I mentioned it in a Starbucks thread a while back, but you’re absolutely correct that it wasn’t reported on its own thread.
Mast and Ghirardelli’s 86% have become my ‘go to’ dark chocolate these days. The CR report really bummed me out, but it also made me change my dark chocolate habits.
Got to figure out how to get in these class action lawsuits so I can spend hours and hours documenting my dark chocolate consumption so I can collect a settlement check for $3.42. I suspect that the lawyers will get a tad more than that.
Whilst it’s a good idea to be aware of potential biases in research, if your own bias is to question every industry funded study just because it’s industry funded, then there’s a strong potential to miss the real reasons for questioning what you read. That the conclusions drawn might be wrong, for instance…and they’ll be just as wrong if they’d been NIH funded or by a no strings attached grant from a charitable organisation.
With the health halo that’s been promoted for, say, dark chocolate or red wine…anything of an observational nature is likely to be skewed by other habits of the observed demographic. The confounding variables that Ben Goldacre mentioned in the TED talk I linked to. Bench research studying the isolated components at cellular level might give some interesting answers but avouds the most obvious question…i.e. how much of the stuff does a person have to eat/drink to gain the benefits from the changes measured on individual cells?
I’d wager that the amount might not fall into the energy budget of a reasonable weight management eating plan (the candy) or within the capacity of even a healthy liver to metabolise the stuff (the booze)