Talk:Dark chocolate

Vitamin B12

The article reads: "Dark chocolate is a form of chocolate containing only cocoa solids, cocoa butter and sugar." And none of them contain Vitamin B12. How come the USDA finds 0.28μg, after all 12% of the daily need in it? I find no other source supporting B12 being in dark chocolate. Sambirano (talk) 13:27, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

The USDA FoodData Central database is the trusted analytical standard for food nutrient contents, and is used for most WP food articles. We should accept their analyses as the best available.

These USDA search results show that 4 dark chocolate "legacy" foods and 2 dark chocolate "survey" foods have about the same amount of vitamin B12 per 100 g.

I'm aware of no explanation for the presence of B12 in cocoa beans, although this methods study found it in "cocoa beverages". Some dark chocolate manufacturers may use an additive containing B12.

Asking vitamin expert David notMD for thoughts. Zefr (talk) 20:27, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

"cocoa beverages" are not "dark chocolate", they often contain milk products, or the B12 might be added.

12 days ago I asked the FDA:

"Dark Chocolate & Vitamin-B12 Dark Chocolate as I know it (and I know a lot of brands) consists of cocoa (mass), cocoa butter and sugar. And sometimes soya lecithin and/or vanilla. None of them contain any Vitamin B 12. How come that in your table 0,28 µg B12 is listed? That is a lot, and I find it misleading. E.g. people on vegan diet must be able to rely on such values."

I received the answer: "We will get back to you as soon as possible!"

It seems to be difficult to answer that question, and I guess why.

I have tasted many, many brands of dark chocolate. They all bear a list of ingredients. E.g. cocoa, sugar, and cocoa butter, [and sometimes Bourbon vanilla]. None of them could contain that considerably amount of B12. So I will erase that entry in the table as long as there is no reliable second source for it and the FDA is not able to explain it. Sambirano (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 07:45, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Dark chocolate/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Rollinginhisgrave (talk · contribs) 02:57, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: CosXZ (talk · contribs) 19:17, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Stable?

The article is stable Cos ^{(X + Z)} 19:17, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Image check

• File:Green and Black's dark chocolate bar 2.jpg: all good
• File:Spanish-Unknown-A-Man-Scraping-Chocolate-69 20 1-739x1024.jpg: all good
• File:ChocolaterieGrenoble.jpg: all good
• File:2023 Czekolada gorzka Wawel (3).jpg: all good

Overall the images are good and are appropriate. Cos ^{(X + Z)} 19:17, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

OR check

• sorted by when the check was done on each section.

Metal content

• all good

Nutrition

• all good

Research

• as of 2017, no high-quality clinical research had been conducted to evaluate the effects of compounds found in cocoa on physiological outcomes, such as blood pressure, Where is this mentioned in [51]
• Flavanols found in dark chocolate include the monomers catechin and epicatechin, and (to a lesser extent) the polymeric procyanidins, which remain under laboratory research. Where is this mentioned in [51]

I'm pinging Zefr who has dealt with this sourcing, and will be able to pinpoint it a lot better than I can. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 03:14, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Concerning this source published in 2017, the authors discuss under Overall completeness and applicability of evidence and subsequent sections on the quality of evidence the high variability, bias, heterogeneity, and absence of clear effect (this review found changes in blood pressure of 1-2 mmHg, i.e., nothing physiologically). The authors stated there was "No long‐term trials investigating the effect of cocoa products on clinical outcomes are available to shed light on the effects of cocoa on cardiovascular events", I.e., no high-quality clinical research exists.

Concerning the statement of flavanols, the authors reviewed primary research on these compounds under Description of intervention. The same compounds are itemized in several other locations in the article.

• Note: I would like to propose a change in the format of references within the article. [Sfnp|Nestle|2018|loc=Chapter 4: Chocolate Research] - this format is unconventional in medical articles, and seems awkward, unnecessary, and potentially confusing to the general user. As a consumer of such information, I prefer to see the conventional format for the whole source, as it existed for years in the format, <ref details>.

Zefr (talk) 17:29, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Zefr Thankyou for this. I am deeply grateful for your expertise and work on this article, especially keeping editors from adding junk health claims for years.

Re sourcing; I changed it because

a) I was using fewer websites and more books/journals as sources, and this works better with page numbers than individual sources or using ref and then separately template:rf,

b) I want to get this to FA and they prefer sfn formatted referencing, and

c) it's a lot more accessible in source editor as you can actually read the text around the sources.

I hate the formatting of the Nestle source, but the reason it was like that was because I only had access to the ebook so couldn't use better pinpoint referencing. Because you commented this, I've tracked down a physical copy at a library and converted it to [Sfnp|Nestle|2018|pp=54–59] which I hope appears more intuitive. If you feel strongly about this, I can convert it back to the referencing style the article used before it was rewritten. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 09:44, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Legal requirements

• all good

Projections

• all good

Variants

• Single source dark chocolates are often from countries such as Ecuador and Venezuela. Fruity, astringent and acidic flavors are highlighted in these chocolates, while flavors of smoke and mold flavors are avoided as they cannot be removed by further processing. Not mentioned in the page of this statements' source.

