Yum Brands executives spent plenty of time last week discussing Taco Bell’s recovery plan from the July cyclospora outbreak implicating the chain’s lettuce supplied by Taylor Farms as a potential source.
If we were to judge by their tone, they seemed confident that the worst is behind them.
“Sales declines have moderated materially, and we are seeing steady improvement in day-over-day sales trends,” CFO Ranjith Roy told analysts. “If you take the average sales for the last four days, we are halfway back to sales levels of the prior year, so we take some comfort in the early momentum.”
As we know, however, a lot can change in just a few days.
On Monday afternoon, Bloomberg dropped an exclusive story showing that Michigan health officials contacted Yum concerning potentially contaminated lettuce about two weeks before the public was notified about the cyclospora outbreak tied to its restaurants. The report said the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services spoke with Yum executives July 2 and sent a follow up request seeking more information from the company’s supply chain quality assurance and communication teams, as well as a “discussion about any intervention or notification that could be taken … to reduce the number of cases in the future.”
Though Taco Bell assured officials that there had been no complaints or reports of illness tied to its products, Michigan officials considered the risk to be big enough to continue working with the company. By July 7, Taco Bell began pulling ingredients from its menu in Michigan.
Reports about Taco Bell’s ingredient removal began circulating on social media and in local media outlets almost immediately, but the company itself didn’t confirm as much to the public until July 17— or 13 days after officials advised precaution and 10 days after taking said precaution.
That delay seems to contradict Yum CEO Chris Turner’s comments commending the “team’s transparent action” that “reinforced trust in the brand.”
We can debate whether restaurants exist to provide service, hospitality, convenience or experience, but what is undeniable is that their primary objectives are to feed people safely. When that safety is compromised — or potentially compromised — consumers are entitled to transparency.
Now, Taco Bell has not directly been implicated in this outbreak, but having discussions with health officials about two weeks before the public is privy to those discussions erodes trust. Regardless of whether Taco Bell was explicitly implicated seems to matter less considering the company was concerned enough to eventually proactively remove potentially contaminated ingredients.
Consumers generally accept that food safety investigations take time, especially as a broader conversation emerges about cuts to the government organizations facilitating such investigations. But consumers also expect companies to explain what they knew, when they knew it, and what actions were taken.
To be fair, this has not been an easy crisis to navigate, particularly as the exact source remains murky despite the continued spread of the outbreak. As Taco Bell was pulling ingredients sourced by Taylor Farms, the FDA claimed a false positive, then noted that designation "DOES NOT change the basis" for its ongoing investigation or "overwhelming data supporting" a voluntary recall by Taylor Farms.
The court of public opinion has largely shifted blame away from Taco Bell and toward Taylor Farms and/or the federal organizations charged with swiftly identifying a source in the interest of public health, and for good reason. There remains no public evidence that Taco Bell knew definitively on July 2 that its lettuce was contaminated.
That said, the Bloomberg report raises a critical question: When should public communication occur during an emerging health crisis? Should it happen before definitive confirmation, when credible concerns first surface?
No doubt, companies in this predicament face a difficult balance. In an era of instant communication, companies take a risk in saying too much too early, including potential panic, misinformation, and reputational damage. However, waiting too long can expose more people as an outbreak spreads, and saying too little for too long becomes an even greater liability.
No one expects a company to issue public warnings every time investigators begin exploring a possible connection, but there is a meaningful difference between avoiding premature speculation and withholding information while health officials actively discuss ways to prevent additional illnesses. Once a company begins taking precautionary actions — such as removing ingredients — communication is essential.
Taco Bell has plenty of reasons to be optimistic about a swift recovery. There are few chains with such a rabid and loyal fan base, and we have already seen plenty of forgiveness on social media and elsewhere. But those loyal fans deserve transparency. We all do.
Taco Bell did not respond to a request for comment on the Bloomberg report.