Ingrid Kragl told Food Navigator<\/a> it has identified \u201cseveral breaches of European and national regulations\u201d and collated a \u201cgreat deal of evidence\u201d. <\/p>\nCommenting on the Nestl\u00e9 case, Birkett\u2019s Gowland said from a legal standpoint it\u2019s not yet possible to determine if it met its obligations regarding speed and transparency of recall notifications. <\/p>\n
\u201cRegulators must determine whether the timing of notifications met statutory requirements so as to be sufficiently prompt and transparent,\u201d she noted.<\/p>\n
\u201cUnder assimilated Regulation 178\/2002, businesses must immediately identify safety risks, notify authorities without delay, communicate effectively with consumers and initiate withdrawals or recalls accompanied by effective consumer communication. Nestl\u00e9 informed Dutch regulators on 9 December 2025 after internal tests in late November, but public recalls in several markets did not begin until early January 2026. Only nine countries were identified in December, compared with more than 60 in January.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe core legal test is whether Nestl\u00e9 acted \u2018without delay\u2019 once it had evidence of a safety risk. Initial reporting appears compliant, but the pace of consumer\u2011facing recalls and cross border communication is likely to be scrutinised. Given the facility supplied around 140 markets, regulators may examine whether global communication should have been faster. Key questions remain about speed, consistency and transparency; regulatory findings will ultimately determine whether formal obligations were met.\u201d<\/p>\n
Staggered recalls across borders<\/p>\n
Whilst Foodwatch contends Nestle\u2019s country-by-country recall announcements left families in the dark, these kinds of staggered notices can be compatible with international expectations. <\/p>\n
\u201cFood safety enforcement is carried out at a national level, and each competent authority determines when and how to issue a public recall notice. In that sense, differences in timing are common and not inherently non\u2011compliant,\u201d explained Gowland.<\/p>\n
\u201cAlongside this, businesses have their own obligations, namely that they must notify their respective national authorities without delay once they identify a food safety risk. This duty is proactive and applies irrespective of ensuing national processes.\u201d <\/p>\n
Foodwatch\u2019s criticism focuses on whether delays were caused by regulatory decision-making or the company itself. The watchdog has pointed to the time between detection and international recall, and several regulators have also questioned whether the public should have been informed earlier.<\/p>\n
\u201cIn principle, staggered announcements can reflect legitimate national processes. However, if a business already possesses information indicating that multiple markets are affected and does not communicate that information immediately to all relevant authorities, the resulting pattern of recalls may fall short of international expectations for cross\u2011border transparency.\u201d <\/p>\n
How Nestl\u00e9\u2019s liability profile could be impacted<\/p>\n
Since the announcement of the recall, health officials in Brazil have confirmed two infants with vomiting and diarrhoea after consuming recalled batches.<\/p>\n
Commenting on how emerging sickness could impact Nestl\u00e9\u2019s liability profile, Gowland said: \u201cNestl\u00e9\u2019s liability exposure would increase materially across civil, regulatory and reputational jurisdictions. Illnesses linked to infant formula significantly heighten scrutiny given the consumer group is particularly vulnerable.\u201d<\/p>\n
Nestl\u00e9\u2019s statement that no illnesses were linked to affected products coincided with the aforementioned Brazilian reports, which Gowland said has increased the likelihood of regulators reviewing the timing and adequacy of Nestl\u00e9\u2019s internal risk assessments and external communications. <\/p>\n
\u201cCivil liability exposure would rise if causation is established. Under the Consumer Protection Act 1987 and the assimilated General Product Safety rules, manufacturers face strict liability for defective products that cause harm. Fault is irrelevant. Any further medically confirmed cases could lead to individual claims, potential group litigation and greater settlement pressure, particularly if regulators find that disclosure delays prolonged consumer exposure. Third party contamination does not diminish Nestl\u00e9\u2019s primary responsibility as the food business operator,\u201d she added.<\/p>\n
If there are more reports of illness, it will likely lead to reputational risk being intensified. <\/p>\n
\u201cConcerns about transparency and timing can amplify legal exposure by damaging trust, driving media attention and increasing pressure for a full contamination timeline, particularly in markets sensitive to infant nutrition safety.\u201d<\/p>\n
What happens next…?<\/p>\n
So what will happen if regulators deem Nestl\u00e9\u2019s disclosure inadequate? <\/p>\n
\u201cFindings of delayed disclosure could also result in enforcement action or mandated process improvements,\u201d confirmed Gowland. <\/p>\n
\u201cRegulators could issue formal findings of non\u2011compliance, enforcement notices and requirements to strengthen internal food safety systems. Regulators will be reviewing and scrutinising processes and procedures from late November, being the date the first contamination was identified. Multi\u2011jurisdictional scrutiny increases exposure because each regulator assesses compliance independently and may publish parallel enforcement outcomes.<\/p>\n
