Employee Login

Enter your login information to access the intranet

Enter your credentials to access your email

Reset employee password

Article

When Food Safety Crises Test Trust: A Guide for Communicators 

July 24, 2026
By Kristie Sigler and Rebecca Rausch

Food safety crises rarely unfold in a straight line. Facts change. Investigators follow leads while suppliers review records, retailers pull product, regulators test samples, and consumers read posts before anyone has the full picture.

Consumers experience investigations in pieces: headlines, empty shelves, recall notices and social media warnings. When these pieces don’t line up, uncertainty spreads far beyond the implicated product. The question transforms from “Is this product safe?” to “Who can help me understand what is safe now and why should I believe them?”

This summer’s cyclosporiasis outbreak exemplifies how food safety becomes a trust test. Food is personal. That’s why people turn to social media to share concerns and seek reassurance. As investigations expand, consumers must make sense of precautionary removals and shifting guidance in real time without context.

Confusion doesn’t stay neutral. It quickly turns into fear and doubt. The 2025 IFIC Food & Health Survey found that only 55% of Americans were confident in the safety of the U.S. food supply. While consumers understand companies must adapt under uncertainty, they’re far less willing to accept confusion or silence when their health and trust are at stake. Nearly half of engaged consumers say conflicting messages from company leadership greatly decrease their confidence.

Trust Breaks When the Story Doesn’t Add Up

In food safety crises, companies often must move before the picture is complete, pulling ingredients, switching suppliers and coordinating with health officials. Speed matters. But speed alone doesn’t solve the harder problem: earning the right to be believed while facts are still moving.

FleishmanHillard’s License to Lead research reinforces the point: people are more likely to give companies the benefit of the doubt when they see clear communication, consistent messages and accountability when things go wrong. In a food safety crisis, that latitude is not theoretical. It determines whether people believe the next update, follow the guidance and continue to trust the brand.

When actions, statements and updates come from multiple places at different times, even accurate information can feel inconsistent. A precautionary step can look like proof of a problem. A corrected test result can sound like a mistake. This is where trust erodes.

Start With What People Need

Too often, crisis response begins with “What can we say?” The better starting point is: “What do people need from us right now?”

Every message should address: What happened? Am I affected? What should I do now? Where do I go for updates?

Core messages must stay consistent across all formats—media statements, employee talking points, customer care scripts and operator guidance. Operations and communications must work in lock step. When a company changes suppliers, pulls an ingredient or increases testing, those actions need plain language explanation so people understand decisions are based on evidence and their well-being.

Know Your Voice Before Pressure Hits

During a crisis, a company’s message should reflect who it is and the relationship it has with customers. A national restaurant brand, supplier, retailer and trade association should not sound the same, but each needs to sound credible and recognizably itself.

People can tell when a statement prioritizes protecting the company over meeting their needs. A crisis is not the moment to suddenly become more corporate, more generic or more generic than people expect. The message should meet the moment, but feel like it came from the same organization customers knew yesterday and will see tomorrow.

Three Takeaways

Companies earn trust and a License to Lead when actions, evidence and communications align.

  1. Create order while facts are moving. Help people understand what is known, what actions have been taken and where to find reliable updates. 
  1. Build responses around the choices people must make. To help consumers, employees, operators, partners and reporters make decisions in real time, messages must be consistent and practical enough for each audience to understand what it means for them. 
  1. Earn trust before you need it. The strongest responses come from companies that know their voice and make their actions visible in simple terms. 

When someone stands in a grocery aisle or decides what to serve their family, they ask one question: Can I trust this? Companies that earn that trust make it easier for people to understand what is known and what to do next—even before every answer is available.

Article

How to Win the GLP-1 Food Industry Wake-Up Call

June 30, 2026
By Kristie Sigler, Allison Koch and Amanda Patterson

GLP-1 medications may actually impact the food and agriculture industries more than the healthcare industry. Why? While GLP-1 drug offerings remain standardized, each GLP-1 user has distinct and evolving food needs. And the impact of those food choice changes cascades far beyond one person, rippling through families and friend groups. GLP-1 use will have a multiplier effect on the food, beverage and agriculture industries for years to come. Understanding the diversity of GLP-1 users has moved from being of interest to being imperative.

