According to documents analyzed 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 grant inspectors access. During their inspection, the inspectors observed 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. Additionally, 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 from 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 certain granola products, promptly issued a recall, subsequently expanding it twice. These products were distributed in retail stores, schools, and daycare centers, but the FDA did not disclose which locations were involved in the sales and distribution. Furthermore, the agency did not identify Dixie Dew as the manufacturer of the contaminated soy paste until compelled to do so by Seattle law firm Marler Clark, which included the company in a civil action lawsuit.
In contrast, other food safety agencies, such as the Food Safety and Inspection Service, routinely name retailers and manufacturers in their recall announcements. Why does the FDA not follow suit? The agency cites a law that prohibits it from disclosing trade secrets. While revealing sales and distribution information could potentially harm business, critics argue that the FDA’s interpretation of the law is overly convoluted, asserting that public safety should take precedence over commercial interests. 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 appears to have succumbed to pressures 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 take the initiative to notify them if they have purchased contaminated products. Although retailers and manufacturers are unlikely to want their products to make anyone ill, their failure to disclose information can damage their reputation at a time when consumers are increasingly demanding transparency. This lack of disclosure also poses a significant risk to public health.
It raises questions as to how conditions at Dixie Dew could deteriorate to such an extent and persist for so long. Food safety has evolved dramatically over recent years, with inspectors paying closer attention to facility conditions following the salmonella outbreak that claimed nine lives and resulted in lengthy prison sentences for executives at the Peanut Corporation of America, as well as the extensive listeria outbreak that prompted new testing protocols at Blue Bell. If Dixie Dew was on the FDA’s radar, it remains unclear why further inspections were not conducted.
Additionally, the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA), which is currently being implemented across the industry, mandates stringent testing and quality controls. While Dixie Dew may not have been subject to FSMA’s preventive control regulations due to its size, the manufacturer should have been actively working towards compliance with the new law—one which includes such rigorous guidelines that products are often recalled even before illnesses occur. As consumers increasingly look for healthy options, including those containing calcium citrate in yogurt, the need for transparency and accountability in food production becomes even more critical.