Beware Headlines Saying Chocolate Is Good For You

BarbaraHudson writes: Many news organizations ran stories last fall extolling certain health benefits of chocolate. But it turns out the studies that the articles were based on didn't go quite so far. The CBC is running a pair of stories debunking chocolate's benefits to the average consumer: "Scientists have zeroed in on a family of fragile molecules known as cocoa flavanols. Research suggests they can relax blood vessels, improve blood flow and, as Small found in his study, even increase activity in a part of the brain involved with age related memory loss. But those flavanols largely disappear once the cocoa bean is heated, fermented and processed into chocolate. In other words, making chocolate destroys the very ingredient that is supposed to make it healthy.

That’s why Small’s memory study used a highly concentrated powder prepared exclusively for research by Mars Inc., the chocolate company, which also partially funded the study. ... There are lots of foods that contain potentially healthy flavanols, along with other bioactive compounds in complex combinations. So the question is: Would academic scientists in publicly funded institutions be so interested in the cocoa bean if the chocolate industry wasn't supporting so much of the research?"

Comments

Still useful research

[Jason Levine]

If cocoa flavanols prove medically beneficial, we can figure out how to synthetically produce them in a dosed format. You might not be able to get health benefits by eating a chocolate bar, but perhaps one day your doctor will prescribe two flavanol pills every morning to treat your condition. This is how much of medicine functions. First, we notice something (in nature or lab produced) that has a beneficial effect. Next, we refine that substance and figure out a dosing system for it to maximize the effect and minimize any side effects.

Re:Still useful research

[pollarda]

This is incorrect. It is illegal to use palm oil or any other fats (other than milk fat -- which you need in "milk chocolate"). Hershey's wanted the FDA to allow a change in the "Standard of Identity" for chocolate. Gary Guittard (from Guittard Chocolate and a good friend of mine) spearheaded a public rebuttal. The FDA had more comments opposing the changes to the standard of identity of chocolate than they ever had over any issue EVER. (The sad thing is that when they have public comments over an issue, only 3-4 comments are typically submitted. I don't remember how many comments were submitted over the chocolate issue but it was very large.) In the end, MARS came out with a public statement that even if the standard of identity for chocolate were to change, they would never put palm or any other oils in their chocolate. This was a clear statement against HERSHEY's who immediately backpedaled and withdrew their proposal and the FDA decided to not change the standard of identity of chocolate. You can not use ANY other fat other than milk fat and call it chocolate. You can call it chocolate "flavored" or you can call it "Butterfinger" but you can not call it chocolate if it has any other fat in it other than milk fat and cocoa butter. I understand now why you posted as "Anonymous Cowered" as you clearly don't know what you are talking about.

Speak for yourself

[SuperKendall]

The cocoa content of a chocolate bar is very, very small. And, it has been decreasing over time.

But what has also been INCREASING over time, is consumption of dark chocolate - sometimes very dark. These usually do have a lot more deal cocoa powder than the "traditional" chocolate bar ever did.

Any more I will not even bother with "chocolate" below 85%...

Re:WHAT!

[TapeCutter]

You missed the point, nobody is claiming anyone has "bought the results". TFS is asking a question, ie - would researchers do that research anyway if it was not funded by industry? - And the answer is no since researchers have to eat like everyone else and public institutions are unlikely to fully fund it.

I'm not claiming there is zero corruption in Science but if (reputable) scientific results were as easy to buy as many slashdotter's seem to believe then the Koch brothers would already own the IPCC.