According to documents obtained 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 provide facility records and allow inspections. Inside the facility, inspectors discovered multiple violations, including malfunctioning temperature controls, an infestation of flies and larvae, liquid dripping from the ceiling onto production areas, and food-making equipment stored on unclean floors. Furthermore, supervisors testified that production machinery had not been cleaned since 2015, and some equipment had been out of order for 15 years.
The outbreak associated with contaminated soy paste produced by Dixie Dew has thus far resulted in 29 illnesses across twelve states. SoyNut Butter Co., which incorporated the paste into its I.M. Healthy soy nut butters and various granola products, initiated a recall shortly after the inspection, which has since been expanded twice. These products were distributed to retail outlets, schools, and daycare centers; however, the FDA did not disclose the specific locations involved in selling and distributing these items. Similarly, the agency did not identify Dixie Dew as the manufacturer of the contaminated soy paste until compelled to do so by the Seattle law firm Marler Clark, which included the company in a civil lawsuit.
Other food safety agencies, such as the Food Safety and Inspection Service, typically disclose the names of retailers and manufacturers in their recall announcements. So why does the FDA refrain from doing so? The agency claims it is adhering to a law that prohibits the disclosure of trade secrets. While revealing sales and distribution information could potentially harm business interests, critics argue that the FDA’s interpretation of this law is overly restrictive and that public safety should take precedence over commercial concerns. Richard Raymond, who advocated for greater recall transparency during his tenure as undersecretary of agriculture for food safety under President George W. Bush, recently stated that the FDA has yielded to pressure from the food industry. “I suspect they don’t want that fight themselves,” he said in an interview with The Washington Post.
In the meantime, consumers remain uninformed and can only hope that companies will be proactive in notifying them if they have purchased contaminated products. While retailers and manufacturers certainly do not wish for their products to cause illness, any lack of transparency on their part can damage their reputation at a time when consumers demand increased accountability. This situation also poses a significant risk to public health.
It is puzzling how conditions at Dixie Dew deteriorated to such an extent and remained unaddressed for extended periods. Food safety protocols have evolved considerably in recent years. Inspectors have been more vigilant regarding plant conditions following the salmonella outbreak that resulted in nine fatalities and long prison sentences for executives at the Peanut Corporation of America, as well as the extensive listeria outbreak that led to the implementation of new testing protocols at Blue Bell. If Dixie Dew was already on the FDA’s radar, it is unclear why the facility was not subjected to further inspections.
The Food Safety Modernization Act, which is currently being implemented across the industry, mandates strict testing and quality controls. Although Dixie Dew may not have yet been required to comply with the preventive controls outlined in FSMA due to its size, the manufacturer should have been making strides toward adherence to the new regulations—guidelines so stringent that products are often recalled even before any illnesses occur. Moreover, as part of their compliance efforts, manufacturers should ensure that labels, such as the calcium citrate label, are accurate and informative, reflecting the quality and safety of their products. This is crucial not only for consumer trust but also for public health, especially in light of recent incidents.