A survey recently released by GS1 US says that 94% of adults in the U.S. are concerned about the frequency of food recalls, up from 93% in 2025. The survey also found a 5-percentage-point drop in how people view food recalls as an effective method to protect public health and safety (80% in 2026, 85% in 2025).
Building Trust Through Traceability
Melanie Nuce-Hilton, senior vice president of customer success for GS1 US, says better data and information in the supply chain can help improve traceability.
“Regulatory is a place to start, but it shouldn’t be the place you end because this notion of being trustworthy is an interesting concept in that if we take proactive measures to improve traceability, to provide machine-readable data that allows for smooth flow of product and clarity on safe product versus potentially unsafe product,” she says. “Those are all markers that can lead toward brand confidence for the consumer.”
Nuce-Hilton points to 2D barcodes that have capabilities to embed additional information, including key data elements (KDEs) and critical tracking elements (CTEs) called for by the FDA’s Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) Section 204 Food Traceability Rule. She says this really could help track produce throughout the entire food supply chain from distribution center to grocer.
Beyond Regulatory Compliance
The survey also showed that 67% of consumers say they have avoided an entire food category following a recall, up from 60% in 2025. Deploying more data to pinpoint recalled produce more precisely can also help reassure consumers. She likens it to a “red light” and “green light” type of scan that can also help reduce issues with humans having to decipher printed codes in distribution centers all the way to retail scans. The consumer wants confidence that things are safe, and this is healthy,” she says.
“As consumers seek to be informed, the more data that we can provide — and it isn’t always just about providing the data directly to the consumer — but it’s this notion of working with your supply chain partners to demonstrate through technology, through automation, just through data sharing that we’re actually investing in improved food traceability,” she says.
In the survey, 66% of consumers reported being hesitant to purchase the same product or brand again, which is up from 59% in 2025. Also, more than half of consumers (59%) reported discarding recalled food even when the state or region they live in isn’t affected. And this is, again, where strong food safety practices and looking to become compliant with FSMA 204 are important.
The Cost of Lost Confidence
“It’s super easy to break the trust and very difficult to rebuild it,” Nuce-Hilton says. “So, putting in the effort up front, I feel, is such a demonstration of good faith to the consumer that you care beyond the profit margin, and you actually value a safe food supply chain.
While FSMA Section 204 enforcement has been delayed until July 2028, many retailers have continued to focus on traceability regardless of the delay.
“If the regulation helps to motivate you, that’s great,” she says. “But at the end of the day, compliance is just one use case. I think consumer delight is really the other critical use case, and maybe sometimes upstream in produce, it’s hard to see that because you’re a few steps removed from the consumer.”
Nuce-Hilton pointed to reports of growers having to disk under lettuce fields due to lower demand from consumers. Creating evidence of a strong food supply chain through traceability will help reassure consumers that produce remaining in the supply chain is safe. She says profitability will rise when the right product reaches happy consumers, provided the produce supply chain leverages technology to support that trust.
“The best solution is to prevent a recall in the first place,” she says. “In the absence of that, really considering that rebuilding the trust will take time, and then I think it has to be reinforced by the data that you’re making available and sharing through the supply chain.”
Winning Consumers Back
She also points to survey data that shows that only 9% of consumers report never purchasing a product from a brand with a recall. Among those who would continue to purchase, factors such as time elapsed since the recall (39%), severity of contamination (39%), and recommendations from authorities (35%) influenced their decision.
“What is it that consumers care about?” she says. “They care about when was the last time this company was involved in a recall, how bad did it get, and what authorities are saying? And I think that notion of additional precision in the supply chain can probably help narrow the gap in getting back into the consumer’s good graces.”
