Cyclospora Outbreak Cut Lettuce Sales Near 30%, Exposing Industry Silence

Sales declines approaching 30 percent hit California lettuce growers during this summer's Cyclospora outbreak, and some farmers plowed under crops they could not sell. Those losses frame an opinion piece by Marilyn Freeman, owner of Farmers Communication Exchange, who argues the produce industry's problem is not crisis preparedness. It is the willingness to act.

Freeman, who has spent decades in agricultural communications for grower associations and worked behind the scenes on more than one produce-linked food safety event, writes that most industry organizations already hold crisis communications plans, trained spokespeople, approved messaging and experienced advisers. In her view, the plans are ready. The hesitation starts when reporters call, social media fills with speculation, and consumers question products they have trusted for years.

Why growers hesitate to speak

She is direct about the reluctance. Freeman says she loves working with farmers and has enormous respect for the people who grow food, calling them extraordinarily good at managing risk. But board members who shoulder association duties face a different test.

"Managing a farm and navigating a public communications crisis require different expertise," she writes. That gap is why associations hire communications professionals.

The calculus favors silence, she argues. A bad interview produces immediate consequences: a quote taken out of context, a controversial headline, concerned calls from industry members. Declining an interview rarely produces any immediate backlash. The decision can even feel like a success. Meanwhile, reporters keep writing, consumers search for answers, and misinformation spreads on social media.

What the outbreak cost

The economic damage was concrete. California lettuce growers saw market disruptions with reported sales declines approaching 30 percent, and growers destroyed crops they could not sell. Other produce items suffered as well, Freeman writes. When losses run that deep, she asks whether more proactive communications could protect consumer confidence and limit further damage.

"The risk of speaking is visible. The risk of not engaging is harder to measure," she writes.

Beyond press statements

Modern crisis communications cannot stop at statements to traditional media, Freeman argues. A food safety story now spreads across social media in minutes whether the industry participates or not. She says the work requires monitoring social platforms, correcting misinformation, answering legitimate consumer questions and sharing timely, accurate information where consumers actually are.

The timing cuts against instinct, she notes. Food safety crises are often when consumers are most interested in how farmers protect the food supply, yet the industry limits outreach precisely at that moment.

Freeman draws lines. Declining an interview is sometimes the right call. No responsible communications professional should recommend speculation or unsupported assurances, and more media engagement will not necessarily prevent market losses. What the industry can do: explain food safety practices, clarify what is known and unknown, provide context and make knowledgeable experts available to reporters.

What she wants changed

Her prescriptions for the next crisis plan are specific:

• Establish who can speak on the record.
• Define what requires legal review.
• Give spokespeople the authority to respond when timeliness is critical.

That does not surrender leadership oversight, she writes. It means trusting experienced advisers to evaluate risks and recommend the most responsible course.

A crisis plan is only as effective as the willingness to use it, Freeman concludes. The industry evaluates the risks of speaking well; it now needs to evaluate the risks of staying silent with equal rigor.