Track your comments!
[x]


When you register, comments on your articles and replies to your comments appear here. Register Now!

Sign in to your account
[x]

Not a Scientific Blogging member yet?

Register Now for a Free Scientificblogging.com Account

  • Customize your profile with pictures, banner, a blogroll and more.
  • Leave comments on articles, add other members to your friend lists, chat with people on the site.
  • Write blog posts that can be seen by hundreds of thousands of readers.

It's free and it only takes a minute!

Already a Scientific Blogging member?

Sign In Now

Banner
By Cash S | February 19th 2007 01:40 PM | 5 comments | Print | E-mail | Track Comments


In case you were hiding under a rock, there was the scientific equivalent of an earth-shattering thunderclap that emanated from the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) meetings held February 15th-19th in San Francisco - to be honest, they pretend everything they say is big news, you can see 20 articles from it just on this site - but I mean this was legitimately big news.

Was it that they took their own vote and decided that there is global warming after all? No, someone jumping on the climate change bandwagon is nothing new.

Was it that your astrological sign can tell you what medical problems you will have? That one was a lot of fun but still not it.

No, the most surprising news was that chocolate makes you smarter.

Now, if you're anything like me - an outrageously sexy scientist outside but inside an irascible prick who likes to puncture junk science - this probably set off some alarms. America has, I am told, a terrific obesity problem but a scientific group says eating more chocolate is smart.

So I looked into this and found that a segment of researchers claim that not only does chocolate make you smarter, it might protect against cancer and diabetes(!) plus keep your arteries flowing smoothly. Heck, one scientist even went so far as to write an article on 10 scientific reasons to love chocolate. That's a whole lot of reasons to eat chocolate.

Yeah, I smell corporate porkbarrelling. Except for that last article. At least 7 of those 10 were really good reasons. And chocolate is yummy.


Anyway, I did some research and here is what I found:

Mars,Inc. has spent the last 18 years funding chocolate studies. So what, you say, they're in the chocolate business so they need to research it. Well, Philip Morris is in the cigarette business and Exxon-Mobil is in the oil business but if they said smoking cigarettes and burning more oil actually improved our health, you would be a little skeptical.

Right here in California, at UC Davis, Mars,Inc. funds 20 investigators and created a chair in the nutrition department. That's right, the nutrition department. Mars states they have spent $10 million on research just at UC Davis since 1997.

In fact, on the entire "Neurobiology Of Chocolate" panel at the AAAS meeting, only one of the researchers was not funded by Mars. One of the panel's organizers is Harold Schmitz, who just happens to be a visiting professor at UC Davis and the Chief Science Officer of ... Mars, Inc.

Wow, what a coincidence.

Carl Keen, chairman of the UC Davis nutrition department which gets all that money, said, "If I have a choice between a company paying for something or my tax dollars paying for it, I'd prefer the company pay." No kidding. Very Republican of you. Do you think they would give you all that money if you weren't producing research they like?

Merrill Goozner, director of the integrity in science project at the Center for Science in the Public Interest, isn't buying it. "This is the nutrition department, for crying out loud. I think taxpayers would be pretty upset about that." Goozner co-authored a paper called Relationship between Funding Source and Conclusion among Nutrition-Related Scientific Articles so this is a topic of interest to him. The conclusion in that paper? Studies funded by industry were four to eight times as likely to reach conclusions in the financial interests of sponsors.

Virtually unmentioned during the panel discussion was the fact that most of the chocolate people actually eat is low in flavanols and high in sugar. Instead they described how Kuna Indians in Panama have almost no diabetes yet consume chocolate every day. As if the chocolate and not the exercise involved in being a native is what kept them in shape.

What's next, a study showing that coffee plus chocolate cures Alzheimers? We'll see. For now, Ian MacDonald, professor at the University of Nottingham Medical School and member of the Mars Nutrition Research Council ( he is also funded by Mars ) says consumers should only eat moderate amounts of chocolate. When asked how much "moderate" was, he cited half a "Snickers" bar.

Who makes "Snickers"? You guessed it.

Now I have to get to work making this a full-length article. The Hershey's people think I make some really good points here.


Comments

When your knee finishes jerking, I suggest you read, or have read to you, the entire study, as well as related studies. The postiive aspects of cocoa and high content dark chocolate have been well established for years, along with the less than positve apsects of diluted, chocolates with high fat content. Sheesh. You think becasue you have an attractive, well designed website that this gives you insight?

Cash's picture
I certainly agree we shouldn't question the data because of the funding. It's not fair to say scientists unconvinced about second-hand smoke who are funded by tobacco companies are selecting data, nor global-warming skeptics funded by Exxon.

There's likewise no reason to be skeptical that Mars funds an entire committee that then declares chocolate medically terrific.

I understand your scepticism. I sell Healthy Chocolate. Not by Mars. By MXI Corp. It's called XOCAI. Check out my website. www.mxi.myvoffice.com/16839 Our chocolate is VERY healthy and it tastes good too. Hope you enjoy the tour. I might even send you some of this chocolate. Have a great healthy chocolate day. Pat

Thank you for being a consumer watch dog. With something like this, the headlines are very misleading (i.e. "Chocolate May Be Good For Your Memory" (San Francisco Chronicle), "Cocoa May Star in Role as Brain Booster" (Denver Post), and the public needs to know what's behind the press releases. By the way, it is Mars that is really slick when it comes to publicity and marketing. Interesting that a low-budget blog like yours would get accused of that. Whoever it is must be Republican--they like to reverse everything.

Hank's picture
Low budget?? Sure, we don't make any money but we're not 'low budget.' Think of us as 'economically challenged' instead.

Not having VC or corporate ( or activist ) funding does mean we can let all sides write here. And we do. Though finding someone to bad-mouth Mars is never easy. They make M&Ms, after all.

Everyone loves M&Ms.

P.S. Science Mom did the other side of the candy controversy. On Valentine's Day, no less.

Add a comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <sup> <sub> <a> <em> <strong> <center> <cite> <code> <TH><ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <img> <br> <p> <blockquote> <strike> <object> <param> <embed> <del> <pre> <b> <i> <table> <tbody> <div> <tr> <td> <h1> <h2> <h3> <h4> <h5> <h6> <hr> <iframe>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
CAPTCHA
If you register, you will never be bothered to prove you are human again. And you get a real editor toolbar to use instead of this HTML thing that wards off spam bots.