4 ms·
Just a matter of concentration. 80% of 100g is more than 40% of 100g. It's that simple.
by hannob 4y ago
Just a matter of concentration.
80% of 100g is more than 40% of 100g. It's that simple.
- kzrdude 4y agoHow do we know that? I'd ask both us and NYT to be scientific about it. Cargo culting science: "We tested dark chocolate and it was bad" => avoid dark chocolate and no further conclusions. (Media is full of this pattern.) More rational investigation: "We tested dark chocolate and it was bad" => Find the problematic ingredient => What are the other places we use this ingredient?
- adave 4y agoRead reports and don't expect media to throw numbers and mathematical proofs. They are a business and have to cater to general public who don't really understand or care.
- kzrdude 4y agoGreat media stories bring the reports to a scientist in the field and have them contextualise it. In fact neither the journalist or the laypeople (us here) can do better than that by themselves, in general. But yes, stories are mass produced and nobody has the time for that.
- gnicholas 4y agoThe metals come from the cacao, and milk chocolate has much less cacao by volume, because it is diluted by lots of milk solids and sugar. Unless there are also surprising amounts of metal in milk/sugar, why would they need to be more rigorous about investigating milk chocolate?
- kzrdude 4y agoOne could speculate around cocoa butter, which is replaced by cheaper fats in cheaper and milk chocolate. But that's just me wondering, trying to make sense of why dark chocolate in particular.
- gnicholas 4y agoIt’s because the contamination is in the cacao beans. Dark chocolate is 70 or more percent cacao, while milk chocolate is much, much less.
- throwthrowuknow 4y agoRead the article
- hexo 4y agoArticle is painful to read thanks to sentences like "0.8 micrograms in ounce". Ouch.