A proposed class-action lawsuit filed in Quebec Superior Court against U.S.-based berry giant Driscoll’s has opened a wider national debate over consumer disclosure and Canada’s food inspection framework.
The court application in Quebec alleges that Driscoll’s distributed fruit into Canadian grocery stores containing pesticide residues exceeding Maximum Residue Limits (MRLs) established under Canadian law. According to reporting by CBC News, the Quebec lawsuit relies heavily on disclosures made in a California whistleblower retaliation suit by David Harada, Driscoll’s former manager of food safety and regulatory compliance for the U.S. and Canada. Harada alleges that approximately 50% of Driscoll’s berry exports to Canada between 2022 and 2024 carried non-compliant pesticide residues, estimating the value of affected exports at nearly $100 million.
Driscoll’s Response: Disputed Allegations and Testing Standards
Addressing the legal challenge, a representative of Driscoll’s tells The Packer:
“We are aware that a proposed class action has been filed in Quebec. The lawsuit is based largely on allegations made by former Driscoll’s employee David Harada in a California employment lawsuit filed long after his voluntary departure. Driscoll’s disputes those allegations.
“We welcome the opportunity to address these claims through the legal process, where the underlying facts, data and expert analysis can be fully examined,” the company says in an email. “We are confident that Canadians will see that Driscoll’s maintains comprehensive food safety and compliance programs and that the allegations do not reflect the reality of how our business operates.”
Driscoll’s says it sources berries for Canadians from dozens of independent family farms and employs extensive testing, monitoring and compliance procedures designed to meet regulatory requirements in the markets where its products are sold, including Canada.
“We take food safety and compliance seriously and invest significant resources to help ensure the safety and quality of our berries,” the company says. “Our goal is always full compliance with applicable standards.”
That emphasis on risk assessment over strict limits reflects a core defense in the company’s approach.
“The allegations focus on a very small number of maximum residue level (MRL) exceedances that must be viewed in the context of millions of shipments, extensive testing and decades of providing safe, high-quality berries to consumers,” the company says. “According to regulation, not every MRL exceedance presents a food safety concern or requires a product recall. When we identify an exceedance, we investigate the matter, work with the grower involved and take steps designed to prevent similar issues in the future. The data will show that Driscoll’s food safety practices meet Canadian standards.”
Driscoll’s adds: “We deeply value Canadian consumers, customers, growers and communities. Canadians have placed their trust in our berries for generations, and we take that responsibility seriously. For more than 100 years, we have worked to earn the trust of consumers by communicating responsibly about our products and growing practices, and we remain committed to that responsibility every day. We remain committed to earning the trust of Canadian consumers through safe, high-quality products and compliance with Canadian laws and regulations.”
CFIA: Risk-Informed Oversight and Public Notification Thresholds
The lawsuit has raised consumer questions regarding why pesticide overages detected by testing bodies did not trigger public recalls or alerts.
Explaining the federal oversight framework, a representative of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) says: “The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) uses a risk-informed approach to oversee imported food and assess potential non-compliances, including pesticide residue findings. Imported fresh fruits and vegetables are subject to the same food safety requirements as foods produced in Canada, and importers are responsible for ensuring products they bring into Canada meet Canadian requirements.”
In an email, CFIA addresses how chemical thresholds are established and evaluated.
“Maximum Residue Limits (MRLs) for pesticides are established by Health Canada through rigorous scientific assessments designed to protect consumers, including vulnerable populations. A pesticide residue exceeding an MRL does not automatically indicate a food safety risk or require a recall. When the CFIA identifies a pesticide residue above a Canadian limit, it assesses the available information, including the nature and level of the residue, potential health risks, product distribution and other relevant factors, to determine the appropriate regulatory response. CFIA also shares its findings with Health Canada, who performs a health risk assessment to determine if there is a risk to consumers.”
Rather than issuing immediate public alerts for every detected overage, the regulator focuses on direct corrective measures with importers.
“Where a non-compliance is identified, the CFIA communicates its findings directly to the regulated party responsible for the product, typically the importer or licence holder, and works with them to implement appropriate corrective actions,” says a CFIA representative. “Depending on the circumstances, these actions may include follow-up inspections, additional sampling and testing, enhanced monitoring, enforcement measures, importer notifications or engagement with foreign competent authorities.”
The regulator utilizes trend monitoring to adjust oversight dynamically when issues recur.
“The CFIA uses information gathered through inspections, laboratory testing, complaints, compliance history and enforcement activities to identify trends and determine whether broader patterns are emerging. Where evidence suggests concerns linked to a particular supplier, product, source or supply chain, the CFIA can adjust its oversight activities accordingly, including conducting additional sampling, increasing monitoring of future shipments, undertaking follow-up inspections or working with foreign authorities to address issues at their source,” CFIA says.
Reassuring the public regarding overall food supply safety, the CFIA representative says: “The vast majority of food tested by the CFIA meets Canadian requirements. Information collected through inspections, testing and enforcement activities helps the CFIA continuously strengthen oversight, address non-compliances before they become a food safety concern, and help verify that food sold in Canada is safe.”
Legal and Consumer Policy Implications
According to court documents reported by CP24, the Quebec application argues that consumers were deprived of material information regarding pesticide levels, preventing them from making fully informed buying decisions at the retail counter.
While toxicologists quoted by CBC News note that low-level chemical overages do not pose immediate acute toxicity risks from consuming individual servings, the lawsuit shifts the debate toward long-term cumulative exposure and compliance transparency. As the authorization application awaits a hearing before a Quebec Superior Court judge, the case continues to emphasize the intersection of corporate compliance, federal regulatory discretion and consumer trust.
