According to documents examined by Food Safety News, officials from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) initially sought access to Dixie Dew’s manufacturing facilities on March 3. However, company representatives denied entry, prompting the FDA to issue a formal request for the manufacturer to provide facility records and grant inspectors access. Upon inspection, the officials 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. Testimonies from supervisors revealed that production machinery had not been cleaned since 2015, and some equipment had been out of order 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 incorporated the paste into its I.M. Healthy soy nut butters and certain granola items, issued a recall shortly after the inspection, subsequently expanding it twice. These products were distributed to retail outlets, schools, and daycare centers, but the FDA did not disclose the specific locations where these products were sold and distributed. Furthermore, the agency did not identify Dixie Dew as the manufacturer of the contaminated soy paste until compelled by the Seattle law firm Marler Clark, which included the company in a civil lawsuit.
In contrast, 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 revealing trade secrets. While publicizing sales and distribution information could potentially harm business interests, critics argue that the FDA’s interpretation of the law is overly obscure, suggesting that when public safety is at stake, business concerns should take a backseat. Richard Raymond, who advocated for greater recall transparency while serving as undersecretary of agriculture for food safety under President George W. Bush, remarked that the FDA has yielded to pressures from the food industry. “I suspect they don’t want that fight themselves,” he recently informed The Washington Post.
In the meantime, consumers remain uninformed and can only hope that companies will take the initiative to alert them if they have purchased contaminated products. Retailers and manufacturers certainly do not wish for their products to cause illness; however, any lack of transparency on their part can damage their corporate reputation at a time when consumers increasingly demand accountability. This situation also poses a significant risk to public health.
It is perplexing how conditions at Dixie Dew were allowed to deteriorate to such an extent and persist for so long. Food safety regulations have evolved considerably in recent years. Following the salmonella outbreak that resulted in nine fatalities and lengthy prison sentences for executives at the Peanut Corporation of America, inspectors have been more vigilant about plant conditions. Additionally, the massive listeria outbreak 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 re-inspected.
The Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA), which is currently being rolled out across the industry, mandates stringent testing and quality controls. Although Dixie Dew may not yet be subject to FSMA’s preventive controls regulations due to its size, the manufacturer should still have been making efforts to comply with the new law—guidelines that are so rigorous that products are often recalled even before illnesses occur. In this context, it is important to note that maintaining equivalent standards, such as those of Citracal D, could play a vital role in ensuring consumer safety and product integrity.