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

[beelsebob]

To be fair, what you're talking about is American "chocolate", which lacks regulation, and as such is mostly just oil with a tiny amount of chocolate flavouring. In Europe, the amount of cocoa content of a chocolate bar is regulated, and isn't dropping. That's why europeans tend to baulk the first time they taste a hershey bar - it doesn't taste of chocolate.

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.

Re:Still useful research

[pollarda]

I'm sorry, you are incorrect. In the United States, you can not have any other fats other than cocoa butter or milk fat (which is in milk and is thus in milk chocolate). If you check the FDA standards of identity for chocolate: It is regulated in the United States and you can read the Standards of Identity here: http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfcfr/CFRSearch.cfm?CFRPart=163
I own a chocolate factory so I know just a bit about this subject.

Re:Still useful research

[pollarda]

You should realize that butyric acid is also the primary flavor component for vomit. (Yes, really.) So the next time someone tells you that Hershey's tastes like SH!&, you can tell them they are wrong, it tastes like puke.

Re:Still useful research

[pollarda]

I own a chocolate factory. I would HEAVILY recommend NOT eating raw chocolate. I travel to some of the very best cocoa plantations in the world in countries such as Venezuela, Dominican Republic, Peru, Ecuador, Dominican Republic, Mexico, etc. etc. Cocoa is processed at the farm in conditions which are far from sanitary. I've watched dogs walk through cocoa (can you say: fecal coliform bacteria?). I've watched chickens walk through it and pidgins peck at it, and turkeys walk around it and EVERY time you have birds, you have salmonella bacteria.

Roasting is important to not only bring out the chocolate flavor but to kill all the nasties that came from the farm, from the cocoa processing center (or co-op), from the warehousing, from the shipping on the boat in open jute bags, from the transport on the semi to the chocolate factory in the US, etc. There are a million ways that even clean cocoa beans can get contaminated even if they left the farm in great condition. While I've made raw chocolate as an experiment for myself (and it is part of my job afterall), there is no way that I'd ever release the chocolate on a commercial basis without having each and every batch go through extensive microbial testing something that few raw chocolate companies do.

Re:Still useful research

[beelsebob]

Right, the key is in the fact that they only mandate 10% cocoa liquor content. While the EU mandate 15% cocoa butter, and 27.5% cocoa solids (42.5% cocoa liquor). White chocolate in europe actually contains more cocoa than milk chocolate needs to in the US.

Re:Still useful research

[donscarletti]

Guess what, American beers and wines are winning contests in Europe.

Yes, but not the beers and wines that Americans in general actually consumes.

Sure, you can go to a craft microbrew bar in San Francisco and drink a beer the equal of anything coming from Europe's best breweries. But in 99% of the country and at the price range that 80% of the country can afford you can only get Budweiser, Miller or Coors.

Compare this to any country in Europe where you can be in the most backwards, rural town and get something good served to you just by walking to the bar and asking for "beer".

America is a huge and populous country and it stands to reason that there will be a little bit of everything happening there. But nobody cares what you and your hipster friends are drinking and it doesn't change the fact that American beer is shit.

Re:Still useful research

[Xest]

"Wasn't it the EU who didn't want Cadbury's chocolate to be labeled real chocolate?"

If by the EU you mean a handful of vested interests in countries like France and Belgium lobbying a handful of EU representatives and failing in the EU as a whole then yes. Otherwise, if you mean what most people would assume to be the EU, as in, the political organisation as a majority or whole, then no.

"You're probably talking about Hershey's, which is net the entirety of American chocolate."

No, even Cadburys and Nestle chocolate tastes shit in America - Dairy Milk bars, Smarties, M&Ms and so on, they're all just awful in the US. They use different recipes. All American main-brand chocolate is just plain terrible. It tastes like wax with chocolate flavouring as someone else said. Letting it melt in your mouth feels like you've just slurped up part of an oil slick with a bit of flavouring added to it. I was told too this is because the ingredients they use are less likely to melt in the heat of America's hottest states whereas the bars would turn to liquid if they used Cadbury's UK recipe and they were shipped to Florida or whatever, but I don't think it was added sugar that was the recipe. What I do know is that chocolate in America (and Canada) just tastes awful though compared to equivalent bars in Europe. Last I checked orange Smarties don't even taste of orange chocolate in North America either, which is a crime worthy of your death penalty, so find who is responsible and deal with it please.

If you start going upmarket to places where you can get real chocolate like Hotel Chocolat, Thorntons, or proper Belgian chocolatiers then the disparity between European and America chocolate becomes even more embarassing.

It isn't just "Europe is better than America crap", and the fact you said that implies to me that you don't have the benefit of experience and are just speculating. I'm British and my partner is Canadian, we travel between both continents regularly and the sheer amount of British confectionary we're asked to cart over with us for friends and family (and the complete lack on the way back - though we do cart back other things; maple syrup, various steak spices and so forth) is a fine example of how much people realise European chocolate really is just so much nicer. It's not about childhood memories, it's simply that when you've had both people seem to consistently opt for the European versions where they can.

