There are some things that should be sacrosanct. When I read recently
about the Food and Drug Administration considering the "re-definition"
of chocolate, I just about fell over. Yes, that's right--your
government is considering messing with what can be labeled as
chocolate. What's next, changing the ingredients of what we know as
red wine?

Currently, companies are able to produce chocolate products without
milk and cocoa butter and call them "chocolate flavored." With this
new proposal, these products will soon be labeled as the real deal,
which is a scary proposition for those who believe in the purity of
real foods.

While I am certainly not a chocoholic, I enjoy a good piece of
chocolate from time to time and I have read about the various health
benefits of small amounts of high-quality chocolate on a daily basis.
(High-cocoa dark chocolate has blood-pressure reducing qualities, as
just one benefit.)

The proposal to change the formulation was announced earlier this year
by the FDA following petitioning from the Grocery Manufacturers
Association (GMA) and Chocolate Manufacturers Association (CMA) along
with other industry bodies. These people are calling for more
flexibility in the current regulations to reflect "changing consumer
attitudes and advances in manufacturing technology and ingredient
supplies." What a crock of cocoa that is.

Amendments to the current standard of identity could lead to chocolate
containing vegetable oils instead of cocoa butter and milk substitutes
in place of milk. Personally, I'll stick with imported, quality
European brands if this occurs and avoid anything made by CMA-
affiliated companies. I hope you will do the same.

Dave

Full text article above extracted from http://shamvswham.blogspot.com/

"DGJ" > ha scritto nel messaggio
oups.com...
> There are some things that should be sacrosanct.
snippage

These people are calling for more
> flexibility in the current regulations to reflect "changing consumer
> attitudes and advances in manufacturing technology and ingredient
> supplies."

Read that as "reduction in quality because these suckers aren't paying
attention and we can get them to buy fake flavour and wax if we call it
chocolate."

Everyone who bought that veg oil crap called milk chocolate in England paid
into this decision. Rank stuff.
--
http://www.judithgreenwood.com

"DGJ" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> There are some things that should be sacrosanct. When I read recently
> about the Food and Drug Administration considering the "re-definition"
> of chocolate, I just about fell over. Yes, that's right--your
> government is considering messing with what can be labeled as
> chocolate.


What's next, changing the ingredients of what we know as
> red wine?Personally, I'll stick with imported, quality
> European brands if this occurs and avoid anything made by CMA-
> affiliated companies. I hope you will do the same.
>
> Dave
>

Thanks for the article, Dave. I've heard about this previously; however, it
was my understanding that this is taking place all over the world, not just
here in the U.S.

This is a concern to me, as I eat dark chocolate at least 5 nights a week
(with a glass of port ;-))

Hasn't Hershey already changed their formula some time ago?

Added wax is a great ingredient to add, as it melts like chocolate. I've
heard that some manufacturers (won't mention their name) have already
started doing this.

This dismays me. I wonder what they will start adding to cocoa, if they
haven't already.
Dee Dee

"Dee Dee" > ha scritto nel messaggio
...
>
> "DGJ" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>> There are some things that should be sacrosanct. When I read recently
>> about the Food and Drug Administration considering the "re-definition"
>> of chocolate, I just about fell over. Yes, that's right--your
>> government is considering messing with what can be labeled as
>> chocolate.
>
>
> Thanks for the article, Dave. I've heard about this previously; however,
> it was my understanding that this is taking place all over the world, not
> just here in the U.S.
> Hasn't Hershey already changed their formula some time ago?
| This dismays me. I wonder what they will start adding to cocoa, if they
> haven't already.
> Dee Dee
>
It-s legal in Europe to use fats that are veg fats but not cocoa butter, but
all the Italian chocolate manufacturers of note just said no. Maybe because
the Italian consumer is picky. Some of this pure chocoalte is great, some
not.--
http://www.judithgreenwood.com

