Currently browsing posts about: Chocolate

I subscribe to ConfectionaryNews.com for information about this industry.  It recently collected a series of articles on the cocoa industry and how it is attempting to become more sustainable: Editor’s Spotlight: The future of cocoa deforestation

•  Cocoa deforestation: What about farms outside sustainability programmes?  Rick Scobey, the president of the World Cocoa Foundation (WCF) outlines how cocoa outside sustainability programmes can be deforestation-free and what happens to farmers encroaching on protected areas. Read more
•  ‘Fairtrade is an open system, we champion all cocoa farmers to achieve a sustainable livelihood and become resilient to climate change and market factors’: Jen Shepherd, Fairtrade Foundation’s cocoa supply chain manager, talks to CN editor Anthony Myers on how the organization is working with its producer networks to address key issues such as climate change, gender empowerment and living incomes in the industry. Read more
•  Ecuador’s sustainable cocoa future after cadmium: Ecuador’s efforts to create value at origin could be damaged by the EU’s recent regulation of heavy metal cadmium in chocolate, claims the president of the country’s cocoa export association. Read more
•  Power & politics in cocoa: Are chocolate’s colonial roots moulding sustainability?  The European and US chocolate industry holds power in cocoa and is able to set the agenda for sustainability on its terms, says Dr. Kristy Leissle. Read more
•  Child labor in the cocoa sector: ‘both a symptom and contributing factor to poverty’ – podcast:  The wellbeing of children and youth in cocoa-growing communities was an important item on the agenda of WCF’s recent partnership meeting in Brazil. Taco Terheijden, Cargill group director, sustainability, explains what his company is doing to improve conditions for young people working in the cocoa sector. Read more

I was in Beijing a couple of weeks ago and did a supermarket tour.

Here’s my favorite souvenir:

Nestlé (no relation) markets to children, apparently.

I regret being unable to read the nutrition information, but this looks like a standard sugary breakfast cereal, chocolate-flavored.

I’m told this would be considered a snack food, not a breakfast food.

Translation, anyone?

After the debacle over Fifth Quarter Fresh that I wrote about in Unsavory Truth, you might think that sellers of chocolate milk would stop trying to prove it anything other than a sugary milk drink.  But no, here’s another one.

Chocolate Milk versus carbohydrate supplements in adolescent athletes: a field based study.  Katelyn A. Born, Erin E. Dooley, P. Andy Cheshire, Lauren E. McGill, Jonathon M. Cosgrove, John L. Ivy and John B. Bartholomew.  Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition (2019) 16:6.

Method: “Participants were randomly-assigned to receive either CM [chocolate milk] or CHO [carbohydrate] immediately post-exercise.”

Conclusion: “CM had a more positive effect on strength development and should be considered an appropriate post-exercise recovery supplement for adolescents.”

Funder: Dairy MAX [“nonprofit dairy council representing more than 900 dairy farm families across seven states”].

Comment: The premise of this study is that drinks containing a combination of carbohydrate and protein have been shown to provide better recovery from vigorous exercise than drinks containing carbohydrate or protein alone.  Chocolate milk contains both.  This study compared it to a carbohydrate-only sports drink, making this an excellent example of how to design a study to give you the desired result.

This is from one of those daily newsletters I get about what’s happening in the food industry.  This one covers baked goods, snacks, and candy.  And this particular collection of articles deals with chocolate as an instrument of international trade policy.

BakeryAndSnacks.com says:

Chocolate’s use in bakery is a booming business in China: Once perceived as an exotic delicacy – bought only as a luxury gift or an extravagant treat – the Chinese consumers’ taste for chocolate is growing and the ingredient is quickly cementing a niche for itself in bakery. Read more

• Penchant for Western products supports China’s bakery boom, says analyst: China’s bakery sector is a thunderous market, spurred on by consumers who have a great desire to develop their knowledge of Western products. Read more
• ‘Even a niche in China is lucrative’: Rich Products Corporation: China is set to become one of the most attractive cereals and bakery markets worldwide, with the bakery sector reaching $47bn by 2020 as more people chose to eat snacks on the go. Read more
• Be it baguette or mooncake: China’s dynamic bakery market shows no signs of slow-down: Chinese appetites for bakery products continues to grow unabated, despite a market saturated with Asian brands and a continued upswing in foreign offerings. Read more
• China to familiarize Western market with ‘pinyin’ baked treats: China’s diverse bakery industry – encompassing bakers of traditional ‘pinyin’ (literally translated as ‘Chinese style cakes and snacks’) and producers of modern items like croissants and waffles – is growing at a rate that far exceeds most other segments. Read more

I can’t help thinking about all those calories in chocolate-laden baked goods, and their effects on Chinese waistlines….

