A clip that has gone viral on social media claims that the chocolate we have in the pantry contains lead, cadmium, arsenic and so-called “forever chemicals”. From Kinder and KitKat, to Lindt, Snickers, M&MS, Hershey’s and Cadbury, no major brand seems to be spared. How much is true, how much is exaggerated and what do studies say?

(Staff: International / Health & Consumption)

A short video, massively distributed on social media, managed to turn a seemingly innocent snack into a cause for concern for millions of people. The message is clear from the title: „Never buy these chocolate brands again.” The nominated brands include Kinder, KitKat, Lindt, Snickers, M&MS, Hershey’s and Cadbury, and allegations range from heavy metals and so-called “forever chemicals” to laboratory-grown chocolate and child labour.

The public’s reaction was immediate. In the comments, some promised to give up chocolate for good, others asked for evidence, and some ridiculed the alarmist tone. But beyond the wave of reactions, the question remains: is there a grain of truth in these accusations?

What the video says, actually

According to an analysis of the viral content, the expert in the video claims that Hershey’s contains soy lecithin, associated with metabolic problems, that Reese’s products contain PFAS substances (also known as „“forever chemicals””), that Lindt has traces of lead and cadmium, that KitKat contains arsenic, and Cadbury has invested in laboratory-grown chocolate, which is not legally considered chocolate in certain countries. In another post distributed on Threads, the same brands are accused of using lab-grown cocoa and experiencing lawsuits.

Heavy metals: a real but nuanced problem

The most serious accusation is related to heavy metals. Indeed, several chocolate brands, especially those with a high cocoa (dark chocolate) content, have been targeted by lawsuits in the United States. Hershey’s and Lindt have been sued because certain products would contain levels of lead and cadmium that would not have been adequately disclosed to consumers. cadmium is classified as a carcinogenic substance, and lead can affect the nervous system, especially in children.

However, a scientific study published in 2026, which looked at 36 chocolate bars from six brands, concluded that the health risks caused by heavy metals are “unlikely in typical exposure scenarios for most bars. chocolate bars.” In other words, the problem exists, but not at the level where the occasional eating chocolate occasionally becomes dangerous. The risk increases with daily consumption and dark chocolate with a high percentage of cocoa.

PFAS and Arsenic: Less Substantiated Claims

The accusation that Reese’s contains PFAS or that KitKat contains arsenic comes from sources that have not been independently verified by major scientific institutions. PFAS are a wide class of chemicals used for water and fat resistance, and their presence in food packaging is a real problem, but there is no solid public evidence that they would directly contaminate chocolate itself. As for arsenic, it can appear in extremely small traces in many foods, but there are no studies showing that the levels in KitKat would be dangerous.

Laboratory-grown chocolate: the future or a threat?

The accusation related to „lab-grown chocolate” is the most interesting and probably the most up-to-date. Several companies are investing in cocoa production through cell cultures, to reduce dependence on traditional agriculture, which is associated with deforestation and child labor. Cadbury has reportedly invested in such technologies, and in certain countries, the resulting products cannot be legally labeled as „chocolate”. This does not mean that the chocolate is toxic, but only that the way of production is changing, and the legislation does not keep up yet.

Ethical problem: child labor and palm oil

Beyond the allegations of toxicity, there is a well-documented ethical problem. Mars (M&MS, Snickers), Nestlé (KitKat), Hershey’s, Mondelez (Cadbury, Toblerone) and Ferrero (Kinder) have all been cited in reports linking their supply chains with cocoa with links to child or forced labour. Also, the palm oil used by these brands is associated with the deforestation and destruction of the habitats of endangered species, such as orangutans.

These are real problems, which are not related to the toxicity of chocolate, but to the human and ecological cost of production. And for a responsible consumer, they could weigh as important as concerns about heavy metals.

Conclusion

The viral video has the merit of drawing attention to real problems in the chocolate industry: the presence of traces of heavy metals in dark chocolate, the lack of transparency of some brands, the connections with child labor and deforestation. But combining these issues in a „never buy again” message is an exaggeration that risks inducing unnecessary panic.

The truth is more nuanced. Occasional chocolate consumption is not a major health hazard, according to current studies. But daily consumption of large amounts of dark chocolate, especially from brands that have been targeted by lawsuits, could increase exposure to heavy metals. And if you want to make a really responsible choice, maybe the problem is not only what is written on the label, but also what is hidden behind it.