"Giusi" > wrote in message
...
> "Dee Dee" > ha scritto nel messaggio
> ...
>>
>> "DGJ" > wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>>> There are some things that should be sacrosanct. When I read recently
>>> about the Food and Drug Administration considering the "re-definition"
>>> of chocolate, I just about fell over. Yes, that's right--your
>>> government is considering messing with what can be labeled as
>>> chocolate.
>>
>>
>> Thanks for the article, Dave. I've heard about this previously; however,
>> it was my understanding that this is taking place all over the world, not
>> just here in the U.S.
>> Hasn't Hershey already changed their formula some time ago?
> | This dismays me. I wonder what they will start adding to cocoa, if they
>> haven't already.
>> Dee Dee
>>
> It-s legal in Europe to use fats that are veg fats but not cocoa butter,
> but all the Italian chocolate manufacturers of note just said no. Maybe
> because the Italian consumer is picky. Some of this pure chocoalte is
> great, some not.--
> http://www.judithgreenwood.com
Any favorites?
Lover of chocolate, not chocolates.
Dee Dee

"Dee Dee" > ha scritto nel messaggio
...
>
> "Giusi" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Dee Dee" > ha scritto nel messaggio
>> >> It-s legal in Europe to use fats that are veg fats but not cocoa
>> >> butter,
>> but all the Italian chocolate manufacturers of note just said no. Maybe
>> because the Italian consumer is picky. Some of this pure chocoalte is
>> great, some not.--

> Any favorites?
> Lover of chocolate, not chocolates.
> Dee Dee

Not really, because I find them too sweet, but haven-t tried all the
boutique ones. I use Valrhona.--
http://www.judithgreenwood.com

Dee Dee wrote:

>
> This is a concern to me, as I eat dark chocolate at least 5 nights a week
> (with a glass of port ;-))
>

I gotta try that! What kind of port?

"Scott" > wrote in message
...
> Dee Dee wrote:
>
>>
>> This is a concern to me, as I eat dark chocolate at least 5 nights a week
>> (with a glass of port ;-))
>>
>
> I gotta try that! What kind of port?

I have two bottles open at the present time. One is the Kirkland's tawny
port (aged 10 yrs), which I really like the taste of ($16.79) and IMO is
better than Grahams Malvedos 1996 @ $33+;

and a bottle of Morgado Vintage Port from Trader Joe's at $9.99, which I
wouldn't recommend, but better than the Warrior at Costco for $12.50, which
I don't particularly care for.

Taylor Fladgate at $25.98 is not that great either.
I'm looking for something new.

That's my re-port on port.

Dee Dee

Dee Dee wrote:

>> It-s legal in Europe to use fats that are veg fats but not cocoa
>> butter, but all the Italian chocolate manufacturers of note just
>> said no. Maybe because the Italian consumer is picky. Some of this
>> pure chocoalte is great, some not.--

Sadly true. EU ruled almost as FDA is going to rule now. Bad decisions
always find followers.

> Any favorites?
> Lover of chocolate, not chocolates.

Amedei and Domori for expensive top level cru's, as the venezuelan Chuao.
Another good brand, but in a lower quality and price tag, is Novi. There
also are many producers who package raw cocoa mass, it's wonderful, I tried
the one from Domori not long ago: a texture between that of 90% black cocoa
tablets and that of milk chocolate, a little hard and dry and a little soft.
A nice niche product is "cioccolato di Modica", Modica is a sicilian town
where they make chocolate in a particular way which lets some crystals of
sugar in it, giving it a particular crunchyness.
--
Vilco
Think pink, drink rose'

"Vilco" > wrote in message
...

>
> Sadly true. EU ruled almost as FDA is going to rule now. Bad decisions
> always find followers.
>
>> Any favorites?
>> Lover of chocolate, not chocolates.
>
> Amedei and Domori for expensive top level cru's, as the venezuelan Chuao.
> Another good brand, but in a lower quality and price tag, is Novi. There
> also are many producers who package raw cocoa mass, it's wonderful, I
> tried the one from Domori not long ago: a texture between that of 90%
> black cocoa tablets and that of milk chocolate, a little hard and dry and
> a little soft.


