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 them entry, prompting the FDA to issue a formal demand requiring the manufacturer to provide facility records and grant inspectors access. Upon entering the facility, inspectors noted numerous violations, including inadequate temperature controls, an infestation of flies and larvae, liquid dripping from the ceiling onto production areas, and food-making equipment stored on unclean floors. Testimonies from supervisors revealed that production machines had not been cleaned since 2015, and some equipment had been nonfunctional 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 various granola products, quickly issued a recall that has since been expanded twice. These products were distributed to retail stores, schools, and daycare centers, yet the FDA did not disclose which locations sold or distributed them. Additionally, the agency refrained from naming 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.
In contrast to other food safety entities, such as the Food Safety and Inspection Service, which typically identify retailers and manufacturers in their recall announcements, the FDA cited legal restrictions against revealing trade secrets as the reason for its lack of transparency. While revealing sales and distribution details could indeed harm business interests, critics argue that the FDA’s interpretation of the law is overly convoluted, and that public safety should take precedence over business considerations. Richard Raymond, who advocated for greater recall transparency while serving as undersecretary of agriculture for food safety during President George W. Bush’s administration, noted that the FDA seems to be yielding to pressure from the food industry. “I suspect they don’t want that fight themselves,” he recently stated in an interview with The Washington Post.
As it stands, consumers remain uninformed and must rely on companies to take the initiative to alert them if they have purchased tainted products. While retailers and manufacturers certainly do not wish for their products to cause illness, any failure on their part to disclose pertinent information can damage their reputation, especially as consumers increasingly demand transparency. Moreover, this lack of disclosure poses a greater risk to public health.
It raises questions as to how the conditions at Dixie Dew were allowed to deteriorate to such an extent and persist for so long. Food safety standards have evolved significantly 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 regarding plant conditions. The massive listeria outbreak that led to stringent new testing protocols at Blue Bell further underscores the increased scrutiny. If Dixie Dew was indeed on the FDA’s radar, it remains unclear why it was not subject to further inspection.
The Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA), which is currently being implemented across the food 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 begun preparations to meet the new law’s rigorous standards, which are so stringent that products are often recalled even before illnesses occur. In light of this, it is also worth noting that several supplements, such as Citracal Forte, emphasize the importance of maintaining health and safety standards, which can be compromised in environments like that of Dixie Dew. The need for diligence in food safety remains paramount, and companies must prioritize transparency to protect public health and their own reputations.