A colleague forwarded to me a link to an article - Are You Getting Conned by Cheap Chocolate ?

The problem I have with the article is that the author (anonymous Food Babe, or FUD Babe - Fear Uncertainty Doubt - as I will now refer to her) conflates candies and mass market confections with chocolate.

Is the Godiva ingredients list clean? Nope. Not by a long shot. And the author is right when she claims that the allure of of Godiva is good branding, marketing, and advertising — not that it is a quality product and it's never been advertised as being "natural" or "healthy."

But all of the products FUD Babe presents as being bad for you in this article are not rightly chocolate - they are all candies that contain varying amounts of chocolate. And, apart from Godiva, they are all mass market brands and products (Almond Joy, Ghirardelli Mint Patty, Russell Stover Pecan Delight, Butterfinger, plain M&Ms) and they are all candies. Not chocolate.

I also have a problem with the choice of "expert" opinion on vanillin. Rather than going to a widely-cited and referenced source, the link to explain what vanillin is goes to a hobbyist blogger . While the blogger might have a background in biochemistry, the 'nitty-gritty" is written from the perspective that vanillin is a villainous substance, and the article lacks background and nuance. Compare with the Wikipedia entry on vanillin .

My objection is that the article is sensationalist. It's headlined and written to spread fear, uncertainty, and doubt. Not that the article doesn't make some good points about eating candy in moderation and looking closely at ingredient labels to understand what goes in to what you're eating.

Unfortunately, too many people believe that you have to be sensationalist and appeal to people's fears to attract attention and get your point across.

Brands are not out there trying to "trick" consumers into buying questionable ingredients. The list of ingredients is right there, out in the open. Consumers can choose to not read the ingredient labels and eat stuff that is not good for them. That does not make the products "despicable."

The comments are interesting. Some of the commenters show good knowledge of the issues surrounding chocolate candy and can distinguish between candy and chocolate though a lot of people are confused about what "fair" trade means.

What are your thoughts?

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
clay - http://www.thechocolatelife.com/clay/

updated by @clay: 04/09/15 11:15:13

Fear is a fantasticaly effective marketing tool.  Opinion based advocates have used this approach effectively with their core group.  It's been pretty well established that most folks already have made their minds up about a topic, and leverage opion based advocacy to reinforce those pre-existing beliefs.  I've long ago stopped trying to fight that fight, precisely because the minds have already been made up, facts be damned.  As someone in the news once famously said - never let the facts get in the way of a good story!

I suspect she's making a comfortable living off this approach, which is why we continue to see it.  Sensationalism only calls more attention to her, which results in more money for her, which becomes a self fueling fly wheel that propogates it further.

God bless the internet, where everyone's anonymous, peer review is unnecessary, and you become an expert in everything simply by claiming so.

Although not obvious until you look really closely, the text links to the products she recommends are Amazon affiliate links. SO - FUD Babe is making money off all the direct sales of chocolate plus any other sales the buyer makes on Amazon until the affiliate tracking cookie expires or is reset.

There was a very interesting study that was released to day about the influence of commentors. Depending on the context, just saying you are a doctor (for example) even if you are not actually a doctor, can have more weight and influence on people's perception than an article actually written by a bona fide expert.

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
clay - http://www.thechocolatelife.com/clay/

updated by @clay: 02/11/15 16:06:59

Funny you say that - my wife's a professor who researches factors that impact credibility - i wonder if it's her study you read.

The  article I mentioned appeared in Ars Technica today. It references a  paper published in the Journal of Advertising: Reexamining Health Messages in the Digital Age: A Fresh Look at Source Credibility Effects. Three authors out of Washington State.

 

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
clay - http://www.thechocolatelife.com/clay/