unsanitary floors. Inspectors also heard from supervisors who claimed that production machinery had not been cleaned since 2015, with some equipment being out of order for 15 years.
The outbreak associated with contaminated soy paste produced by Dixie Dew has thus far affected 29 people across twelve states. SoyNut Butter Co., which incorporated this paste into its I.M. Healthy soy nut butters and certain granola products, issued a recall shortly after the inspection and has since expanded it twice. These products were distributed in retail stores, schools, and daycare centers, but the FDA did not disclose which locations sold or distributed them. Furthermore, the agency refrained from naming Dixie Dew as the manufacturer of the contaminated soy paste until compelled by Seattle law firm Marler Clark, which identified the company in a civil lawsuit.
Other food safety agencies, such as the Food Safety and Inspection Service, typically name retailers and manufacturers in their recall announcements. When questioned about this lack of disclosure, the FDA indicated that it is adhering to a law that prohibits the revelation of trade secrets. While sharing sales and distribution information could potentially harm business interests, critics argue that the FDA’s interpretation of the law is convoluted, asserting that public safety should take precedence over business concerns. Richard Raymond, who advocated for greater recall transparency while serving as undersecretary of agriculture for food safety under President George W. Bush, suggested to The Washington Post that the FDA has yielded to pressure from the food industry.
As consumers remain uninformed, they can only hope that companies will responsibly notify them if they have purchased tainted products. Retailers and manufacturers, while undoubtedly wishing to prevent their products from causing illness, may risk damaging their reputations during a time when consumers are calling for increased transparency. This lack of disclosure not only jeopardizes public health but also raises questions about how conditions at Dixie Dew deteriorated and persisted without intervention.
Food safety protocols have seen significant changes in recent years. Inspectors have been more vigilant regarding plant conditions following the deadly salmonella outbreak that resulted in long prison sentences for executives at the Peanut Corporation of America and the extensive listeria outbreak that led to new testing protocols at Blue Bell. If Dixie Dew was indeed on the FDA’s radar, it is puzzling why it was not subject to further scrutiny.
The Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA), which is currently being implemented across the industry, mandates stringent testing and quality controls. Although Dixie Dew may not yet be required to comply with FSMA’s preventive controls regulations due to its size, the manufacturer should have been making strides toward compliance. The guidelines are so rigorous that products are often recalled before any illnesses occur, especially those containing certain additives like citric acid, calcium carbonate, and calcium citrate, which can have implications for food safety.
In conclusion, the situation at Dixie Dew raises critical questions about the regulatory framework and the need for greater transparency in the food industry to protect public health.