4.7 Review

Theobroma cacao L., the Food of the Gods: A scientific approach beyond myths and claims

期刊

PHARMACOLOGICAL RESEARCH
卷 61, 期 1, 页码 5-13

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.phrs.2009.08.008

关键词

Theobroma cacao L.; Chocolate; Polyphenols; Health claims

资金

  1. Confiserie Teuscher A.G Zurich-Switzerland

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Cocoa beans are rich source of polyphenols, contributing about 10% of the dry weight of the whole bean and its derivative chocolate, particularly dark chocolate, is considered one of the major contributors of antioxidants to the American diet after fruits and vegetables. At present the wide variation in cocoa processing and in the content and profile of polyphenols make it difficult to determine to what extent the findings about positive effects expressed in different studies, translate into tangible clinical benefits. Moreover, before claiming any healthy properties to a plant, natural product or food item on human subject, a basic research project approved by scientific and ethical commissions has to be performed. Until now the definition, composition, manufacturing specifications, packaging and labelling of cocoa and chocolate products in Europe, are regulated by Directive 2000/36/EC of the European parliament and of the council. The definitions take changes in consumer tastes, chocolate composition and labelling into account, but do not consider the real potential of healthy, beneficial and nutraceutical effects. In fact, they fail to establish an official analytical methodology for the quantification of phenolic compounds in cocoa and chocolate. Moreover quantification of these compounds is not used in product classification. This article reviews many qualitative differences of cocoa and chocolate, in particular dark chocolate, aiming to establish the different implications for public health through the use of the analyzed concentration of polyphenols in cocoa products. (C) 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据