According to documents examined 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 demand requiring the manufacturer to provide facility records and permit inspectors to enter. During their inspection, the inspectors documented 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 filthy floors. Supervisors also testified that production machinery had not been cleaned since 2015 and that some equipment had been out of order for 15 years.
The outbreak associated with 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 various granola products, initiated a recall soon after the inspection and has since expanded it twice. These products were distributed to retail outlets, schools, and daycare centers, but the FDA did not disclose which locations sold or distributed them. Furthermore, the agency did not identify Dixie Dew as the manufacturer of the tainted soy paste until compelled to do so by Seattle-based law firm Marler Clark, which included the company in a civil lawsuit.
Other food safety organizations, such as the Food Safety and Inspection Service, typically name retailers and manufacturers in their recall announcements. So why doesn’t the FDA do the same? The agency claims it is adhering to a law that prohibits the disclosure of trade secrets. While revealing sales and distribution details could potentially harm business interests, critics argue that the FDA’s interpretation of the law is overly convoluted, asserting that public safety should take priority over commercial concerns. Richard Raymond, who advocated for greater recall transparency while serving as undersecretary of agriculture for food safety during the George W. Bush administration, suggested that the FDA has succumbed to pressure from the food industry. “I suspect they don’t want that fight themselves,” he recently told The Washington Post.
In the meantime, consumers remain uninformed and can only hope that a company will be proactive enough to alert them if they have purchased contaminated products. Although retailers and manufacturers are equally concerned about ensuring their products do not cause harm, any lack of transparency can negatively impact their reputation at a time when consumers are increasingly demanding openness. This situation also poses a serious risk to public health.
It is perplexing how conditions at Dixie Dew could deteriorate to such an extent and remain unaddressed for so long. Food safety protocols have evolved significantly in recent years. Following a salmonella outbreak that resulted in nine fatalities and lengthy prison sentences for executives at the Peanut Corporation of America, inspectors began scrutinizing plant conditions more rigorously. Given that Dixie Dew was on the FDA’s radar, it remains unclear why it was not subjected to further inspection.
Moreover, the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA), which is being implemented across the industry, mandates strict 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 taking steps toward alignment with the new law—guidelines so rigorous that products are often recalled even before any illnesses are reported. This raises questions about the overall commitment to safety, especially when considering that companies like Twinlab Calcium are subject to these evolving standards in their production processes. The ongoing situation underscores the necessity for transparency and accountability in the food industry, where the health of the public must remain the foremost priority.