An example of bad journalism about chocolate
There are a number of doom-and-gloom rumors going around the internet about chocolate. One tries to scare people into believing that all chocolate is going to be GMO more or less immediately. That's not going to happen - and I will explain why in another post.
Following is a link to an example of just plain bad reporting that gets reposted a lot by people with zero knowledge of the subject. It points to one of the dangers of the Internet, that bad/wrong information can, if it is repeated often enough, become a truth and it can be difficult to get people to change their minds:
One issue I have with the source article is that it has no publication date. I posted a story linking to the source article back in February, 2015 on archive.TheChocolateLife.com. So, the articles taken together are misleading (or disingenuous at best) in that "recent" in this case is more than two years ago. So, there is no way to know if any of the brands have worked to address any of the issues raised. In fact, there may no longer be a problem.
Also - take a look at the FAQ. They are so vague and equivocal as to be useless guidance for anyone truly interested in knowing what's going on.
Plus, there are no hard facts in the main article.
What are the standards being referred to? What are the allowable limits and what does this mean in terms of daily intake? No links are provided. This is suspicious.
What were the levels found in the products? There's a lot if difference between being .1 part per billion over the limit and being 10 ppb over the limit. There is also no attempt to correlate those figures with the recommended serving size. This is suspicious.
Finally, there is no attempt to provide context. Chocolate is not the only common food with possible heavy metal contamination. How does chocolate compare with other foods "known to the State of California" to contain harmful chemicals ... and not just heavy metals but agrochemicals? This is suspicious.