> A nice niche product is "cioccolato di Modica", Modica is a sicilian town
> where they make chocolate in a particular way which lets some crystals of
> sugar in it, giving it a particular crunchyness.
> --
> Vilco
> Think pink, drink rose'

Thanks, Vilco for the tips. I try to keep 72% chocolate for eating. I'm
out of anything over 72% except some Vahrona. I need to start looking at
some online catalogs for ordering before freezing winter arrives.

Do you know of anyway users of chocolate are going to keep tabs on the
unacceptable chocolate? I guess it will be just like the rest of the
products that are getting changed -- read, read, read.

Dee Dee

On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 15:15:31 -0000, DGJ > wrote:

>There are some things that should be sacrosanct. When I read recently
>about the Food and Drug Administration considering the "re-definition"
>of chocolate, I just about fell over. Yes, that's right--your
>government is considering messing with what can be labeled as
>chocolate. What's next, changing the ingredients of what we know as
>red wine?
>
>Currently, companies are able to produce chocolate products without
>milk and cocoa butter and call them "chocolate flavored." With this
>new proposal, these products will soon be labeled as the real deal,
>which is a scary proposition for those who believe in the purity of
>real foods.
>
<snip for brevity>

Nobody in the FDA comes up with stuff like this on their own. There's
no incentive for it. Companies come up with it and then pay lobbyists
millions of dollars to plant the seeds and hand out the perks around
the government. Kajillions of dollars, in the form of executive
bonuses, are at stake. Unfortunately, that's the way our government
works these days. The public approval rating of congress and the
government as a whole stays below 30 percent, but they don't care
about approval, because it's not about approval, it's about getting
rich, and they're all getting rich.

Dee Dee wrote:

> Do you know of anyway users of chocolate are going to keep tabs on the
> unacceptable chocolate? I guess it will be just like the rest of the
> products that are getting changed -- read, read, read.

Probably yes, just reading, or maybe following good brands, as you do with
Valrhona.
--
Vilco
Think pink, drink rose'

I don't like the proposed changes in the labeling laws as they pertain
to chocolate either, but I can't see that it's the disaster that people
are predicting.


The way it works now, it is legal to use vegetable oil instead of cocoa
butter in a chocolate product. The product must be labeled chocolate
flavored or artificial chocolate. The ingredients must be listed on the
side.


Under the proposed legislation, those products may be called chocolate.
The ingredients will still need to be listed on the side. If they're
not made with milk and cocoa butter, the companies won't be allowed to
say that they are.


If the legislation goes through (I hope it doesn't), quality chocolate
will still be available. The good companies will merely have to
advertise on the package that their product is made with real milk and
real cocoa butter. The ingredients will still be listed on the side.


A consumer who cares about good chocolate will still be able to find and
buy it. All they'll need to do is read the package ingredients to
start, and taste it after that. In the scheme of things, that's not a
big deal.


--Lia

Dee Dee wrote:
> "Scott" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Dee Dee wrote:
>>
>>> This is a concern to me, as I eat dark chocolate at least 5 nights a week
>>> (with a glass of port ;-))
>>>
>> I gotta try that! What kind of port?
>
> I have two bottles open at the present time. One is the Kirkland's tawny
> port (aged 10 yrs), which I really like the taste of ($16.79) and IMO is
> better than Grahams Malvedos 1996 @ $33+;
>
> and a bottle of Morgado Vintage Port from Trader Joe's at $9.99, which I
> wouldn't recommend, but better than the Warrior at Costco for $12.50, which
> I don't particularly care for.
>
> Taylor Fladgate at $25.98 is not that great either.
> I'm looking for something new.
>
> That's my re-port on port.
>
> Dee Dee
>

Thanks, I love dark chocolate and been wanting to try port for some
time. I wrote down your suggestions and now I'm going to see if my
grocer (Hy-Vee) carries them.