As supply chains stretch, private‑label manufacturing grows and online outrage accelerates, recall programs now have to be built for speed, ambiguity and reputational shock – not just confirmed contamination events.
For Alexander Blair‑Johns (pictured), CEO of Signal Underwriting, the story starts with how quickly a concern can spiral today compared to even a few years ago.
“A single social media post about contamination, whether true or alleged, can go viral within hours, reaching millions globally,” he says. “Even unverified claims can dominate headlines and trend across platforms, creating significant reputational damage before facts are confirmed.”
That dynamic has changed the stakes for manufacturers and retailers. By the time testing is complete or regulators have weighed in, the court of public opinion may have already delivered its verdict. For some brands, that can mean empty shelves, cancelled contracts and a long, expensive climb back to trust – even if no defect is ultimately proven.
That uncertainty is one reason Signal has pushed its wording in a different direction. “This is why Signal’s wording includes coverage for both actual and alleged contamination, a protection not all market wordings offer,” Blair‑Johns explains. The distinction matters in an environment where perception can move faster than evidence, and where the cost of responding to a false alarm can still be substantial.
At the same time, the way products are made and branded has become more complicated. Blair‑Johns points to the growth of store‑brand and contract manufacturing as a key driver. “Private‑label manufacturing has increased both recall frequency and severity by creating complex accountability across multiple parties,” he says. When something goes wrong, the question of who is responsible – the brand owner, the co‑packer, the ingredient supplier or another link in the chain – can be anything but straightforward.
That complexity has real‑world consequences. According to Blair‑Johns, “this can cause delays in implementing effective recalls and can jeopardize established brand reputations if mishandled.” While the various parties sort out fault and cost allocation, consumers and regulators may see only confusion and hesitation. In the current environment, any hint of dithering can quickly be read as indifference or concealment.
Those operational challenges are landing on top of a tougher cost backdrop. Blair‑Johns describes “added pressures from commodity prices, energy rates, labour costs, and tariffs in the food production space” as part of the picture that risk managers need to factor into their planning. Higher input and operating costs mean that when a recall does happen, the financial hit from disposal, re‑production, logistics and downtime can be significantly larger than it was for a comparable event five years ago.
All of this feeds into his view that “robust product recall coverage that addresses these escalating challenges is more critical than ever.” For him, that doesn’t just mean higher limits or broader triggers; it also means integrating support services that help brands manage the non‑technical side of a crisis.
“Pre-crisis and post-crisis planning, along with communication support from crisis consultants, can restore brand confidence at a time when response speed is essential,” Blair‑Johns says. In practice, that can include everything from scenario planning and message development to media strategy and stakeholder outreach once an incident hits the public domain.
The emphasis on preparation reflects the reality that many of the key decisions in a recall – when to go public, how widely to pull product, what to say to customers and regulators – now have to be made under intense time pressure. A well‑designed program gives companies a playbook and the specialist help they need to move quickly without making avoidable missteps.
Taken together, Blair‑Johns’ comments sketch a landscape where the “event” is no longer limited to a confirmed defect or contamination issue. Perception, supply chain structure and cost inflation all shape how damaging a recall – or even an allegation – can be.
For brands, the implication is clear: recall protection in 2026 has to be built for a world where a single post can trigger global scrutiny, responsibility is shared across multiple partners, and the price of getting the response wrong is higher than ever.
