Raw Farm LLC, the nation's largest raw milk producer, waited two weeks before recalling cheddar the FDA linked to E. coli — and issued that recall "under protest." That single phrase did more damage to consumer trust than the contamination itself, according to Roger Hancock, CEO of recall management firm Recall InfoLink.

The mechanism is simple. Consumers can't evaluate competing lab results between a company and a regulator. What they can evaluate is behavior: who acted first, who communicated clearly, and who stalled. In recall economics, that perception gap translates directly into brand value, and it's the part of the risk calculation operators control most.

What happened at Raw Farm?

In March, the FDA issued a consumer notice about Raw Farm's cheddar, saying it may have been contaminated with E. coli O157:H7. The agency recommended a recall. Raw Farm declined, keeping product on store shelves while its owner disputed the FDA's findings, pointing to internal testing that showed no pathogens.

Meanwhile, an increasing number of consumers fell ill after eating the cheese. After the two-week standoff, Raw Farm recalled the product but kept contesting the FDA's evidence.

Hancock's read: "It's impossible for consumers to trust a brand whose instinct is to contest rather than act." Consumers want companies to assume the worst case, not the most favorable interpretation of the facts.

What went wrong with ByHeart?

The ByHeart infant formula recall shows a different failure mode. The company did initiate a recall after multiple illnesses were potentially linked to its product — but unclear, delayed and incomplete communication created its own damage.

Numerous retailers failed to pull product, and contaminated formula stayed on shelves for more than two months. ByHeart then had to expand the recall after federal investigators and independent labs couldn't rule out wider contamination.

Each expansion signaled that the company was managing its legal exposure rather than protecting consumers, Hancock argues. Had ByHeart acted on the worst-case assumption from the start, the trust outcome may have been different — even if the science supported a narrower initial scope.

What does this change for food companies?

For operators building recall protocols, Hancock lays out five signals that determine whether a recall preserves or destroys trust:

• Acting before being forced to. Recalls issued under regulatory duress don't build credibility; immediate, well-communicated action does.
• Being transparent about what happened and what happens next.
• Communicating clearly and early, with product identifiers and instructions for consumers who bought or consumed the items.
• Erring on the side of consumer protection. If contamination is even possible, recall the product — in Hancock's words, "Period. Full stop."
• Owning what went wrong. Recalls don't inherently break trust; denial, deflection and lying do.

The underlying point for the industry: recall decisions weigh evolving information, public health risk, legal exposure, supply chain complexity and financial consequences — most of which consumers never see. What they see is speed and candor.

As Hancock puts it, a brand's actions and words during a recall demonstrate whether it prioritizes consumer safety or lets business decisions take precedence — and companies that act early and communicate clearly are, in his framing, "doing exactly what consumers need."

By Olivia Hart