Kristy Leissle.  Cocoa.  Polity, 2018.

This book is flat-out about the politics of worldwide cocoa production: who holds power in the marketplace, sets prices, establishes the terms of trade, establishes and enforces standards of quality, and pays workers decently.

As for the sustainability of the cocoa industry, Leissle offers this definition:

sustainable cocoa is compensated well enough that farmers want to continue growing it as their primary employment, within a climatic environment that can support its commercial existence over the long term.  Compensation calculations must include the price paid for cocoa, but also how much it costs to grow—including costs of farming inputs; political social and economic costs associated with land ownership and crop sale; personal energy costs of farming; and opportunity costs of growing something else, such as food for subsistence.

She ends with this thought:

Though incomes for farmers and chocolate makers or company owners are unlike to equalize, we can still emphasize that all types of labor deserve attention and appropriate compensation….From there, the conversation begins.  For cocoa farmers to make a dignified living and for consumers to continue enjoying chocolate, sustainability must involve placing the highest possible value on cocoa at every step, from seed to taste bud.

If you wonder why food is worth talking about, Cocoa is an excellent illustration of how even something used to make candy connects to many of the most important social, economic, and political issues faced by today’s world.

Since it’s Valentine’s Day (have a happy one), we might as well talk about a candy company, in this case, Mars, Inc.

Mars, Inc., one of the defectors from the Grocery Manufacturers Association (see yesterday’s post) has also withdrawn from membership in and support of the International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI), a group that claims to be independent  but in fact is funded by hundreds of food and beverage companies (hence: front group).

ILSI’s positions on food issues are decidedly pro-industry, and so are the results of its sponsored research.  Mars couldn’t take it anymore.

Mars told Politico Pro (this may be behind a paywall):

After careful consideration, Mars will end its relationship with the International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI) by the end of 2018, and is withdrawing from ILSI’s nutrition committees immediately,” the company said in a statement to POLITICO. “Increasingly, the presentation of certain studies by ILSI has been at odds with our position and principles. Mars has a long history of engaging in external research that is evidence-based and data-driven, particularly in the area of promoting public health. We wish to thank ILSI for its partnership.

Mars announces this departure as a component of its new research and engagement policy.

The policy applies to all of Mars’ partnerships with universities, governmental and non-governmental organizations, foundations, individuals, food companies, and trade associations (like ILSI).

Here is my summary of the policy’s long list of principles:

• High scientific standards in all animal and human research
• Full disclosure of funding and potential conflicts of interest
• Appropriate standards of authorship
• Funding not linked to achievement of a specific research outcome

I know that everyone loves chocolate, but to snort???

The FDA, ever on the job, has issued a warning letter to Arco Globus Trading that its snortable Coco Loko product–cocoa powder infused with caffeine, gingko, taurine, and guarana–is being marketed illegally as an unapproved street drug.

the claims made in your promotional materials for Legal Lean Syrup and Coco Loko demonstrate that these products are intended to be used as alternatives to illicit street drugs…With respect to Coco Loko, a powder substance, you describe it in your labeling as a “snuff” and you promote it to be “snorted” (inhaled intranasally).  Intranasal administration of a powder substance can trigger laryngospasm or bronchospasm and induce or exacerbate an episode of asthma.  Furthermore, the ingredients listed on the product label for Coco Loko include taurine and guarana.  The safety of these ingredients for intranasal administration has not been evaluated.

