Someone ought to do some really useful research on how many hundreds [thousands?] of studies have been done, usually with public funds, on the amazing health benefits of chocolate. [This one was paid for by Australian taxpayers, with help from a drug company, but we in the USA have had, and paid for, no end of similar, repetitive urgent studies.]
These studies do have several unquestionable side benefits:
- They keep the whole apparatus of research nutritionists, statisticians, assistants, interns, et al, in grant monies
- They keep mindless health journalists supplied with a predictable flow of collusively-headlined copy
- They corroborate and ratify the food desires and fantasies of multi-generations of yuppies, especially women, many of whom ‘feel’ thereby ‘scientifically’ ’empowered’ to denounce less enlightened mortals who eat ‘bad’ foods — like meat, for example.
Why ‘collusively headlined’? Well, the article might much more informatively been titled: ‘Dark Chocolate, Eaten By-Itself, Added to Long List of Flavenoid-Rich Foods’ Leafy greens, beans, eggplants, green tea, soy products already provide ample, less expensive sources of flavenoids —- and they don’t require ten years of consumption to show meaningful beneficial results.
The unfortunate effect of the constant flow of reported-on and, yes, collusively-headlined studies blaring the great health benefits, no matter how trivial, of chocolate is to create and/or confirm, in the chocolate- and-dessert-fixated sectors of the general public, the welcome, if-erroneous, conviction that chocolate desserts, cookies, brownies are approved by ‘science, because, after all, we all know that “chocolate is good for you”.
Peter di Lorenzi