BulletProofBlog the blog on crisis communications

Those aligned against high fructose corn syrup’s (HFCS) use in soft drinks and snacks thought they scored a major public relations coup last week, when Princeton University scientists announced they had found that HFCS causes higher rates of obesity in lab rats than equal caloric intakes of table sugar.

Of course, that was before influential members of the scientific community began questioning the study’s validity – some of whom are themselves opposed to the use of HFCS in processed foods. Now, rather than injecting supportive evidence into the debate, HFCS opponents are scrambling to clear up the confusion that’s been created.

While processed food companies were preparing their response to the Princeton study, independent food experts beat them to the punch. One of the most prominent was Marion Nestle, a professor in the Department of Nutrition, Food Studies and Public Health at New York University who is independent of the food and beverage industry. A surprised Nestle wrote in her personal blog that she could “hardly believe that Princeton sent out a press release yesterday announcing the results of this rat study. The press release says: 'Rats with access to high-fructose corn syrup gained significantly more weight than those with access to table sugar, even when their overall caloric intake was the same.' How they came to these conclusions is beyond me."

Nestle noted that the study claims that all the rats consumed the same number of calories, but it failed to measure those calories. She said the study was poorly designed, with rats consuming different combinations of HFCS, sucrose, and rat chow for varying periods. That fact, she argued, made straight comparisons impossible.

Nestle’s critique makes sense. After all, you don’t have to be a scientist to know that the central cause of obesity is taking in more calories than are burned – no matter if those calories come from cheeseburgers, soda pop, or green leaf lettuce.

To some, this study could be reminiscent of climate-gate – even in spite of the fact that there have been no allegations of bias or sinister behavior in this case. And that amounts to a communications win for industries currently defending the use of HFCS that can now point to the fact that too many “studies” these days seem designed to result in predetermined conclusions.

Organizations sponsoring and publicizing studies about important issues, such as obesity, must be certain their data is air-tight, measurable, peer-reviewed, and supported by established facts. Falling short of these criteria opens the study to attack and ridicule – often within hours, thanks to the speed of the Internet. And that ridicule then becomes the real story, handing ammunition to adversaries who will use it to undermine the very argument the study was meant to support.

Gene Grabowski is the Senior Vice President of Crisis and Litigation at Levick Strategic Communications, the nation’s top crisis communications firm. He is also a contributing author to Bulletproof Blog. Connect with him @crisisguru.