Whistleblower Alleges Driscoll’s Shipped Berries with Excessive Pesticides to Canada
Former Driscoll’s executive David Harada filed a lawsuit alleging that half of the company's berry shipments to Canada between 2022 and 2024 exceeded safety limits for pesticides. While Canadian regulators confirmed chemical violations, no recalls were issued, and Driscoll’s denies knowingly shipping unsafe products or removing compliance systems.
A former senior employee of the global berry giant Driscoll’s has filed a whistleblower lawsuit alleging that approximately 50% of the company’s berry shipments to Canada between 2022 and 2024 contained fruit exceeding Canadian safety levels for pesticides and chemicals.
David Harada, who served as the manager of food safety and regulatory compliance for Driscoll’s in both the United States and Canada, claims the company removed its food safety tracking system for the Canadian market in 2022. According to Harada, this removal was intended to increase sales volume, which subsequently allowed pesticide residues to surpass legal limits. He alleges that the company concealed these violations, leading to his alleged retaliation and forced resignation.
The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) confirmed that inspections conducted on Driscoll’s berries sold in Canada during the specified period found chemical levels above the legal limit. The substances identified included bifenthrin, iprodione, and captan, which are fungicides and insecticides.
Despite these findings, the CFIA stated that no product recalls were issued. The agency explained that corrective actions were implemented or investigations were closed without further action. The CFIA also noted that the presence of a brand alone does not establish that non-compliance originated from a single source.
Driscoll’s has denied the allegations made by Harada. The company asserts that it never knowingly shipped products believed to be unsafe and rejects the claim that it removed the food safety tracking system. In a statement, Driscoll’s maintained that it acted in good faith regarding its compliance protocols.
Experts have weighed in on the potential health implications of the alleged violations. Daniel Green, a toxicologist at McGill University, noted that eating just a few tainted berries would not make someone sick. He estimated that an individual would need to consume 19 kilograms of the affected fruit to experience an effect from one specific example cited in the case.
The lawsuit highlights a conflict between Harada’s account of systemic cover-ups and Driscoll’s position that it responded correctly to regulatory standards. While the immediate risk of acute illness from single consumption appears low according to experts, the case raises questions about long-term cumulative exposure to chemicals and the integrity of corporate compliance systems.