A simple search for “is chocolate good for you” reveals that everyone from Harvard’s medical school, to Bon Appetit, to CNN has the same answer: emphatically yes.
Candy that was once reserved for special occasions has become a health food, something that should be incorporated into a wholesome diet — and this didn’t happen by accident.
Industry-funded nutrition studies are widely responsible for headlines like, “Walnuts are the healthiest nut, scientists say,” “Superfoods: the evidence” and “14 Science-Backed Health Benefits of Garlic.”
The wording of these titles is no mistake — consumers want validation that what they are eating is healthy, even it its not, and the idea that science backs up their dietary choices can be incredibly powerful.
Industry-funded nutrition studies began in the late 1960s, when the Sugar Research Foundation quietly funded a project that sought to identify the dietary causes of heart disease. This research project was guided by the Sugar Research Foundation in several ways — it set the objective, submitted evidence and received drafts of the paper that would eventually be published in the acclaimed New England Journal of Medicine.
It should come as no surprise that the results of the study identified fat and cholesterol as primary causes of heart disease, while the role of sugar took a backseat.
This study, and ones like it, tend to shape the conversation about health because these studies are published in journals. And this is not to say that the findings of the study were wrong, just that the process means that the findings don’t exhibit the kind of objectivity standard we should hold scientific studies to. Furthermore, the effect of studies like these can steer the focus away from other, valid research opportunities.
For example, the research on heart disease has largely been focused on the role of fat and cholesterol since the 1960s disregarding the effects of diets high in sugar. This effect was felt for decades, during which time people worked hard to eliminate the supposedly bad fats and cholesterol, while ignoring sugar. The sugar industry had tangible effects on many people’s health and only recently has the conversation around this topic begun to include sugar again.
These kinds of industry sponsorships aren’t limited to actions that began in the 1960s. Coca-Cola recently funded studies that promoted exercise, rather than diet, as a better way to induce weight loss, in an effort to shift the blame from sugary drinks.
Today, this may be more evident in the rise of different so-called super foods — such as dark chocolate. Some large chocolate companies, like Mars, have scientific arms of their company that produce peer-reviewed and publish studies which focus on the effect of chocolate on health.
Once again, the results were not surprising. Industry funding of studies about the health effects of chocolate found almost all the studies to report positive effects, according to an analysis by Vox.
Studies like those funded by the chocolate industry, Big Sugar and Coca-Cola affect consumers’ decisions, scientific inquiry and resource allocation. Well-intentioned consumers may seek out heart-healthy foods and pick up what is essentially a candy bar as a result of these studies. Scientists restricted the focus of their study for decades on the effects of fats and cholesterol, misleading doctors and patients seeking to tackle heart disease. The focus of these studies took away the opportunity to publish unbiased studies on the health effects of different diets and foods.
In order the prevent the mistakes of previous decades, there needs to be more regulation on the funding of scientific studies. While many journals have high standards for what gets published in the form of peer-reviews publications need to be looking harder at the sources of funding for these projects.
Beyond the scientific journals, consumers need unbiased sources of information for that which affects their health. This would require changing the conversation around so-called healthy foods and diets. Instead of finding validation in any article that validates their choices, consumers should have access to sources which could provide unbiased information. This might come in the form of laws regulating industry practices for funding nutrition studies or increased public funding of studies, to reduce the effect of industry funding.
Standards like these would level the playing field for research — consumers would have accurate, unbiased information, and searches for “is chocolate good for you?” might return a more truthful answer.