Our Review Summary
This story reported on the latest study, among "mounting evidence", that suggests that small amounts of dark chocolate may slightly lower blood pressure. But the story never explained how much blood pressure dropped in the study. It never explained anything about how the research was done. It didn’t cite the source of the new evidence. It didn’t interview anyone involved in the research, nor did it reflect any meaningful input from anyone knowledgeable about this area of research. (CBS did interview a Center for Science in the Public Interest spokesperson, but the clips they chose to use from her interview didn’t add much.)
While this report at least hinted that portion size control was an important factor, the story contained a very limited amount of factual information for consumers to use for decision making.
Criteria
Not Applicable
The story didn’t discuss costs, but most people know the cost of chocolate products, even ballpark costs of more expensive imports.
Not Satisfactory
The benefit reported was a "slightly lower blood pressure in people with hypertension." But it didn’t say how much.
The study was conducted in a group of individuals who were prehypertensive or had stage-1 hypertension; there was no benefit in terms of blood pressure reduction at 6 weeks, however after 12 weeks of dark chocolate consumption, there was a statistically significant nearly 2.5 mmHg reduction in systolic pressure and by 18 weeks, it was nearly 3.0 mmHg lower. Why not tell viewers just how much BP dropped?
Satisfactory
Although not explicit, this piece did allude to weight gain as a potential problem with advocating consumption of chocolate. It could have mentioned that with the portion of dark chocolate used in the study, no weight gain was seen during the 18 weeks of study.
Not Satisfactory
This report did mention that while there have been several published studies which found an association between reduction in blood pressure and consumption of small amounts of dark chocolate, the study which prompted this piece was one not sponsored by chocolate manufactorers.
However, it did not include any mention of where this study was published. (It was published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (July 4, 2007, vol 298). This detail might help viewers weigh the credibility of the health claim being made. The story also failed to give any indication of the kind of study undertaken.
Satisfactory
No overt disease-mongering.
Not Satisfactory
The only "expert" interview in the story was with the nutrition director of the Center for Science in the Public Interest. But the interview bites they used from her didn’t add much to the piece, so we’re left yearning for some expert interpretation of the findings.
Not Satisfactory
The study that this story reported on found one particular type of dark chocolate (Ritter Sport Halbbitter) had an effect on blood pressure. While the story was helpful in that it included information about portion size in terms a typical consumer could understand (i.e. about one and a half Hershey’s dark chocolate kisses), it failed to provide information about the availability of the chocolate used in this study. Is it common? Is it found in many other products?
Satisfactory
This piece appropriately mentioned that the study reported on was part of a growing body of evidence that finds consumption of small amounts of dark chocolate has a blood pressure lowering effect.
Satisfactory
Does not appear to rely solely or largely on a press release.
Total Score: 4 of 9 Satisfactory
Comments
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
Our Comments Policy
But before leaving a comment, please review these notes about our policy.
You are responsible for any comments you leave on this site.
This site is primarily a forum for discussion about the quality (or lack thereof) in journalism or other media messages (advertising, marketing, public relations, medical journals, etc.) It is not intended to be a forum for definitive discussions about medicine or science.
We will delete comments that include personal attacks, unfounded allegations, unverified claims, product pitches, profanity or any from anyone who does not list a full name and a functioning email address. We will also end any thread of repetitive comments. We don”t give medical advice so we won”t respond to questions asking for it.
We don”t have sufficient staffing to contact each commenter who left such a message. If you have a question about why your comment was edited or removed, you can email us at feedback@healthnewsreview.org.
There has been a recent burst of attention to troubles with many comments left on science and science news/communication websites. Read “Online science comments: trolls, trash and treasure.”
The authors of the Retraction Watch comments policy urge commenters:
We”re also concerned about anonymous comments. We ask that all commenters leave their full name and provide an actual email address in case we feel we need to contact them. We may delete any comment left by someone who does not leave their name and a legitimate email address.
And, as noted, product pitches of any sort – pushing treatments, tests, products, procedures, physicians, medical centers, books, websites – are likely to be deleted. We don”t accept advertising on this site and are not going to give it away free.
The ability to leave comments expires after a certain period of time. So you may find that you’re unable to leave a comment on an article that is more than a few months old.
You might also like