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.

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

[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