In my copy it is: "High cocoa content dark chocolate, greater than 70%, using cocoa beans from one source, are becoming increasingly popular. These often use flavour beans from countries such as Ecuador and Venezuela. Many descriptions of the flavour components are provided by the manufacturer concerned. Of particular importance are fruitiness, acidity and astringency. These can be determined for beans from a number of sources and then the best one chosen for the product concerned... Of equal importance is the presence of unpleasant off-flavours such as smoke and mould. These should never be used to make chocolate and can be extremely unpleasant. Further processing such as conching is unable to remove the off-flavours."

I read the wrong book. Cos ^{(X + Z)} 21:11, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

No worries. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 09:44, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Dubious sources

From WP:CITEWATCH, this source, Nutrients and this one, Frontiers in Nutrition are from publishers suspected of predatory publishing. Medical editors, certainly including myself, tend to avoid journals/publishers with reputations for author-paid publishing and/or weak or absent editorial review, i.e., such sources do not meet the standards of WP:MEDRS. If better sources cannot be substituted, it's preferable to omit the statement and dubious source altogether. Zefr (talk) 17:39, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

I've checked and these are both indexed on Scopus, so according to what I understand from the FAQ on WP:CITEWATCH, they should be fine. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 09:44, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

According to MIAR, Nutrients is included in quite a few more selective databases than most MDPI journals, so it looks good to me. Frontiers in Nutrition is in fewer selective databases but it's still better than most from same publisher. Reconrabbit 19:26, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Reference and reading clutter

Taking a general view of the article and particularly the bottom where seemingly every publication on dark chocolate is listed, one can only conclude that the article - on a rather narrow topic - is cluttered with sources, WP:REFCLUTTER, and seems to be an exhaustive catalog of publications, WP:NOTCATALOG, to which a persistent IP editor added more 'further reading' today. The encyclopedia is intended for a general literate user, such as a high school student, who would likely have little interest in the mountain of sources throughout the article and WP:REFBOMB of books and journals at the bottom. It is not intended to be a comprehensive research catalog of sources for specialists. I'll leave it to Rollinginhisgrave and CosXZ what to do with this. Zefr (talk) 22:31, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

I think the bottom appears cluttered largely because books chapters are cited individually when written by different authors: over 1/3 of the "book" references are the same book. ~ 30 high-quality unique sources seems like a reasonable amount for a lvl5 vital article. I'm interested to hear what CosXZ's impression is, as someone coming from outside the topic, and what they think can and should be cut. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 09:44, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

@Rollinginhisgrave you can simplify the refs using {{Sfnmp}} for example, a cluster of citations are currently in the 3rd paragraph of History ([25][26][27][28]). you can change the source code from {{Sfnp|Terrio|2000|p=42}}{{Sfnp|Terrio|2000|p=49}}{{Sfnp|Terrio|2000|p=227}}{{Sfnp|Terrio|2014|p=177}} to {{Sfnmp|Terrio|2000|1pp=42, 49, 227|Terrio|2014|2p=177}} Cos ^{(X + Z)} 18:32, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Done this for most. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 10:32, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

@Rollinginhisgrave Sorry if I have not responded. I think that 30 high-quality unique sources for a lvl5 vital article is fine as long as they are used. Cos ^{(X + Z)} 18:46, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

I think this passes as Earwig shows a 14.5%, it meets MoS, and meets the rest of the criteria. Cos ^{(X + Z)} 19:10, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Variants section

The following highlighted statement appears to have as its only source the technavio marketing summary, which is promotional, commercial (crazy expensive), and not WP:RS - technavio should not be used in this or any Wikipedia article.

The two sentences in question: "As of 2024, gluten-free and gourmet dark chocolates are growing in popularity. Gourmet chocolates are made using flavor cocoa, dried fruits, and using sugars such as coconut sugar."

1. attributed to technavio, what is gluten-free chocolate? This is just a misleading marketing ploy, as there are no sources of gluten in cocoa used to make dark chocolate. There are too many variants where this would apply to chocolate-covered products that use other gluten components (not dark chocolate), such as wheat, barley, rye, etc. to have this in the article without a better RS.

2. attributed to technavio, "growing in popularity" is subjective, non-WP:NPOV, and not sourced to RS.

3. attributed to technavio, flavor cocoa, dried fruits, and using sugars such as coconut sugar are used to make "gourmet chocolates". Dark chocolate for gourmet chocolate-making isn't mentioned in this technavio non-RS source. An independent RS is needed for why these ingredients are used to make a "gourmet" chocolate (no indication why such ingredients define gourmet).

