I’d like to, but in two of your three examples, it was the CDC that shut the farms down, not suppliers abandoning them. In the third, the food plant was shut down by CDC and is now reopening under a different name. It is still owned by the original owners, and they’re making investments to improve the plant, and of course they’re changing the name, but it doesn’t seem to me that the owners have been driven out of the food production business by the unwillingness of customers to buy from them.
I’m suggesting that some companies would and do. In your example, Chipotle changed suppliers even without knowing which of the 60 suppliers were the problem. Yet surely other people continue to buy from one or more of those 60 suppliers, or Chipotle wouldn’t have to make that choice because they would not longer exist.
Companies make bad decisions to save money all the time, and the smaller their margins, the greater is the pressure to save money. Restaurants and supermarkets have very small margins. If car makers can continue to knowingly make and sell cars that explode and kill people (which happened), and if tire makers can continue to knowingly make tires that disintegrate and kill people (which happened), and if coal companies can continue to knowingly use practices that poison entire communities of people (which happens), it isn’t a stretch to think that, once the initial contamination problem is identified and ostensibly solved, food companies will go back to those suppliers. They only don’t if government regulators have effectively killed those suppliers.