Whistleblower Lawsuit Alleges Half of Driscoll’s Berry Shipments to Canada Exceeded Pesticide Limits
Former Driscoll’s executive David Harada has filed a lawsuit alleging that approximately 50% of berry shipments to Canada between 2022 and 2024 contained pesticide levels exceeding safety limits. While the Canadian Food Inspection Agency confirmed findings of chemical residues above legal thresholds, no recalls were issued. Driscoll’s denies the allegations of unsafe shipping and retaliation.
A whistleblower lawsuit filed by former Driscoll’s employee David Harada alleges that nearly half of the company’s berry shipments to Canada between 2022 and 2024 contained fruit with pesticide and chemical levels exceeding Canadian safety standards. Harada, who served as Driscoll’s manager of food safety and regulatory compliance for the U.S. and Canada, claims the violations were part of a broader pattern of negligence and cover-up.
The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) confirmed that it conducted several inspections on Driscoll’s berries sold in grocery stores across Canada during the specified period. These inspections identified chemical residues above legal limits, including bifenthrin, iprodione, and captan, which are fungicides and insecticides. Despite these findings, the CFIA stated that no recalls were issued because corrective actions were implemented and investigations were closed.
Some of the CFIA investigations were triggered by reports of suspected illness after consumers ate Driscoll’s blueberries or complaints regarding a chemical taste and smell. However, the agency noted that illnesses could not be definitively linked to the berries. Toxicologist Daniel Green from McGill University commented on the health risks, stating that an individual would have to consume 19 kilograms of the tested berries to experience an effect from the specific chemical levels found.
Harada alleges that Driscoll’s removed its food safety and compliance tracking system for Canada in 2022 to increase sales volume. He further claims that he was subjected to unlawful retaliation and forced to resign after raising concerns about the toxicity levels. The lawsuit seeks to address what Harada describes as a cover-up of non-compliance issues.
Driscoll’s has denied the allegations, stating that it never knowingly shipped products it believed to be unsafe. The company also refuted the claim that it removed the food safety tracking system, asserting instead that it acted in good faith. Regarding Harada’s employment status, Driscoll’s declined to comment on specific details due to confidentiality but maintained that it responded correctly to concerns and will present evidence showing a different picture than the one alleged in the lawsuit.