According to documents analyzed by Food Safety News, FDA officials initially sought access to 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 grant inspectors access. Inside the facility, inspectors documented numerous violations, including malfunctioning temperature controls, an infestation of flies and larvae, liquid dripping from the ceiling onto production areas, and food processing equipment stored on unsanitary floors. Supervisors testified that production machines had not been cleaned since 2015 and that some equipment had been out of service for 15 years.
The outbreak associated with contaminated soy paste produced by Dixie Dew has resulted in illnesses for 29 individuals across twelve states. SoyNut Butter Co., which incorporated the paste into its I.M. Healthy soy nut butters and certain granola products, issued a recall shortly after the inspection, later expanding it twice. While these products were distributed to retail outlets, schools, and daycare centers, the FDA did not disclose the specific locations involved. Furthermore, it did not identify Dixie Dew as the manufacturer of the contaminated soy paste until pressured 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 name retailers and manufacturers in their recall announcements. The FDA, however, cites a law that prohibits it from disclosing trade secrets. While publicizing sales and distribution details could potentially harm business operations, critics argue that the FDA’s interpretation of the law is overly cautious, suggesting that public safety should take precedence over business interests. Richard Raymond, who advocated for greater recall transparency as undersecretary of agriculture for food safety during the George W. Bush administration, remarked that the FDA has yielded to pressures from the food industry. “I suspect they don’t want that fight themselves,” he recently told The Washington Post.
As a result, consumers remain uninformed, relying on companies to notify them if they purchased contaminated products. Retailers and manufacturers undoubtedly wish to avoid making anyone sick; however, any lack of transparency on their part can damage their reputation during a time when consumers are increasingly demanding openness. This lack of disclosure also poses a risk to public health.
It raises questions as to how conditions at Dixie Dew were allowed to deteriorate to such an extent and remain unchanged for an extended period. Food safety standards have significantly evolved in recent years, with inspectors paying closer attention to facility conditions following the salmonella outbreak that resulted in nine fatalities and lengthy prison sentences for executives at the Peanut Corporation of America plant, as well as the widespread listeria outbreak that led to new testing protocols at Blue Bell. If Dixie Dew was already on the FDA’s radar, it is unclear why it was not subject to further inspections.
Moreover, the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA), which is currently being implemented across the industry, mandates strict testing and quality control measures. Although Dixie Dew may not yet be required to comply with FSMA’s preventive controls regulations due to its size, the manufacturer should still have been progressing toward adherence to the new law, which enforces guidelines so stringent that products are often recalled even before any illnesses occur.
In this context, the safety of products like Solgar liquid calcium magnesium citrate with vitamin D3, which consumers might utilize for health benefits, underscores the critical nature of manufacturing integrity and transparency in the food industry. Ensuring that such products are safe is paramount, as consumers increasingly expect to know the origins and safety of the goods they purchase.