\u201cCivil liability would grow. If courts conclude that earlier disclosure would have prevented consumption, as reported in Brazil, claimants could pursue negligence, breach of statutory duty or strict liability under consumer protection rules. <\/p>\n
\u201cRegulators would also examine due diligence and supplier oversight. Any delay despite early contamination signals could lead to findings that Nestl\u00e9\u2019s supplier controls were inadequate. <\/p>\n
\u201cReputational consequences would further compound legal risk. Foodwatch has criticised the company for intransparency and piecemeal dissemination of information. If regulators determine that disclosure was delayed, this would undermine consumer and stakeholder trust, increase regulatory caution in future inspections and heighten scrutiny.\u201d<\/p>\n
Restoring trust<\/p>\n
Gowland outlined five steps Nestl\u00e9 should be taking now to demonstrate due diligence and restore regulatory trust.<\/p>\n
Full cooperation with all regulatory investigations in each affected jurisdiction.Demonstrating robust supplier oversight, including documentation of audits, testing protocols and procurement decisions.Maintaining complete traceability records showing how affected batches were identified and withdrawn.Implementing and evidencing improvements to internal risk escalation and cross border notification processes.Providing regulators with updated hazard analyses and preventative controls for future production cycles.<\/p>\n
\u201cTaken together, these steps form the legal foundation for restoring confidence in Nestl\u00e9\u2019s compliance systems. In a high\u2011risk category such as infant formula, regulators will expect not only full transparency about what happened, but also clear evidence of structural improvements designed to prevent recurrence.\u201d<\/p>\n
Benefits of a clear and full contamination timeline<\/p>\n
Meanwhile, Foodwatch has requested a full contamination timeline.<\/p>\n
\u201cA clear, documented timeline is central to demonstrating compliance with the duty to act \u2018without delay\u2019,\u201d explained Gowland. <\/p>\n
\u201cThis would allow Nestl\u00e9 to evidence why particular decisions were taken at each stage. Recent cases underline this point, for example, the Suzanna\u2019s Kitchen recall of Listeria\u2011contaminated ready\u2011to\u2011eat chicken in January 2026 placed significant regulatory focus on the company\u2019s internal chronology of detection, escalation and notification, highlighting how timing is central to legal risk assessment.\u201d <\/p>\n
Moreover, by publishing a full timeline, firms can help to rebuilt trust \u2013 so long as it demonstrates openness, consistency and accountability. <\/p>\n
\u201cA comparable example is the Tri\u2011Union Seafoods incident, in which quarantined product was inadvertently re\u2011released into the market. Scrutiny quickly centred on discrepancies in the company\u2019s stated recall sequence, and the resulting uncertainty significantly undermined confidence in its public communications,\u201d Gowland offered. <\/p>\n
\u201cThis mirrors the debate arising from the disparity between Nestl\u00e9\u2019s initial statements and the later confirmation of the Brazilian illness cases \u2013 illustrating how even small gaps or ambiguities in the timeline can rapidly erode public trust. <\/p>\n
\u201cProviding a coherent timeline can therefore help address public concern and demonstrate that the company is committed to full disclosure. In both the Suzanna\u2019s Kitchen and Tri\u2011Union examples, it was the clarity and completeness of the timeline, not just the underlying facts, that shaped public and regulatory reactions. Nestl\u00e9 can therefore materially reduce both legal and reputational exposure by publishing a full, transparent chronology of events.\u201d<\/p>\n
Also read \u2192 Food recalls: The brutal lessons they can teach manufacturers<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"This month has seen Nestl\u00e9, Lactalis and Danone embroiled in a major recall impacting baby formula. Now, both…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":7430,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":"","_share_on_mastodon":"0"},"categories":[126],"tags":[5897,5898,5899,5900,5901,5902,1655,5903,5904,5905,70,2198,3824,1720,5906,68,67,5907,5908,5909,5910,199,72,69,1726,5911],"class_list":["post-7429","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-nestle","tag-auction","tag-backgrounds","tag-bible","tag-contract","tag-copy-space","tag-courtroom","tag-crime","tag-decisions","tag-desk","tag-gavel","tag-government","tag-horizontal","tag-industry","tag-judge","tag-judgement","tag-justice","tag-law","tag-law-enforcement-and-crime","tag-lawyer","tag-legal-system","tag-legislation","tag-nestle","tag-police","tag-politics","tag-trial","tag-wood"],"share_on_mastodon":{"url":"","error":""},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ch\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7429","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ch\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ch\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ch\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ch\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=7429"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ch\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7429\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ch\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/7430"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ch\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=7429"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ch\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=7429"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ch\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=7429"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}