The Whole Truth under the microscope

When The Whole Truth, a food brand that has built its identity on full ingredient transparency, admitted that one of its best-selling products used candied cranberries, the disclosure triggered a storm online. 

The company, in its statement, explained that dried cranberries generally come sweetened from the source. “The truth is that dried cranberries have added sugar. They do. So we won’t use them anymore,” the company wrote in a public apology, admitting it had failed to investigate the candying process. “We should’ve identified this earlier… for that, we’re sorry.” the post read. 

The brand announced that it would pull its second-highest selling bar off shelves, experiment with freeze-dried cranberries, and promised “no more candied cranberries. Ever.” 

The admission was plainspoken, but was it enough to contain reputational damage? And that raises a bigger puzzle for marketers: in the age of instant outrage, what really works in crisis management? We asked experts across communications, law, and advertising self-regulation to weigh in.

Owning up quickly or losing trust faster

Even for brands built on transparency, missteps can snowball and attract attention. In the case of The Whole Truth, this was their first such error, and they addressed it openly and promptly. In such moments, timing and tone often decide whether a misstep becomes a scandal.

For many experts, The Whole Truth’s response struck the right first note.

“From a crisis-management lens, The Whole Truth has made the right opening moves,” said Vishaal Shah, Co-Founder, Moe’s Art. “They acknowledged the gap, apologised in plain language, accepted responsibility and paused production of the product. Importantly, they did this in the same ‘Truth No Faff’ voice that defines their brand, which makes the apology come across as authentic.”

Shah added that the consistency of voice sets The Whole Truth apart: “By staying true to their voice, the brand has also reinforced its distinction from legacy players who might typically stonewall or deflect such inquiries. In many ways, this has become another moment of positive reinforcement for the brand, provided they follow through with the right steps after pulling back the product. For example, proactively auditing other products.”

But as several experts noted, acknowledging a mistake is only the first step; the harder test is sustaining credibility over time. And that’s where The Whole Truth will be tested. 

Vani Gupta, Managing Partner, CherryPeachPlum Growth Partners, highlighted the larger concern: “I am surprised that the team miscalculated the nutrition readings. I worry this could happen again in the future.”

At the same time, Gupta also praised how the apology was delivered: “That said, I really loved the honesty, sincerity, simplicity, and no-nonsense tonality of the apology. If there’s one thing this brand has certainly got right, it’s the way they speak.”

Experts agree that transparency does win points. The catch is that it must be backed by vigilance.

Apologies come with risks

If communication and crisis experts stress empathy and accountability, legal experts see the story differently. Because in the eyes of the law, every word in that apology carries consequences.

“When a brand makes a false claim, or its goods suffer from a defect or errs in its service offering and its service is found to be deficient; it is typically confronted by the media, consumer or judicial activists etc.,” explained Aazmeen Kasad, Advocate and Former Member of the Consumer Complaints Council, ASCI. 

“At that stage, it is faced with 3 options:

1. To issue a statement claiming that it is conducting an investigation into the matter and will issue a public statement post the conclusion of the investigation; thereby buying time to manage the crisis and seek professional advice on how to deal with the crisis at hand by studying the ramifications of the situation.

2. Deny the defect in the goods or the deficiency in the service outright.

3. Admit to the defect in the goods sold or deficiency in the services rendered with a public apology.”

Plenty of brands, she noted, choose the third route, believing that if the brand has erred, it is better to admit that and win customer trust as being honest in one's failings. “It supports the brand as being one who values its customers,” she said, adding that it also signals intent, separating a mistake in action (actus reus) from intent (mens rea) in the eyes of the law.

Adding a regulatory angle, Manisha Kapoor, CEO & Secretary General of ASCI, said, “FSSAI has clear labelling guidelines based on nutrition and ingredients, and ASCI’s code requires brands to be honest and not mislead consumers through ambiguity or omissions. The recent case of the ‘No added sugar’ declaration on products that contained added sugar would be a potential breach of the ASCI code. However, it appears the advertisers have since corrected the representation and laid out a clear plan of action. In speaking about the issue, they have tried to directly address the concerns of their consumers and also laid down a clear plan of action.”

Kapoor further noted that ASCI has received similar complaints in the past, and where product composition contradicts claims, these are considered violations of the ASCI Code. “Such ads may also breach the Consumer Protection Act. ASCI's e-learning programmes and training initiatives aim to help advertisers make compliant claims and build trust with consumers,” she added.

But an apology is far from the end of the story. “Class action suits, public interest litigations, customer loss of trust, fines, penalties, and in worst-case scenarios even loss of licence” can follow, Kasad warned. 

Thus, according to Kasad, conducting a complete, fact-based and appropriate laboratory supported due diligence before making any claims on labels should be the norm.

In other words, while honesty might win back hearts, only airtight processes can protect a brand in the long run.

The role of accountability

The Whole Truth didn’t just face a labelling error, they faced a trust test. And as per experts, the way the brand responded set the tone for how they must handle accountability.