There are a lot of areas where North America has it's advantages, and there are areas where Europe has it's advantages (you still get films, and games before us, and get most things at much more reasonable prices). For example, until the Smartphone wars starting in 2007 North America looked practically prehistoric in terms of cellphones, Europe (and Japan) were clearly superior in this area for a decade or so - I was like a guy from the future back in 2004 when I went over with my colour screen Nokia that could play MP3s, install apps including games like Doom, take photos and so on and so forth. This is in fact why the first iPhone wasn't even released in Europe - a phone with no MMS, no GPS, no mapping, no apps, no 3G and so on and so forth was always a joke in the European market and the fancy touch interface just couldn't make up for those glaring deficiencies. It was only really by the 3rd iteration that it even began to matter in Europe where it finally began to catch up on having the bare minimum required feature set (the second iteration didn't even outsell Nokia's non-touch screen flagship at the time).

I think what you're really saying when you say "This sounds like just more "Europe is better than America" crap" is that you can't stand the idea that some places might actually be better than America at some things. Tough shit, American exceptionalism is nonsense, it's not superior at everything in every way - chocolate is one of those ways in which it simply does a terrible job. Don't let it upset you though, you get awesome other things, like meat products. Tr

Re:Still useful research

[Xest]

Did you try those Kit Kats?

This is the problem, even well known big brand chocolate tastes better in Europe than the US, the brand may well be the same but the recipe is different.

American Dairy Milk bars are awful compared to the UK versions for example.

"So don't you Europeans talk about 'fine chocolate' until at least you've tasted a fine batch made from single-plantation source in Madagascar. You don't know what you're talking about until then."

Why? we can already one up you on that quite trivially. Succesful chains like Hotel Chocolat let us have single-plantation source chocolate of our choice -

http://www.hotelchocolat.com/u...

But it's better than that. Their flagships contain three things, a shop, a bar, and a restaurant. So you can experience everything from chocolate liqueurs to cocoa gravy there. You can experience proper cocoa usage from just about every worthwhile source in just about all it's incarnations - whether in chocolate bars, drinks, or meals.

So we know exactly what we're talking about by fine chocolate- the issue seems to be that you're wholly unaware of what actual chocolatiers we do have here in Europe given your completely false suggestion that it's hard to find. Even here in the UK which is normally frowned upon as one of the poorest quality chocolate producers in Europe we have major high quality chocolatiers in just about every high street that even slightly matters, and most have high quality independents too.

Don't blame science for this.

[Dorianny]

What the media regurgitated as findings made by scientific studies were in fact PR releases by chocolate companies filled with half truths and misleading information. Of course the worst part is how people have been convinced that a Snickers and other junk food bars are actually chocolate.

Re:Cocoa is also disgusting without sugar

[techno-vampire]

Not always. If you want to give a grilled steak a beautiful dark-brown color, rub a little bit of unsweetened coco powder on it before you cook it. It also adds depth to the flavor. It also goes well in chili in small quantities.

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:Speak for yourself

[blue trane]

Lindt, Baker's, Ghirardelli's...

oh noes... the chocolate industry

[GoddersUK]

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?"

I love the idea that this somehow invalidates the research. The researchers investigated what they could get funding to investigate, there's no allegations that the research was non-rigorous or of any other improper practice. Presumably the results are valid and therefore valuable. Further, presumably this research wouldn't have been done otherwise so we've got some additional research we wouldn't have done otherwise. So what if it supports someone's interests? We all benefit because now we know more about the world around us and what is, and isn't, good for our bodies. Now go and take your ad hominems elsewhere.

dark chocolate hazelnut truffles

[PopeRatzo]

Is there any question of chocolate's benefits? I mean, really?

Jesus wept. Chocolate has been one of mankind's go-to pantydroppers for centuries. Some guys get beer goggles, I get chocolate goggles. Three truffles with >72% cocoa content and I'm yours for the asking.

Re:surprise, surprise, surprise

[networkzombie]

Actually, no. Evolution has provided humans with taste buds to favor foods that will keep us alive, depending upon conditions. These conditions are key. Bears are a good example. Bears that need to survive hibernation will gorge themselves on any sweets they can find because it is key to their survival. Bears will eat all the honey they can find, but they don't find much. Bears eat a lot of salmon and they find plenty. Bears eat a lot of berries and they find plenty. Bears eat a lot of grubs and they find plenty. Bears will eat all the Hershey bars they can find, along with all the almonds, denim, and bear repellant that goes with it, but they don't find a lot. If bears did find a lot of Hershey bars, they would soon die of (insert disease here). Humans, in the recent 4000 years, have gained the ability to have any food from anywhere on earth within arms reach available to them at low cost. Foods that would be healthy to gorge on, if they were scarce, are now plentiful. That is the problem. Technology has given us the means, but our self control has not evolved to fit our environment. Our taste buds still control us. If it tastes good, it is because your ancestors relied upon it to survive. You, with your comfortable life and big screen TV, should know better. If it tastes good, enjoy in moderation.

Re:WHAT!

[sycodon]

It's FUCKING CHOCOLATE.

Just enjoy it and shit can this stupid "corporations are evil" garbage.

Holy Fuck, does there have to be some evil conspiracy behind everything?

Re:WHAT!

[Panoptes]

Holy Fuck, does there have to be some evil conspiracy behind everything?

On Slashdot, yes.

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.