Whistleblower Alleges Driscoll’s Sent Millions Of Berries To Canada With Excess Chemical Levels

A former Driscoll’s food safety manager has filed a lawsuit alleging that millions of pounds of berries shipped to Canada between 2022 and 2024 contained pesticide and chemical residues above Canadian legal limits.

David Harada, who previously worked in food safety and regulatory compliance for Driscoll’s in the United States and Canada, alleges that about half of the company’s shipments to Canada during that period contained fruit that exceeded Canadian safety standards. The lawsuit also claims Harada faced retaliation after raising concerns internally.

Concerns Over Pesticide Levels

According to the allegations, Harada began raising concerns about pesticide applications and food safety practices in 2022. He claims he reported those concerns to supervisors and company leadership but was ultimately left responsible for managing the issue.

The lawsuit alleges that Driscoll’s previously used a food safety and compliance tracking system designed to monitor requirements for the Canadian market. Harada claims the system was removed in 2022.

According to the lawsuit, the tracking system helped ensure enough time passed between pesticide applications and harvesting. That waiting period is intended to allow chemical residues to decline before fruit reaches consumers.

Harada alleges that removing the system contributed to berries being harvested and shipped without consistently meeting Canadian requirements.

Canadian Inspections Found Excess Residues

Canadian food safety officials conducted inspections involving Driscoll’s berries sold in Canada between 2022 and 2024. Some of the tested products were found to contain pesticide residues above Canada’s established legal limits.

The chemicals identified in the inspections included bifenthrin, iprodione and captan. These substances are used in agriculture to control insects, fungi and other threats to crops.

The inspections did not result in recalls, according to Canadian authorities. In certain cases, corrective measures were taken and investigations were subsequently closed.

Officials also emphasized that the cases involved different products, suppliers, importers and locations over several years. The presence of the Driscoll’s brand alone does not establish that every product came from the same producer or source.

Complaints Included Illness Reports

Some investigations were initiated after consumers reported suspected illnesses following consumption of Driscoll’s blueberries. Other complaints involved unusual chemical tastes or odors.

Canadian officials said the reported illnesses could not be definitively linked to the berries.

Food safety regulators consider several factors when determining whether a contaminated or non-compliant product requires a recall, including the level of potential health risk.

Exceeding A Legal Limit Does Not Automatically Mean Immediate Harm

The presence of pesticide residues above a legal maximum does not necessarily mean that eating the food will immediately cause illness.

Food safety experts have noted that pesticide residue violations can occur without necessarily creating an acute health risk from consuming a small amount of the affected product.

The concern, however, involves maintaining regulatory limits designed to control exposure and prevent excessive or repeated exposure to agricultural chemicals.

Whistleblower Alleges A Cover-Up

Harada’s lawsuit also accuses Driscoll’s of attempting to conceal the extent of the alleged compliance problems.

He claims the company should have acknowledged the violations, addressed potential risks and taken additional action when necessary. The lawsuit further alleges that Harada was treated as a scapegoat after raising concerns and was eventually pushed toward leaving the company.

His legal claims include allegations of unlawful retaliation connected to his workplace complaints.

Driscoll’s Disputes The Allegations

Driscoll’s has denied the allegations made by Harada.

The company has said it cannot discuss certain details involving Harada’s employment because of confidentiality obligations. However, Driscoll’s has maintained that it believes the full factual record will show that it responded appropriately to the concerns raised.

The company also disputes the allegation that it removed the Canadian food safety tracking system and has rejected the other claims made in the lawsuit.

Driscoll’s has said it has never knowingly shipped products that it believed were unsafe and intends to present its evidence as the litigation continues.

What The Case Means For Consumers

The lawsuit has not established that Driscoll’s intentionally shipped unsafe berries or knowingly concealed a food safety violation. Those remain allegations that will be addressed through the legal process.

At the same time, Canadian inspections documented pesticide residues above Canadian legal limits in some Driscoll’s products during the period identified in the lawsuit.

The case highlights the complex regulatory requirements that food producers and agricultural companies face when selling products across international borders. Pesticide rules can differ between countries, meaning fruit that meets one country’s standards may not necessarily meet another country’s requirements.

The allegations will now be tested through the legal process as the whistleblower lawsuit moves forward.