A former Driscoll’s compliance manager claims in a Ventura County lawsuit that the company sold berries that violated pesticide rules in California and Canada, allegations the company denies.
By yourNEWS Media Newsroom
A former food safety compliance manager at Driscoll’s has filed a whistleblower lawsuit accusing the berry company of selling produce that allegedly violated pesticide laws in the United States and Canada, raising questions about regulatory compliance, consumer safety and transparency in the produce industry.
David Harada, a Camarillo resident who previously worked as Driscoll’s food and safety regulatory compliance manager for the United States and Canada, filed the 27-page complaint June 24 in Ventura County Superior Court. The lawsuit alleges unlawful retaliation and wrongful termination after Harada disclosed what he claimed were violations of state, federal and Canadian food safety rules involving the company’s berry products.
Harada alleges that Driscoll’s sold berries in violation of pesticide regulations and that he was ultimately forced to resign in October 2025 after refusing to take part in concealing violations from the public.
Driscoll’s has denied the allegations. The company said food safety and integrity are fundamental to its business and stated that it “maintains robust compliance with food safety regulations.”
According to the lawsuit, Harada began working for Driscoll’s in September 2022 as an agronomist responsible for monitoring pesticide use on crops. Within a month, he allegedly identified two independent California growers who may have exceeded legal limits on the number of pesticide applications allowed per year.
The complaint alleges that a company executive confirmed the violations but did not report them to authorities. Instead, the executive asked Harada whether Driscoll’s could claim “plausible deniability” to avoid liability, according to the lawsuit.
Harada’s allegations broadened after an August 2023 third-party audit, which the complaint says identified more than 175 overapplications of 12 chemicals on California strawberry crops from 2021 through 2022.
The lawsuit also accuses Driscoll’s of failing to comply with Canadian pesticide restrictions. Harada claims that after he was promoted to compliance manager in March 2024, he discovered that company leadership had removed Canadian pesticide rules from Driscoll’s compliance tracking system more than a year earlier.
According to the complaint, that change effectively allowed the company to ignore Canada’s stricter pesticide standards. Harada alleges that an internal investigation found roughly 50% of Driscoll’s shipments to Canada from 2022 to 2024 contained fruit that exceeded Canadian maximum residue limits. The lawsuit says those shipments were valued at nearly $100 million.
Canadian rules require specific intervals between pesticide application and harvest, standards described in the lawsuit as more stringent than U.S. regulations.
The allegations were reported by Children’s Health Defense, which described the case as involving claims of widespread pesticide violations in California and Canada.
The lawsuit comes amid broader public concern over pesticide exposure and potential health risks, especially in agricultural regions. Santa Cruz County childhood cancer rates have nearly doubled over 35 years, according to county health data cited in the submitted material. Activists have pointed to a “38% higher than state average” figure, though health officials have said that statistic requires careful interpretation.
Beyond Pesticides, citing research in the International Journal of Cancer, has linked pesticide exposure in agricultural areas to increased risks of childhood leukemia and brain cancer. More than 15,000 U.S. children are diagnosed with cancer each year, and pediatric cancer is the second-leading cause of death among children ages 5 to 9.
The case also underscores broader concerns about pesticide residue oversight in American agriculture and the role of large produce companies in ensuring compliance across supply chains. Critics cited in the submitted material argue that Driscoll’s market position, including control of more than half of the organic berry market, makes transparency especially important.
The lawsuit’s first hearing is scheduled for Jan. 6, 2027.
The allegations remain unproven in court. For consumers and regulators, the case centers on whether Driscoll’s followed pesticide laws in the markets where its berries were sold, whether internal compliance systems were changed in ways that affected oversight and whether Harada faced retaliation after raising concerns.
Original article
Comments