"Emma Thackery" > wrote:
> While I suspect this story goes back a ways, I only heard today on
> KCRW's "Good Food" that the FDA is considering a new definition for
> chocolate which would allow other plant oils to sub for real cocoa
> butter. It seemed like they were saying that a product might not have
> any chocolate and still be called chocolate. Anyone else aware of this?
> I have not heard it at all on the MSM.

There was an article on this in the Washington Post a few weeks ago:

http://tinyurl.com/2vsbsu

The "chocolate" would still have chocolate liquor in it but not cocoa butter, if
you still want to consider it chocolate... I don't!


Here's a link from the article:

http://dontmesswithourchocolate.com/

--
wff_ng_7 (at) verizon (dot) net