TL;DR
Get kitchen staples and gadgets delivered free with Prime
- Fast, free delivery on millions of items
- Prime Video, Amazon Music and more included
- Member-only deals all year
A Food Safety News report examines how company responses during recalls may affect consumer trust. It discusses disputes over Raw Farm cheese and communication during ByHeart’s infant formula recall, while noting differing views among companies and regulators about the evidence.
A Food Safety News report published in October 2026 examines company recall decisions and public communications in the Raw Farm cheese dispute and ByHeart infant formula recall. The report discusses how those responses may affect consumer trust, particularly when evidence is disputed or information is still developing.
The report describes a March notice from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration saying Raw Farm LLC’s cheddar cheese products may have been contaminated with E. coli. The FDA recommended a recall, but Raw Farm initially declined. Its owner disputed the agency’s findings and said the company’s internal testing found no pathogens. The report says more consumers became ill during the dispute; after about two weeks, Raw Farm issued a recall “under protest” while continuing to challenge the evidence.
The report also discusses ByHeart’s infant formula recall, which began after illnesses were potentially linked to the product. It says unclear, delayed and incomplete communications caused confusion, while some retailers did not remove products promptly. The report states that formula remained on store shelves for more than two months and that ByHeart later expanded the recall after federal investigators and independent laboratories could not rule out wider contamination.
The report’s author, Roger Hancock, discusses how companies can communicate during recalls, including providing product-identification details and instructions for customers. He also addresses how a company’s response to problems may affect consumers’ perceptions.
How Recall Conduct Shapes Trust
Food recalls involve decisions made while information may still be developing. Companies weigh potential health risks alongside legal, operational and supply-chain concerns, while consumers generally do not see those internal discussions. They instead encounter the public-facing choices: whether a company removes products, how quickly it alerts customers, and whether its instructions are specific enough to follow.
That makes the handling of a recall relevant beyond the affected products. Prompt, clear communication can help consumers identify items and take appropriate action; delayed or confusing messages can leave them uncertain about what is safe. The report argues that disputes over evidence may further weaken confidence when a company appears to resist a recall, though the cases it describes do not by themselves establish how all consumers responded or quantify any lasting reputational impact.
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
Two Recall Disputes in Focus
The report is an analysis by Roger Hancock, CEO of Recall InfoLink, whose work spans retail, technology, data, regulation and supply chains. It is not a regulatory finding or a study measuring consumer opinion. It describes how recall decisions can be difficult to evaluate from outside a company, particularly when a company and regulators disagree about the evidence.
In the Raw Farm example, the FDA’s notice and recommendation preceded the company’s recall, which it issued while disputing the agency’s position. In the ByHeart example, the report focuses on communication and subsequent recall expansion as investigators could not exclude wider contamination. The author discusses both cases in relation to public perceptions of companies’ responses.
“Consumers want companies to err on the side of public safety if there’s any chance that products may have been compromised.”
— Roger Hancock, CEO of Recall InfoLink, in the Food Safety News report
Evidence and Consumer Response
The report does not provide the underlying FDA evidence, the company’s complete testing records or a detailed account of the investigations into either case. It also does not quantify illness totals, how many products remained in stores, or how consumer trust changed. Raw Farm disputed the FDA’s findings, while the report says investigators and independent laboratories could not rule out wider contamination in the ByHeart case; the precise evidence and conclusions are not set out here.
It is also unclear from the report what long-term effects either episode had on sales, brand reputation or consumer behavior. Its conclusions about trust are the author’s analysis, not the result of a published survey cited in the article.
What Consumers Should Watch
For consumers, the report recommends watching for timely company and regulator notices that identify the product, explain the concern and give clear instructions. Anyone checking a possible recall should compare the product name and identifying details in the official notice, follow the stated guidance, and consult relevant public-health or food-safety authorities if unsure.
The source material does not identify a new regulatory action, hearing or investigation milestone expected after publication. Further developments would depend on updates from regulators, companies or investigators about the products and the evidence. The report discusses whether companies communicate promptly, make affected products identifiable and address concerns as information develops.
Key Questions
What is the report about?
It examines how companies’ recall decisions and communications can affect consumer trust, with examples involving Raw Farm cheddar cheese and ByHeart infant formula.
Why did the FDA recommend a Raw Farm cheese recall?
The report says the FDA issued a March consumer notice stating that Raw Farm’s cheddar cheese products may have been contaminated with E. coli and recommended a recall. Raw Farm disputed the agency’s findings and cited its internal testing.
What communication problems did the report describe in the ByHeart case?
The report says messages about the infant formula recall were unclear, delayed and incomplete, and that some retailers did not promptly remove products. It also says the recall was later expanded because investigators could not rule out wider contamination.
Does the report measure how much consumer trust changed?
No. It offers the author’s analysis of how recall conduct may affect trust, but does not cite a survey or provide figures measuring changes in consumer confidence, sales or reputation.
Source: rss
NFL season / tailgating Picks
team gear
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
