Full Breakdown
Driscoll’s Berry Shipments to Canada Found with Excess Pesticide Residues
By Drooid · · How we work
Core Issue: Alleged Over-Half of 2022-2024 Shipments Exceeded Canadian Limits
Former Driscoll’s food-safety manager David Harada alleges that roughly 50 % of the company’s berry shipments to Canada between 2022 and 2024 contained pesticide residues above the limits set by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA). The claim is based on internal estimates used in the company’s compliance tracking. The CFIA confirmed that testing of Driscoll’s raspberries, strawberries, blueberries and blackberries identified residues that exceeded legal maximums for three chemicals: bifenthrin, iprodione and captan.
Background & Context
Driscoll’s, a California-based grower and distributor, supplies most of its berries to North-American grocery chains. In 2022 the company discontinued a tracking system that had ensured a sufficient interval between pesticide application and harvest for Canadian shipments. Harada says the removal was intended to increase volume in the Canadian market. He filed a California lawsuit alleging retaliation after raising concerns. Separate U.S. litigation accuses Driscoll’s of “greenwashing” PFAS on its strawberries, but the present focus is on the Canadian pesticide findings.
Data & Statistics
- Shipment compliance: Harada’s filing states that about half of all Driscoll’s exports to Canada during the 2022-2024 period exceeded CFIA pesticide limits.
- Detected chemicals: CFIA testing identified bifenthrin, iprodione and captan.
- Health-risk threshold: Toxicologist Daniel Green estimates a consumer would need to ingest ? 19 kg of the contaminated berries in a short period to experience measurable adverse effects.
- Regulatory outcome: The CFIA’s inspections did not trigger product recalls; corrective actions were taken where the agency deemed the health risk low, and investigations were closed.
Official Statements & Responses
- CFIA: In an email to CBC News the agency noted, “The presence of the Driscoll’s brand on the products does not, on its own, establish that the non-compliances originated from a single producer or source.”
Criticism & Expert Perspective
Daniel Green cautions that a single exceedance does not automatically translate into a health risk, but repeated violations are concerning. He emphasizes cumulative exposure: “It is the chemical lifetime exposure experience that has to be looked at.”
Conflicting Reports & Gaps
- CFIA vs. whistleblower: The CFIA confirms excess residues but reports no recalls and attributes findings to a range of producers, not solely Driscoll’s. Harada claims the company deliberately removed the tracking system that would have prevented over-application.
- Public disclosure: Harada alleges Driscoll’s chose not to disclose the violations publicly, describing the situation as a “cover-up.” The company denies this, stating corrective measures were taken internally and no recall was required.
Verbatim Quotes
- “And it's something where you start seeing it so regularly and you know that something's not right that you have to speak up,” — David Harada
- “I completely believe that I was part of a coverup because they chose not to disclose this information publicly,” — David Harada
- “The presence of the Driscoll’s brand on the products does not, on its own, establish that the non-compliances originated from a single producer or source.” — CFIA
- “To get an effect, one would have to eat 19 kilograms,” — Daniel Green
What’s Next
The CFIA continues to monitor imported berries and may initiate further inspections if new evidence of health risk emerges. Consumers seeking to reduce exposure can opt for organic berries, though experts note that organic produce is not immune to pesticide residues or other food-borne hazards.