Two years ago, we started having conversations internally. We were watching the GLP-1 landscape shift in real time, and one thing became crystal clear: companies were trying to solve for a consumer they didn’t actually know. So, we decided to build something different. We combined the lived experience of GLP-1 patients across their entire medication journey, from day one through discontinuation. We layered in their demographic details, their real struggles, and paired it all with the clinical expertise of registered dietitians who counsel and support these patients daily. The result? The GLP-1 Lens – a synthetic AI audience grounded in actual consumer truths and clinical reality, not assumptions. A tool to not just shape your actions today but to map opportunities with your future target markets.

Why does this matter? Because the consumer on day one of their GLP-1 journey looks nothing like the consumer on day 180. We can’t treat GLP-1 patients like one giant monolith. Think of each user as a dot of color in a kaleidoscope. Marketing to GLP-1 patients is like playing with that kaleidoscope. Every time you think you have a clear picture, that teeny turn changes the image. And these days there are as many turns (new drug forms, new food insights, new markets, new food launches) as there are colorful prisms in the GLP-1 kaleidoscope. Understanding these users guides your work and accelerates your advantages.

How?

You stop guessing. Reformulated products and tailored menu items may work for those just starting on their journey, but not for those on maintenance. But without this insight, you’d never know until negative reviews tank your launch. GLP-1 Lens can tell you when to start messaging your product to have your message match their need.

You can move faster. Instead of 18-month product development cycles or campaign messages built on assumptions, you iterate on validated insights. GLP-1 Lens could get you extra months in market.

You build loyalty. Influencer programs and products that meet consumers where they actually are—not where you assume they are—create brand advocates, not one-time buyers. GLP-1 Lens can help create brand fans.

The GLP-1 landscape is being written right now. And how it looks today will be vastly different tomorrow. Companies that rely on authentic insights will own this moment. Those that don’t will be left picking up the pieces.

Contact Kristie Sigler – [email protected] – for more.

Article

Four Takeaways from Sustainable Brands SB’26: What Leaders Need to Know 

June 17, 2026
By Judith Rowland

Last week, I had the opportunity to experience the energy of Sustainable Brands SB’26 as part of the FleishmanHillard delegation. Against the backdrop of a political environment that can be tough on sustainability, the conference brought together brand innovators and sustainability experts addressing climate change, social impact, community development and how AI can be a force for good.

I left with one clear conviction: the intersection of sustainability and strategic communications has never been more critical to business success. Here are five takeaways that should shape how we approach sustainability communications in 2026 and beyond.

Sustainable Brands 2026

Sustainability Must Align with Business Goals—Not Exist Alongside Them

The most important message from SB’26 was this: sustainability initiatives disconnected from core business objectives feel disposable and performative—and stakeholders know it.

The most compelling presentations came from companies that had fundamentally reimagined their business through a sustainability lens rather than bolting sustainability onto existing brands. One executive described transforming sustainability into a core business capability that spurs innovation and drives growth. When you shift how your organization thinks about sustainability—moving it from the periphery to the center—the business case becomes undeniable.

For communications teams, our role is helping organizations articulate sustainability as integral to innovation, competitive advantage, cost reduction, risk mitigation, and revenue growth. When we anchor sustainability to business success, we unlock stronger leadership buy-in, authentic external communications grounded in genuine conviction rather than obligation, and the ability to continue work in a tough political environment.

Communications Is the Essential Infrastructure for Sustainability

Communications isn’t a supporting function in sustainability strategy—it’s foundational infrastructure.

A food retailer executive captured it perfectly: “The business case for sustainability is there. Language helps you get there faster.” No matter how sophisticated your initiatives, their value remains unrealized until your stakeholders understand what you’re doing, why it matters, what it means for them, and how they participate in the effort.

In a landscape saturated with sustainability claims, audiences are skeptical for good reason. They’ve experienced empty commitments and performative gestures. Organizations winning today aren’t those with the most ambitious programs—they’re those with communications strategies rigorous, credible, and specific enough to prove their claims are real.

This reality aligns with FleishmanHillard’s recent research, License to Lead: Escaping the Pendulum – Building a Durable Strategy in Turbulent Times, which shows that expectations of leadership behavior have risen significantly.

Food and Agriculture: The Unexpected Sustainability Vanguard

Food and agriculture companies dominated SB’26, underscoring a sobering reality: 33% of global greenhouse gas emissions come from food systems. Rather than treating this as intractable, these organizations outlined concrete strategies—regenerative agriculture practices, supply chain transparency initiatives—that demonstrate measurable environmental and social impact while driving cost savings and promoting resilience.

