When McDonald’s launched a short advertisement for food safety at the end of 2024, the eyebrows withdrew in a branch that usually avoids such subjects – especially after an outbreak of E. coli bound to Kwartpondjes that 49 people in the 10 states were sick, admitted to the hospital, and caused a death to temporarily draw the chain.
Patrick Quade, CEO of Dinesafe, Iwaspoisoned and Safelyhq, recently pointed to this anomaly in a LinkedIn -post, and noted that despite McDonald’s estimated $ 1 billion American advertising budget, the advertisement only four days laughed with a media of less than $ 7.1.1n.
The pitch of McDonald was cautious and emphasized care and quality without directly mentioning by Food Borne Ilness of E. Coli: “With every local McDonald’s, a great bite starts with taking care of everything. First, our suppliers ensure that they meet our high standards at every step. So you can now serve that every meal is good ‘.’. ‘
But was it a real step in the direction of transparency, or a fleeting response to a check? And how does this fit in the broader history of advertising food safety by companies?
Quade’s message led to debate. Some critics of McDonald’s considered the AD in the short term as claims control instead of a dedicated shift to compete with food safety. A commentator said: “If they took food safety seriously as a competitive advantage, they would run this advertisement and expand the message.” Others in food safety, marketing and brand strategy ask: has it achieved the goal? To answer that, we must look back on how companies have approached historical food safety in advertising – and whether it works.
A calm history: ads for food safety as an exception, not the rule
Advertising food safety by companies is rare, mainly because of the risks of control and negative publicity. As Quade said, the food sector tends to compete on this front. Historically, companies would rather have emphasized the emphasized taste, convenience or value – attributes that seduce instead of reassuring. When food safety appears in advertisements, this is often a reactive movement that is linked to crises instead of a proactive strategy.
Take the 1993 Jack in The Box E. Coli Outbreak, one of the most notorious scandals for food safety in American history. After insufficiently cooked leefspastenjes led to four dead and more than 700 diseases, the fast food chain was aimed at revising its activities instead of launching safety -oriented advertisements. It approved the Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point (HACCP) system over-one scoop for a fast-food company and rebuilt confidence through action instead of promotion quietly. Advertisements that followed were aimed at winning customers with deals and new menu items, not explicit safety issues. Only years later, subtle nods crawled to improved standards in their branding, but never as a central theme.
Similarly, after the outbreak of E. Coli in 2006 in connection with Dole’s spinach, which caused three dead and 205 diseases, the company’s answer was more about crisis management – recall actions and public statements – than persistent advertisements. When advertisements were resumed, they leaned on quality and freshness, not safety equipment. This pattern applies in the food industry: advertisements after the outbreak tend to circumvent direct entries of safety, instead to restore Merk -Imago indirectly.
Effectiveness and Fallout: Can advertisements restore trust?
Research and historical examples indicate that when companies advertise for food safety, this is often often short-lived after outbreaks. A study from 2013 in Food Journal noted that incidents with food safety cost the US economy $ 7 billion annually, a figure that has probably become much larger in the last decade, with many of that bound to recall actions, lawsuits and lost consumer confidence.
Companies such as Westland/Hallmark Meat Packing, which in 2008 remembered 143 million pound beef after a huge E. coli-shell, never had the opportunity to run for safety-oriented advertisements; They went bankrupt under the weight of $ 500 million in settlements. The lesson? Outbreaks often leave little room for advertising for advertising.
Chipotle’s reaction to his outbreaks 2015-2016 E. Coli and Norovirus offers a rare counter example. After more than 500 people were sick, the chain launched a 2016 campaign with ‘A Love Story’, a short film that mixes content marketing with advertising, in which fresh ingredients are emphasized, emphasizing advertisements, Rigorous Safety Protocols such as SuppliciTiets and Employee Training. It was a rare departure, but the campaign was short -lived. The stock of Chipotle lasted years to recover, which suggested that the advertisements soften the blow, but were not a silver bullet.
Here is an example of the ads for food safety of Chipotle
Do food safety advertisements work? The research says it is complicated
Effectiveness is where the rubber meets the road, and here the data is cloudy. A 2011 study published in The Journal of Food Protection Really studied from consumers on the post-outbreak of food safety messages. It turned out that explicit safety claims are reassuring some customers, but the risk of reminding others of past errors – essentially reopen old wounds.
For McDonald’s, the vague “great first bite” terraced by this fall, which implies safety without staying on it. Critics claim that this ambiguity is diluting its impact; If safety is the goal, why wouldn’t you say it downright?
Wider research into crisis communication supports this skepticism. A 2007 study published in Public Relations Review Discovered that advertisements work best after the crisis in combination with tangible action-such as the supplier audits of Chipotle of Jack in the HACCP adoption of the box. The advertisement of McDonald, without details, can register as a noise for smart consumers who have seen recall and have seen headlines. A 2020 Food Research International Meta-analysis of training interventions for food handler showed that knowledge improves education, but behavioral change remains without persistent efforts. An analogy can inform a four -day advertisement but not convince.
Consumer perception adds a different layer. A Pirg report from 2024 noted that 48 million Americans become sick every year from contaminated food, so that distrust in food brands is fueled. The advertisement of McDonald, broadcast in the midst of this background, is confronted with a heavy struggle to change consumer perception, especially if it remains a one -off campaign.
Industrial standards and strategic caution
Quade’s observation about the conciseness of the advertisement – four days for less than $ 700,000 – points to a deeper truth in the industry: food safety is a third rail. Companies fear that bringing the invitation to the attention invites the past of expiration or constantly implies risk. Companies such as Taco Bell and Wendy’s, affected by outbreaks in the 2000s, kept safety messages minimal and fleeting, preferred by menu -revancing over Mea Culpas.
The timing, post-2024 outbreak, suggests a calculated response to signal care, not enough to claim too much. Critics can be right: if McDonald’s safety saw as a competitive advantage, why would you stop for four days? The answer can be in risk aversion. A long -term campaign could call for transparency strengthening – for example about supplier practices or inspection data – that McDonald’s is not ready to meet each other.
Ultimately, the bigger story that this reveals about industry is: ads for food safety remain the exception, not the rule. Until a company – McDonald’s or otherwise – broke this cycle with a persistent, transparent push, safety will remain a whisper in advertising, no scream. McDonald’s may have fueled a conversation, but without sustainable action, the menu will continue to trust.
View the McDonald’s advertisement here.
(To register for a free subscription to Food Safety News, Click here.)