Since they couldn’t challenge the research that supports the health benefits of chocolate,, anti-choice nannies complain that the studies were funded by the chocolate industry for use as marketing material. One of the main attack dogs cited in the article is the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI). According to its 1999 annual report, CSPI spent 3.7% of its budget on nutrition-related studies and activities, 4.8% on alcohol, 3.1% on food safety, and a whopping 41.5% on trying to market its newsletter, which features the results of CSPI’s studies and activities. So what’s the difference between the chocolate industry’s and CSPI’s strategies?