Nisha Sampath, Managing Partner, Bright Angles Consulting LLP, highlighted the importance of responsiveness over perfection: “Consumers understand that any business can make mistakes, but what is important is how they act to rectify them. The Whole Truth did not REACT, they RESPONDED and hence, they have come out of the situation with flying colors.”

Building on that, Shah stressed that accountability cannot be outsourced. “When controversies strike, the single biggest factor that helps brands hold on to consumer trust is accountability. People expect brands to own the issue, communicate openly and back their words with visible action.”

For brands built on transparency, Sampath added, leadership visibility during crises is crucial. “It works best if the founder or CEO leads from the front and addresses the issue. This also reassures and instills confidence in the internal stakeholders, who are often on the frontline dealing with the backlash.”

The Whole Truth offers a example of this in action. In June, 2025, the brand faced scrutiny when fitness influencer Akash Yadav accused it on Instagram of misleading consumers about sugar in its protein powders and bars, as well as product positioning. 

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Akash Yadav (@sir_akash_yaduvanshi)

Founder Shashank Mehta responded promptly, clarifying the facts and addressing the allegations directly.

On another occasion, a delivery hiccup was turned into a human moment: the brand included a heartfelt, handwritten note taking ownership of the mistake.

Sampath pointed to Zomato as another example of a brand that has consistently shown this, with the founder personally stepping forward to address controversies.

Taken together, the lesson is that apologies matter as much for who delivers them and what follows next as for the words themselves.

Crisis chronicles

The Whole Truth is not the first brand to find itself at the center of a labelling storm. Recent history is full of reminders that how a company responds often matters more than the controversy itself.

Take the Poonam Pandey campaign about cervical cancer in 2024, for instance which sparked widespread debate on social media. What began as an attempt to spotlight a cause quickly escalated into a reputational challenge. Much of the conversation was not only about the sensitivity of the execution but also about the way the aftermath unfolded.

The digital marketing agency behind the campaign issued a public apology. However, instead of settling the discussion, the statement seemed to fuel further reactions. Observers noted that the emphasis on “success metrics”, highlighting how ‘cervical cancer’ and related terms trended on Google, struck many as misplaced. 

Realising the misstep, the agency issued a second statement clarifying their intent and acknowledging that their earlier communication had missed the mark. But by then, the damage was done. The agency’s partnership with the Merck affiliate that had backed the initiative was terminated.

This misstep is a sharp reminder that in a crisis, apologies aren’t PR opportunities, they’re tests of humility. And the brands that pass those tests best are often the ones who respond without spin.

Shah pointed out, one of the most visible cases was the backlash against Bournvita being marketed as a ‘health drink’ despite its high sugar content. The brand initially tried to defend its positioning, but once government bodies intervened, it was forced to drop the ‘healthy’ label. Months later, it announced reduced sugar levels, but waited nearly a year to communicate those changes through influencer campaigns and other efforts. In today’s fragile trust economy, Shah noted, “delay is the real reputational risk.”

He also highlighted Hindustan Unilever’s clash with Sebamed as another lesson. Sebamed had attacked rival soaps on the narrow metric of pH levels, positioning itself as the science-backed alternative. HUL didn’t just counter with the ‘Sabun ki Sachai’ campaign and legal action, it leaned into its strengths. By educating consumers with evidence from decades of product science, clinical testing, and dermatologist endorsements, it broadened the conversation from pH alone to the full formulation behind skin health. The company showed that transparency paired with authority can turn a defensive moment into an opportunity.

And then there are cases where crisis management has become a blueprint. Sampath recalled Cadbury’s recall of worm-eaten chocolates in India.

In 2003, Cadbury faced a nightmare in Maharashtra when worms were discovered in Dairy Milk bars, sparking headlines that questioned its hygiene standards. The company initially fumbled with defensive statements but soon pivoted. It rolled out new double-wrapped packaging, opened factory doors to media for transparency, and enlisted Amitabh Bachchan to reassure consumers. The combination of visible corrective steps and a credible face of trust helped Cadbury turn the tide.

She also pointed to Johnson & Johnson’s famous Tylenol recall in the U.S. The Tylenol case, often cited as the global gold standard, goes back to 1982 in Chicago, where seven people died after consuming cyanide-laced Tylenol capsules. Though Johnson & Johnson wasn’t at fault, the incident was product tampering, the company immediately recalled 31 million bottles nationwide, issued public warnings, and introduced tamper-proof triple-seal packaging. The move cost over $100 million at the time but cemented J&J’s reputation for putting consumer safety first.

These episodes underline the same truth: when trust is under fire, stonewalling is the surest way to lose. The brands that come out stronger are those that act quickly, communicate clearly, and back their words with evidence or tangible change.

Which brings us back to The Whole Truth. Was its apology enough? Experts agree it was the right start, but not the end. The brand’s survival depends on whether it can back words with consistent, verifiable action, from tighter due diligence to proactive audits and leadership-led communication.

As Shah summed it up, “Crisis communication has followed the same fundamentals for decades: acknowledge, apologise, take corrective action, and communicate consistently. Those principles still hold true, but the expectations of today’s consumer go beyond them.”

Think of it this way, honesty is the band-aid, accountability is the actual healing.