Communicators in this sector have cracked a critical code: they ground sustainability messages in tangible business solutions. They’re not asking consumers to accept abstract environmental claims; they’re connecting sustainability to real food on real tables.

The Food-Health Connection Is Finally Getting Its Due

At SB’26, the intersection of human health and environmental sustainability moved from niche concern to mainstream business imperative. Executives addressed converging consumer trends—backlash against ultra-processed foods, GLP-1 adoption, rising focus on protein and fiber—fundamentally reshaping food choices. An animal protein sector executive emphasized that nutrition and sustainability must be part of the same conversation.

For communicators, this alignment is more than messaging—it’s a competitive differentiation strategy. Companies positioning environmental sustainability with personal health outcomes hold significant advantage. We move sustainability from the abstract (“saving the planet”) to the immediate (“food choices that protect your family’s health today while preserving the world they’ll inherit tomorrow”), expanding both audience and urgency.

Practical implication: Communicators in food and health sectors must partner closely with legal and regulatory teams to navigate authentic nutrition-sustainability claims.

Organizations that will lead in coming years are those that reimagine competitive advantage through environmental responsibility, human health, and stakeholder value—then invest in communications that make that integration visible and credible to key audiences.

If your organization is ready to tell your sustainability story with greater impact, FleishmanHillard is here to help. Let’s talk about what’s possible.

“Judith Judith Rowland is a senior vice president in the Public Affairs and Engagement group and also serves as global sustainability lead for the food, agriculture and beverage (FAB) sector. She helps clients establish strategies for advancing community reputation and social impact, set measurable goals and communicate their progress with the stakeholders that matter most.

 
Article

Navigating the UPF Definition Landscape: Are You Prepared?

April 21, 2026

Ultra-processed food (UPF) remains one of the food industry’s most pressing challenges—yet there’s still no standardized federal definition. This federal regulatory void, combined with 17 separate state definitions, has created significant confusion for manufacturers, retailers, and consumers alike. While FDA leadership promised a definition by late April, recent statements from FDA Deputy Commissioner Kyle Diamantas confirmed delays: “A definition for ultra-processed foods is really hard.”

Two Models, One Decision

The FDA is evaluating two competing approaches: the NOVA classification system (focused on processing level) and the IAFNS-led Guiding Principles model (balancing processing and formulation with nutritive value). There’s also speculation the FDA may define non-UPFs instead—a strategy mirroring the organic and GMO regulatory approaches of the past decade.

The Real Question for Your Business

Rather than debating which definition will prevail, forward-thinking food companies should ask: “Do we know how to win in each potential scenario?” Each definition carries distinct implications across the entire food ecosystem, affecting product formulation, marketing claims, regulatory compliance, and competitive positioning.

Policy Shifts Are Already Shaping the Market

The 2025 Dietary Guidelines for Americans prioritize “real food”—emphasizing protein, dairy, healthy fats, fruits, vegetables, and whole grains while rejecting processed foods. This guidance will directly influence federally funded programs including school lunch, WIC, SNAP, and military meals, as well as  changing shelf space requirements in retail.

However, mainstream consumer adoption remains uncertain. While the guidelines promote whole foods, convenience and processed products represent 43–70% of current American food purchases. Shifting eating patterns requires increased access, culinary education, and affordability—factors beyond regulatory control.

Preparation Is Competitive Advantage

Every potential scenario presents both opportunities and challenges. The policy discussion itself drives consumer awareness of product healthfulness, making strategic positioning critical.

To help food industry leaders prepare, we’ve developed the UPF Navigator, an AI-powered tool providing:

  • Regulatory Risk Mapping: How your products perform under NOVA vs. Guiding Principles models, including SNAP/WIC eligibility implications
  • Claim Vulnerability Assessment: Identifying marketing statements and ingredient choices that could face enforcement risk
  • Stakeholder Landscape Analysis: Your brand’s positioning relative to competitors, retailer expectations, and advocacy narratives
  • Monitoring Targets: Key developments to track before definition release

When policy and public opinion intersect with unprecedented polarization, mapping scenarios and developing action plans enables decisive brand strategy. This waiting period provides a critical opportunity for leaders to ready their responses.

Need more information on the UPF Navigator? Reach out to the FleishmanHillard Food, Agribusiness and Beverage team.