I can’t find an official website for the product (it seems to have disappeared) but the FDA says that Coco Loko does not qualify as a supplement (it is snorted, not eaten, and it actually intended for use as a street drug:

• “Endorphin rush . . . it triggers a positive feeling of well being in your body similar to morphine.”
• “Serotonin rush . . . will produce an elevated mood and a state of euphoria similar to the feeling of ecstasy.”
• “Euphoric energy . . . Raw cacao will give you a steady rush of euphoric energy . . ..”
• “Raw cacao . . . is also known to help with anxiety and to reduce stress.”
• Coco Loko Review by I Suck At Talking (Youtube video on your website): “Raw cacao is linked to numerous health benefits . . . lower blood pressure and improved blood circulation . . ..” (1:04 – 1:13)

Snorting cocoa powder?  Really?  Not a good idea (even though no calories that way).

You can’t make this stuff up either.

I was interviewed by Cindy Kuzma, a reporter for VICE, about research on chocolate.  Her story is here.  Her questions were great (I wish all reporters asked such interesting questions).  Here’s our Q and A:

CK:  I noticed you haven’t written about chocolate for a while—perhaps it has been quiet on that front, or there are just a lot of other things happening! But another study about its health benefits, this time in regards to atrial fibrillation, brought it to my editors’ attention. Rather than just report on those findings they’ve asked me to take a broader view of the issue, which I appreciate.

MN: First let me comment on this study.  It is trying to tell me that 1-3 ounces of chocolate a month produces measurable health benefits?  That seems incredible and probably is, particularly because nothing is said about dose relationships.

CK:  How do you explain briefly to consumers why studies of health benefits linked to a single food are problematic/not terribly useful at best? (You’ve used the term “nutrifluff” before; is that still what might apply here?)

MN: People eat many different kinds of food every day.  The authors of this study say confounding factors might be involved.  That means that people who eat moderate amounts of chocolate (1-3 ounces a month is not much) might eat healthier diets, exercise more, or have other habits that reduce atrial fibrillation.

CK:  When it comes to chocolate specifically—how has industry shaped the public discussion of chocolate’s health benefits? MARS has obviously played quite a crucial role with its whole Center for Cocoa Health Science and its marketing of the CocoaVia supplement … how much influence has that single company had, and how would you advise consumers to view the research/claims tied to that type of industry funding?

MN: Mars is careful to say that cocoa processing into chocolate normally destroys flavonoids, which is why it developed a special preservation process and provides flavonoids in capsules, not chocolate.  But people tend to interpret the studies as “chocolate is really good for me.”  The study at issue here is independently funded.  In general, industry-funded studies come to conclusions favorable to the sponsor.  They require especially cautious interpretation.  But this one does too because it does not seem plausible.

CK: Like much of the research on the purported health benefits of chocolate, the new findings about atrial fibrillation come from an observational study. How do you typically explain the limitations of this type of research, and what the average health news consumer might not understand about the differences between correlation and causation?

MN: This study obtained information about chocolate consumption from food frequency questionnaires in which people tick off the number of times they have eaten a food in a week, month, or year, depending on how the question is asked.  I find these things impossible to fill out because I can’t remember at that level of specificity.  Chocolate shows up as a factor but other foods might too.  That’s why you can’t say chocolate is a cause of reduced atrial fibrillation; that observation could be due to any number of other factors.

CK: Even in randomized controlled trials—what other factors might wise consumers keep in mind when evaluating research? (I’m thinking about how often studies use the types or amounts of chocolate people regularly eat, rather than extracts/purified versions/large quantities, as well as whether they evaluate clinically significant outcomes like disease and mortality vs. isolated biomarkers or other less meaningful endpoints.)

MN: Interpretation of studies always has to be done in the context of everything else that is known about the topic.  One study should not change food choices, especially if it is industry-sponsored.  Anytime I hear “everything you thought you knew about nutrition is wrong,” a red flag goes up.  That’s not how science works.

CK:  Anything else you’d say overall about the role of a food like chocolate in a nutritious diet, and how much these health claims should/shouldn’t influence individuals’ regular habits?

MN: Chocolate is candy, not a health food.  Candy in moderation is just fine.  Every food in moderation is just fine.  Maybe the people in that study practiced moderation pretty easily and that’s why they came out as healthier.