BYU announcement plays readers with far-fetched idea that chocolate can prevent diabetes

Does the news release adequately quantify the benefits of the treatment/test/product/procedure?

Not Satisfactory

This news release would have been fine if it had stuck to the statement in the last paragraph that the research points the way toward refining specific compounds and then testing them as potential treatments. But that measured summary is negated by the absurd suggestion near the top of the release that people might get some benefit by eating a lot of cocoa (even though the release then questions its own suggestion). It’s strange that one of the researchers gave a quote about eating chocolate when their journal article clearly states that the key insulin-secreting beta cells “won’t be exposed to sufficient concentrations under physiologic conditions.”

Neither the release or the study provide any hard numbers for context, only a description of the results and the drawings, which make the differences seem much less than “dramatic.”

Does the news release adequately explain/quantify the harms of the intervention?

Not Satisfactory

Aside from mentioning that chocolate has a lot of sugar in it, harms are not discussed in the news release. Not only is eating lots of chocolate (stuffed with fat and sugar) likely to increase, not decrease, a person’s risk of developing diabetes, the research paper states that other cocoa components they tested made things worse by decreasing insulin secretion.

Does the news release seem to grasp the quality of the evidence?

Not Satisfactory

The release leads with a tease about people eating chocolate to prevent diabetes, but in fact the study included neither people nor chocolate, only rat cell cultures exposed to a variety of compounds extracted from cocoa. The rat cells produced more insulin when exposed to one of the components they tested, while the cells produced less insulin in the presence of other components, as well as when exposed to total cocoa extract.

The researchers clearly stated that, “The purpose of this study was to 1) determine the effect of different cocoa flavanol fractions on β-cell function and 2) identify potential mechanisms underlying these effects.” While there is a reference deep in the release to the actual (very narrow) purpose and results of this study (identifying a compound worthy of further study), that note is obscured by all the preceding hype, images and cute references to eating chocolate as medicine.

Does the news release establish the availability of the treatment/test/product/procedure?

Not Satisfactory

Readers of the entire release are told that this work is an early step toward developing compounds for testing. However, the headline, lead paragraphs and images (featuring Hershey’s bars) all conspire to imply that the researchers looked at chocolate found on candy shelves.

Cocoa is widely available, the compound being investigated in this study is not, and the researchers don’t give any idea about how hard it is to extract it.

Does the news release include unjustifiable, sensational language, including in the quotes of researchers?

Not Satisfactory

The first quote in the release overwhelms all the cautionary statements that follow:

“You probably have to eat a lot of cocoa, and you probably don’t want it to have a lot of sugar in it,” said study author Jeffery Tessem, assistant professor of nutrition, dietetics and food science at BYU. “It’s the compound in cocoa you’re after.”