Chocolate: Treat or Trick?

There is an environmental price for our love of chocolate on Halloween, but it may not be what you think

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

[Below is the original script. But a few changes may have been made during the recording of this audio podcast.]

Chocolate is the food of the gods, according to the ancient Mayans, and a favorite of Halloween trick-or-treaters. But do these sweets come with an environmental price?

The fruit of the cacao tree--native to South and Central America-- is now mostly grown in West Africa. Small farmers tend some 70,000 square kilometers of the tropical trees and produce about 3.5 million tons of the stuff yearly, according to the Food and Agriculture Organization. But the trees need shade to survive, so no clear cutting of forests.

Also, such farmers typically don't use fertilizers or pesticides, meaning you can gorge on chocolate to your environmentally-conscious heart's content. Literally, dark chocolate is good for your heart.

So the environmental cost of chocolate isn't in the chocolate itself but in the way it gets to your pumpkin pail: shipping, trucking and all those wrappers destined for the landfill.

There is a human cost as well. Human rights groups such as Save the Children have shown that kids are being enslaved to produce the cocoa. And small farmers don't see much of the $13 billion in chocolate sales money worldwide.

If you want these farmers to get a fair cut, look for brands with the Fair Trade Certified label. It would be quite a trick to hand American children treats derived from African children's slave labor.

 


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


60-Second Psych is a weekly podcast. Subscribe to this Podcast:

RSS | iTunes

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe