1. CASE #11
Kristen Lucas
Shannon Mossman
Julie Hildenbrand
“WOULD YOU LIKE YOUR TACO WITH OR WITHOUT
PESTICIDE TODAY?”

2. BACKGROUND
 Founded in 1903 (Fred Walker)
 World’s second largest food company ($42.9 billion)
 170 Countries
 Corporate office located in Northfield, Illinois

3. BRANDS

4. BIOTECH CORN
 Insecticide
 8 other varieties approved for human consumption
 StarLink’s biotech corn was NOT approved
 PROBLEM = Cry9C
 Environmental Protection Agency stated StarLink’s biotech
corn was only to be used for livestock feed and ethanol fuel
 Causes allergic reactions (mild allergy to fatal shock)

5. Taco Bell Products
 Taco meal kit
 Nacho kits
 Salsa
 Taco sauce
 Seasoning mix
 Refried beans
*Annually taco shells
generate nearly $50 million

6. CRISIS
September 18, 2000
Friends of the Earth sends a news release to media
outlets announcing that test results found traces of
biotech corn (unsuitable for human consumption) in taco
shells produced by Kraft Foods. The FOE ordered the
taco shells be removed from store shelves immediately.

8. RESEARCH
 Kraft Foods decides to conduct an EXPERIMENT
 Type: PROBLEM RESEARCH
 Quantitative Research (Hard Data)
 Formal Research Process
 Secondary Research
 FDA

9. GOALS
ONE ULTIMATE GOAL
Type: Reputation Management
To protect the reputation of Kraft Foods

10. OBJECTIVES
 To verify FOE’s test results immediately by working with the
Food and Drug Administration and the Environmental
Protection Agency.
 To address consumer anxieties and provide consumers with
answers regarding health concerns.
 To make the product unavailable immediately if unapproved
Cry9C is found to be present in the taco shells.

11. PROGRAMMING & PLANNING
STRATEGY
 To communicate on a national level and
emphasize that biotech corn found in Kraft Foods’
taco shells is not entirely dangerous to the health
of all consumers.

12. PROGRAMMING & PLANNING
TACTICS
 Keep the taco shells on the shelves as long as possible.
 One day after FOE test results were released, Kraft Foods issued a
statement explaining the taco shells would be tested.
 The same day Kraft issued the statement, the company also released
more information to consumers. (Q & A)
 Sept. 22, 2000 Kraft Foods chief executive announced the recall of the
products.
 Offered a second Q & A following the recall of the taco shells.
 Presented recommendations for biotechnology.

13. EVALUATION
Objective # 1
 To verify FOE’s test results immediately by working with the
Food and Drug Administration and the Environmental
Protection Agency.
 S: FDA and EPA involvement
 M: FDA’s test results
 A: Kraft has the ability to work with FDA and EPA
 R: No mention of budget
 T: Issued statement 1 day after FOE’s new release and released
results 4 days later.

14. EVALUATION
Objective # 2
 To address consumer anxieties and provide consumers with
answers regarding health concerns.
 Issued two Q&A’s to the public
 S: Targeting Kraft Food’s consumers
 M: Media coverage
 A: Impossible to cease all consumer worries
 R: No mention of budget
 T: Issued statements and Q&A (Sept. 19)
After recall, issued second Q&A (Sept. 22)
*No specific mention of these dates

15. EVALUATION
Objective # 3
 To make the product unavailable immediately if unapproved Cry9C is
found to be present in the taco shells.
 Kept taco shells on store shelves until test results confirmed the presence of
StarLink
 Sept. 22, 2000 official recall of taco shells
 Suspended taco shell production
 S: All taco shells recalled
 M: Track grocery stores who carry the taco shells (over 2.5 million packages)
 A: Must make all carriers aware taco shells have been recalled
 R: No mention of budget
 T: Recalled four days after test results were confirmed

16. CASE COMPARISON
Case # 11: Kraft Foods Case # 13: Bausch & Lomb
•Major global food supplier •Highly respected health care brand
•Biotech corn: Taco Bell taco shells •ReNu lens cleaners
•Ingredient causing allergic reactions •Microbe causing blindness (fungi)
•FOE released lab test results •Health authorities were not notified
•Kraft did not recall taco shells •Still sold in U.S.
immediately •May CDC announces results
•Waited for FDA test results to recall the •Bausch & Lomb decides to recall
product product after findings were announced
•Public was extremely anxious, they •The public was unhappy with the
wanted answers immediately response
•Recall occurred AFTER results were •Bausch & Lomb takes a big hit
found •After recall, reputation rebuilding
•Little reputation management following began immediately
recall
*Both companies put THEMSELVES before CONSUMERS!

17. UPDATE
 Twitter account for Kraft Foods
 Create a blog for Kraft Foods’ consumers to discuss their
thoughts on biotech corn and other questionable ingredients
 Include links on Kraft Foods’ website directing concerned
consumers to articles regarding information on bio tech corn

18. DISCUSSION QUESTIONS
 1. How could Kraft’s response have been more proactive to the initial crisis?
 2. Did Kraft do the right thing by leaving the taco shells on store shelves until the
lab results were presented? Was the recall too late?
 3. Taco Bell’s home line of products were in question, how could Taco Bell as a
restaurant utilize PR strategy and tactics to differentiate their products from those
in question, ensure consumer safety and continue with a steady flow of business?
 4. Were the Q&A’s too brief? If you were a concerned customer, did they cover all
of the information you wanted to know?
 5. Should food companies use labels or warning signs when they use biotech
foods? What other ways could companies inform the public about the dangers or
benefits of using biotech foods?