FoodBanter.com - View Single Post

at Tue, 10 Jan 2006 20:15:51 GMT in >,
(Dee Randall) wrote :

>
>"Boron Elgar" > wrote in message
.. .
>> On Tue, 10 Jan 2006 08:51:33 -0500, Margaret Suran
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>I noticed something else. Some of the large Chain Drug Stores, Rite
>>>Aid in this particular case, are starting to carry more dark chocolate
>>>items. ...
>>>
>>>Is this happening only in the New York City area or did others notice
>>>it in their stores?
....
>>
>> I think part of it is driven by the broad success of higher priced
>> brands such as Dove & Scharffenberger in groceries and partly by the
>> Atkins craze, as darker chocolates have less sugar & seem to be the
>> "sneak treat" of low-carbers.

It's been pointed out also that there is the antioxidant "discovery". But
really, I think this is semi-marketing after the fact. The wave of dark
chocolates hitting the market actually started to happen before Atkins, and
before the determination of the better antioxidant properties, and I
suspect the research was in part carried out and indeed possibly even
funded in order to justify scientifically a market for dark chocolate. It's
a not-very-well-kept secret of science that much if not most of it is
marketing in disguise, going something like this: Large Company A has a new
product or line that they want to sell. As it stands there's no
particularly good reason why people might buy it, or perhaps there are
particularly good reasons *not* to buy it (e.g. possible health impacts,
environmental problems, resource overuse, whatever). So what the company
does is fund a lot of studies at various institutions in order to, in the
first place, come up with a good reason why the product should be used, or
in the second case, to refute the negatives. Then when the scientific
studies come out, these results naturally get high press, often in part
because the companies themselves prime the media, people catch on to the
findings, and it doesn't take long before you've got a new trend, backed by
scientific evidence. Now, the science itself isn't flawed, nor are the
investigators themselves carrying out their research in anything other than
an impartial manner. But it must be understood that the *motivation* for
that research is strongly biassed and has predecided conclusions in mind.
(This is coming from the companies, not from the scientists). Thus it's
usually no coincidence that scientific study, not to mention popular
appeal, often seems to coincide with new availabilities. Sometimes it's the
discoveries that drive the production, but more often than not it's the
other way round. It is therefore important to take such findings with a
very strong grain of salt.

Anyway, a lot of the recent increase in dark chocolate availability in the
USA I think has to do with what was starting to happen about 10 years ago -
the beginning of more widespread distribution of quality chocolate in the
country. With this new exposure, people started to appreciate how good
chocolate could be, stopped treating it as a commodity, and bought more
quality chocolate, increasing the size of the market, which brought still
more companies in... and you have the beginning of a strong upward spiral.

>I'm not a low-carber, and I don't sneak for my treats, but I think
>'sneak treat' is a cute phrase. Over a certain percentage of chocolate
>makes me just as ill as the milk chocolate of about 58% to 64%.

High-percentage chocolate has more of the mood-altering chemicals
theobromine, phenyethanine, and caffeine. Like any strong stimulant these
lead to a quick high and a precipitous crash. In severe cases it will make
you dizzy, spacey, and paranoid. Unless you have a strong tolerance from
repeated high-percentage consumption, it's likely that in anything more
than relatively small amounts, the drugs will send you into orbit. It
doesn't help that most high-percentage chocolates are sold in 100g bars,
which, for the average person, is far too much. A new 50g size that's
becoming popular is more realistic. In any case, this is probably what's
making you sick.

--
Alex Rast

(remove d., .7, not, and .NOSPAM to reply)