The latest news, trends, analysis, interviews and podcasts from the global food and beverage industry

Food and beverage recalls can put even the most trusted brands under intense scrutiny. While the immediate priority must always be protecting consumers, the decisions companies make – and how clearly they communicate them – can have lasting consequences for their reputation. In this opinion piece, Roger Hancock, CEO of Recall InfoLink, explores how acting quickly and transparently, taking ownership and demonstrating an unwavering commitment to public safety, determines whether consumer trust is preserved or permanently damaged.

The decision about whether to issue a food or beverage recall is never simple. Brands need to weigh potential reputational damage, financial ramifications, legal considerations and supply chain complexity, but they must also show with their words and actions that consumer safety is driving their recall decision-making. Consumers don’t have visibility into the decision-making process, but they should see food and beverage brands working proactively to protect public health, prioritising consumer safety above all else.

As recalls continue to occur regularly, consumers don’t necessarily fault companies for these incidents – as long as the brands manage them well, communicate transparently and focus on risk mitigation. In fact, the way companies handle recalls determines whether they’ll preserve or erode consumer trust.

When recalls are mismanaged, customer trust erodes

Recalls inevitably come with some amount of fallout, including costs, operational disruption and potential litigation. When recalls are managed poorly, they can result in loss of consumer trust, a potentially irreparable situation. When companies lose consumer trust, it can be difficult to win it back.

Two recent recalls were mismanaged, resulting in high costs, business disruption, negative press and reputational damage. In both cases, it’s possible that the most damaging, long-lasting repercussion was loss of consumer trust.

When consumers, including young children, became ill after an E. coli outbreak linked to Raw Farm’s cheddar cheese, the FDA issued a consumer notice and recommended a recall. The company argued that internal testing found no pathogens in its products. After two weeks, during which potentially compromised products remained on store shelves, Raw Farm eventually issued a recall 'under protest.' Consumers saw a company whose instinct was to contest the findings rather than proactively recall the products to protect public health.

In another recent incident, ByHeart issued a recall on its infant formula, but the communication was unclear. As a result, retailers didn’t understand which products were affected or what actions to take. Contaminated formula lingered on store shelves and understandably, customers were outraged and lost trust in the brand. When news emerged that babies may have been sickened by ByHeart’s formula for years, it further eroded consumer trust.

What’s driving recall decisions?

Public perception in both cases was that consumer safety wasn’t driving the companies’ decisions. For instance, Raw Farm president Aaron McAfee opted to publicly argue with the FDA, rather than reassure consumers about the company's commitment to food safety. This fuelled the perception that McAfee was more concerned about brand reputation and sales, to the detriment of public health. The optics worsened from there.

The California Department of Public Health (CDPH) advised consumers to avoid all raw dairy products because unpasteurised dairy products have a higher risk of pathogen contamination. Instead of spotlighting his company’s internal safety protocols through messages about how Raw Farm ensures safe unpasteurised products, McAfee argued that the CDPH’s statements went beyond the cheese-specific recall scope. When Raw Farm recalled product under protest, it showed consumers that they weren’t acting willingly when consumer harm was possible. Consumers won’t remain loyal to a company that’s reluctant to protect them.

The optics around ByHeart’s recall were also damaging. Vague and delayed communication resulted in prolonged exposure for vulnerable infants. In fact, after the recall was issued, third-party inspectors found the recalled ByHeart infant formula on shelves at 175 retail locations across 36 states.

How to convey trustworthiness during recalls

Brands can preserve consumer trust by following best practice protocols, communicating transparently and taking ownership of the incident. To convey trustworthiness:

• Act before being forced to. If a respected regulatory body like the FDA finds evidence of contamination, be cooperative and proactive. Demonstrate that you’re prioritising public health, even if it means some disruption and expense for your company. Resisting a recall against regulatory recommendation, and publicly stating that you’re acting 'under protest,' is likely to be more damaging than any proactive, voluntary recall would be.

• Prioritise consumer health. While consumers may not be privy to companies’ behind-the-scenes decision-making process, they do watch brands’ public-facing actions and statements, looking for evidence that public health is guiding their decisions. If there’s any chance that food or beverage products may have been compromised, consumers want to see brands act quickly to mitigate these risks. When companies appear to make self-serving decisions at the risk of public safety, the fall-out can be severe and long-lasting.

• Be transparent. Consumers understand that recalls can happen, even to companies with best-practice food safety protocols. A recall won’t necessarily break consumers’ trust or damage your brand reputation, but only if your company owns what went wrong and doesn’t delay, deny or deflect. Be forthcoming, explaining what happened, how it happened and what happens next. Issue clear, actionable messages, including product identifiers and instructions on what to do if consumers bought or consumed these products.

Recall decisions are never simple, but the way a company handles the situation can be the difference between maintaining or eroding consumer trust. During a recall, emphasise your commitment to public safety and show how this drives your decisions. Consumer loyalty remains with companies that prioritise their safety.