Study Finds

Study Finds

Organic chocolate may actually be worse for you, research shows

- Aug 1, 2024, 8:38 AM

Organic chocolate may actually be worse for you, research shows

Dark chocolate

(Photo by Victor Moussa on Shutterstock)

WASHINGTON — Chocoholics, brace yourselves. That velvety square of dark chocolate melting on your tongue might be harboring an unsavory secret. A new study from George Washington University uncovers a bitter truth about our beloved cocoa treats: many contain potentially dangerous levels of heavy metals like lead and cadmium.

Over eight years, researchers analyzed 72 popular cocoa products sold in the United States, including dark chocolate bars found on grocery store shelves. Their findings paint a concerning picture of contamination that could leave chocolate lovers feeling less than sweet.

“We all love chocolate but it’s important to indulge with moderation as with other foods that contain heavy metals including large fish like tuna and unwashed brown rice,” says Leigh Frame, director of integrative medicine and associate professor of clinical research and leadership at the GW School of Medicine and Health Sciences, in a statement. “While it’s not practical to avoid heavy metals in your food entirely, you must be cautious of what you are eating and how much.”

Chocolate bars close up
You can never have too much of a good thing, but scientists warn dark chocolate, especially organic types, may contain high levels of toxic metals. (Photo by Pixabay on Pexels)

The study found that 43% of products tested exceeded California’s strict Proposition 65 limits for lead, while 35% surpassed the cadmium threshold. These heavy metals are known to be harmful even in small amounts, especially for children and pregnant women. They can damage the brain, kidneys, and other organs.

Perhaps most surprisingly, products labeled as “organic” tended to have significantly higher levels of both lead and cadmium compared to conventional chocolate. This flies in the face of common beliefs about organic foods being inherently safer or healthier.

The good news? Arsenic levels were universally low across all samples tested. Additionally, nearly all products (97%) fell below the FDA’s less stringent interim reference levels for lead.

For most adults, enjoying an occasional serving of dark chocolate is unlikely to pose major health risks. The median concentrations of heavy metals found were below even the strictest safety thresholds. However, frequent indulgence or consuming multiple servings could potentially add up to concerning levels of exposure, especially when combined with other dietary sources of these metals.

Eating chocolate
Researchers say parents should be especially cautious about how much chocolate kids are eating. (Photo by Andriyko Podilnyk on Unsplash)

Subpar quality control

The study highlights the need for more consistent testing and quality control in the chocolate industry. It also raises questions about cumulative dietary exposure to heavy metals from various food sources.

Frame emphasizes that while chocolate can have potential health benefits, including improved cardiovascular health and cognitive performance, these must be weighed against the risks of contamination. A typical serving size of dark chocolate is one ounce, but consumers should be mindful of how much they’re consuming, especially if choosing organic varieties.

Experts advise chocolate lovers not to panic, but to be aware of their consumption habits. Those concerned about exposure may want to research specific brands and look for products that have been independently tested for heavy metals.

As this issue gains more attention, it may drive positive changes in the cocoa industry. In the meantime, savoring those chocolate indulgences a bit more slowly and sparingly might be the wisest approach for health-conscious consumers.

Paper Summary

Methodology

The GW researchers analyzed 72 consumer cocoa products, including dark chocolate, every other year over an eight-year period. They tested for contamination with lead, cadmium, and arsenic using sophisticated laboratory techniques. The team then compared the levels found to various safety standards, including California’s strict Proposition 65 limits and the FDA’s guidelines.

Results

  • 43% of the products studied exceeded the maximum allowable dose level for lead.
  • 35% of the products studied exceeded the maximum allowable dose level for cadmium.
  • None of the products exceeded the maximum allowable dose level for arsenic.
  • Organic labeled products showed higher levels of both lead and cadmium compared to non-organic products.

Limitations

The study focused on a limited number of products, which may not fully represent the entire chocolate market. Samples were collected over several years, so some brands or formulations may have changed during that time. The researchers didn’t assess how often people actually consume these products or calculate total dietary exposure from all sources. Additionally, the health impacts of these contaminant levels weren’t directly studied.

Discussion and Key Takeaways

For the average consumer, consuming a single serving of these cocoa products may not pose significant health risks based on the median concentrations found. However, consuming multiple servings or combining consumption with other sources of heavy metals could lead to exposures that exceed the maximum allowable dose level.

The study highlights the need for consumers to be aware of potential cumulative exposure risks, particularly with cocoa products labeled organic, as they may have higher heavy metal concentrations. While dark chocolate has been suggested to have health benefits, including improved cardiovascular health and cognitive performance, these potential benefits must be weighed against the risks of heavy metal contamination.

Funding and Disclosures

The study authors declared that they received no financial support for this research. However, three of the authors are employed by ConsumerLab.com, an independent product testing company. This connection is disclosed in the paper to ensure transparency about potential conflicts of interest.

StudyFinds sets out to find new research that speaks to mass audiences — without all the scientific jargon. The stories we publish are digestible, summarized versions of research that are intended to inform the reader as well as stir civil, educated debate. StudyFinds Staff articles are AI assisted, but always thoroughly reviewed and edited by a Study Finds staff member. Read our AI Policy for more information.

Our Editorial Team

Steve Fink

Editor-in-Chief

Sophia Naughton

Associate Editor