Findus also confirmed it carried out a full product recall on Monday, two days before DNA tests confirmed that some of its products contained up to 100% horse meat and it alerted the Food Standards Agency, but chose to ignore claims by Labour MP Tom Watson that it sent a letter to retailers on Monday warning that a France-based supplier had told it there may be problems with raw materials delivered since 1 August 2012.
A Findus spokesman said: "At Findus UK our first priority is our customers and providing quality products they can trust. But we know that many people have been concerned by the news this week that tests have shown that some of our Findus beef lasagne has been found to contain horse meat.
"We understand those concerns; we are sorry that we have let people down."
But is saying sorry enough? Can Findus ever restore consumers' faith in its frozen food convenience foods, following this disaster?
Jonathan Hemus, said:
"Findus does have a statement about the situation at the bottom of its homepage and on its contact us page, but it looks as though it has been hastily put there without any thought as to its design or positioning, and it lacks a heading of any kind."
"Findus's homepage also proudly proclaims that it uses 'only the best ingredients' and another page exclaims 'you can trust us' alongside a picture of a 'beef' lasagne. On a normal day, these messages are fine. Today, they look hollow, unprofessional, or even bad taste jokes."
Hemus also criticised the firm's use (or lack of) social media - Findus' twitter profile hasn't been used for more than two years. There's also a link to Facebook, but that does not lead to a Findus page either.
Findus also reportedly failed to find a spokesman to speak on Radio 4, meaning an opinion-forming programme discussed the situation without the company having any opportunity to shape that discussion.
"If you manage a food company, one day your products will be contaminated. If you run an airline, one day, one of your planes will crash. If you make cars, one day there will be a safety recall. And all of these situations are recoverable. But only if you engage in crisis management planning and training beforehand."
Another option is to throw a lot of money at the situation. In 2006, Cadbury's admitted one of its plants had been contaminated with salmonella. A report commissioned by the government's Food Standards Agency found that Cadbury was using an out-of-date approach to risk assessment and product testing for salmonella contamination. It took six months for Cadbury's to come clean about the contamination. It then spent £10 million recalling the faulty goods, but another £10m was spent on advertising costs for a major new campaign and "manufacturing improvements".
Hemus told the Huffington Post UK the juxtaposition of a wholesome, family brand like Cadbury against corporate behaviour which seemed to put business interests ahead of health, led to the largest ever ratings drop for a brand in the YouGov Brand Index.
"When confronted by a product recall crisis, brands and business must act quickly – over-act if necessary - to reassure customers that they are safe and that the company cares." They should also communicate pro-actively, provide a media spokesperson, post information to the company website, tweet frequently and offer a telephone hotline.
Lawyers may advise executives never to use the word 'sorry', but it resonates with the general public, so brands should consider it. And ultimately, the brand should behave consistently with its values.
"If you position yourself as a caring, wholesome brand, you'd better live these values in the crisis. Act contrary to them and the damage can be huge," Hemus concluded.