4. The sentence "Single source dark chocolates are often from countries such as Ecuador and Venezuela." doesn't have a RS source. The statement stretches credulity that these two countries are singled out as suppliers of premium cocoa beans. Zefr (talk) 04:22, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Zefr Technavio: There are a lot of market research firms releasing "research" on dark chocolate. Among these, I only included technavio when writing this, as Confectionery News has covered their reports on dark chocolate. Confectionery News has an editorial board with SMEs (I came to it by reading about Kristy Leissle who is on the editorial board after reading Cocoa (book) and they flag sponsored material.

Although there are likely many market research reports used as sources on Wikipedia, this is not a good practice - such reports are a) clearly promotional and slanted to the sales concepts the market firm wants to preach, b) unavailable to the common Wikipedia user (this one costs $2500), c) misleading/misinformational (glibly states that dark chocolate provides health benefits (i.e., lowers disease risk), which clearly isn't true (fails WP:MEDRS), and d) not peer-reviewed and therefore not WP:RS. By using such a source, we are endorsing it and accepting the conclusions it makes. Better to take a dose of skepticism and avoid marketing scams about what is claimed in the report. Zefr (talk) 17:50, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

None of this responds to my points on why I determined it was RS. I am not arguing for using market research generally, but specifically this one report. a) reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. b) We are not citing the paid report, but its free overview. c) Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content. It can be an RS for market trends, which is what it is referencing, while not being RS for medical claims, which it is not. d) This is not supported by policy and guidelines.

1. I feel ambivalent about removing gluten-free chocolate. The report is evaluating the labels used by consumers and industry: I don't think "fair trade" chocolate is very fair, but we may still write fair trade chocolate sales are increasing and recognize we are not endorsing the label. I assume the gluten is referring to contamination. If you read this and still feel strongly, then I support removing. I've italicized these in the meantime. Alternatively, we can write "chocolates labelled gluten-free and gourmet"?

"Gluten-free" - an illogical term to describe chocolate - is used to attract technavio's gluten-free customers, when there is no scientific basis to justify it. By mentioning it, we perpetuate the misinformation. Zefr (talk) 17:50, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

is used to attract technavio's gluten-free customers I think you are misunderstanding who the audience of the source is: it's not "gluten-free customers".

2. I am unsure what you mean here. It is discussing market trends based off data. I've attributed it.

Discussing "popularity" is subjective only by technavio's goal of selling reports without analysis of consumer data in a peer-reviewed academic (or otherwise RS) source. Stating a commodity is used "commonly" (if RS-supported) avoids the impression of favor, WP:NPOV. Zefr (talk) 17:50, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

The first sentence reads to me that you are saying it is subjective because they are not an RS for analysis; I addressed above why the analysis was deemed an RS in my initial comment, beginning Technavio: There are. Would "the markets for ____ were growing as of ____" be sufficient if the term popularity is what is at issue? I do not think using "popular" implies endorsement.

3. Dark chocolate isn't mentioned in the sentence, but it is a report named "Dark Chocolate Market Analysis". no indication why such ingredients define gourmet. This is going over my head a bit. It's describing industry trends. Why would such indication be required?

Better to treat this report with the skepticism that "dark chocolate" is used in the title because it may be an eye-catching term to increase sales. We can't read the report for details because it is unaffordable for most Wikipedia users, and for this specific reason, shouldn't be used, failing WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Zefr (talk) 17:50, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

There is no reason to think the report it is providing an overview of doesn't cover what it says it covers, per my reasoning I provided for why I used it as RS, starting Technavio: There are.

4. I'm not sure why you say it doesn't have a RS: the text is published by the Royal Society of Chemistry and has been very well-reviewed (e.g. [1][2][3]). I'll have a go at finding corroborating sources, but it's not a particularly exceptional claim.

Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 05:27, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

The sentence, "Single source dark chocolates are often from countries such as Ecuador and Venezuela" doesn't have a source. I'm questioning a) what "often" implies, and b) what RS stated that.

It does have a source. Inline citations don't have to be attached to every sentence, they can be at the end of a paragraph. It is attached to the next sentence. The text says "High cocoa content dark chocolates, greater than 70%, using cocoa beans from one source, are becoming increasingly popular. These often use flavour beans from countries such as Ecuador and Venezuela." The International Cocoa Organization tracks flavor cocoa statistics.

5. The subsection Projections is purely hypothetical and based on information a reader cannot access. It is WP:CRYSTAL about unknown future events, and is WP:NOTNEWS. For these and the above reasons, I am removing it and the technavio source from the article. Zefr (talk) 17:50, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree with this reasoning for removing the Projections section. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 01:57, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Posted at RSN for further input. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 02:36, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Zefr I've added some material back in, lightly rewritten per response at RSN. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 02:20, 20 November 2024 (UTC)