Tracing PepsiCo’s Most Significant Recalls and Their FMCG Implications
PepsiCo, a global heavyweight in the FMCG sector, has navigated its share of product recalls over the years—each offering a reflection of the challenges tied to scale, supply chain complexity, and consumer safety. From soda to snacks, here’s a look at some of the company’s most notable recall events and the lessons they offer for manufacturers and brand custodians across the industry.
Mountain Dew’s Glass Fragments Scare
In 2010, PepsiCo initiated a recall of Mountain Dew in multiple U.S. states after reports that bottles may have contained small glass fragments. The source was traced to a manufacturing defect occurring during the filling process. While no injuries were reported, the incident raised questions about quality control protocols, particularly during high-speed bottling operations—a core component of beverage production at scale.
Diet Pepsi and Metal Contamination
Another high-profile incident occurred in 1993 when a syringe was allegedly found in a can of Diet Pepsi. While the FDA and PepsiCo ultimately concluded the product tampering claims were fraudulent—with surveillance footage even capturing a hoax attempt—the damage to consumer trust was substantial at the time. The incident emphasized the importance of rapid crisis communication, traceability, and tamper-evident packaging in preserving brand equity.
Quaker Oats Granola Bars and Salmonella Risk
In 2023, PepsiCo recalled select Quaker Chewy granola bars due to potential salmonella contamination traced to an ingredient supplied by a third party. The voluntary recall included over 25 products and reflected a growing challenge in FMCG supply chains: managing upstream vendor quality. With consumer focus on health transparency, such recalls place additional scrutiny on ingredient sourcing and third-party compliance.
Naked Juice and Labeling Missteps
While not a safety recall, PepsiCo faced criticism in 2013 over its juice line, Naked, for misleading labeling claims such as “all natural.” The company eventually paid a $9 million settlement and revamped its marketing language. The case underlined the regulatory and reputational risks FMCG brands face in the better-for-you category, where consumers increasingly demand clarity and substantiation behind brand promises.