The first reason is the proxy communicators’ vacuous information. For example, the FDA (The Food and Drug Administration) and the CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) offered the message that the PCA (Peanut Corporation of America) had produced the contaminated peanut and that the PCA was the liable organization because of its unethical manufacturing practices (May, 2013, p. 263). However, those proxy communicators did not tell customers the names of the products that had PCA peanuts in them; what should be done with the contaminated products; or how to get effective medical assistance in the event of Salmonella infection. For customers, it was very difficult to identify the contaminated food because the information given was too general. Because the PCA’s peanuts had been used as an ingredient in many foods, a countless number of products were involved (May, 2013, p. 266). So, the messages from the FDA and CDC's proxy communicators were very vague for customers and did not directly blame the PCA (p. 267). In a way, the PCA adopted silence during this crisis.

Second, the PCA might have desired corporate protection. The PCA did not issue a public announcement after the product recall because the corporation believed that confusion would lead customers to know little information about the PCA (Millner, & Sellnow, as cited in Hallman & Cuite, 2010, p. 266). The PCA might weigh its own values more than ethical communication. Perhaps the organization thought that its reputation would suffer less damage if customers had little information. According to FDA, internal records showed that PCA had identified salmonella in its products in 2007 and 2008 (May, 2013, p. 264). In fact, PCA did not publish the recall until early 2009. To protect its reputation, PCA tried to avoid acknowledging responsibility. In the end, even though the organization had known about the contamination before, PCA's executives still chose to be silent during the food crisis.

Finally,