In article <eVu4i.6958$xV.6554@trnddc05>,
"wff_ng_7" > wrote:

> "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/

My thanks to you and Peter for the information. I've been so busy
the last few days, I haven't had much time to dig for anything. I'd
certainly agree that the presence of cocoa butter is an essential part
of a quality chocolate experience. As I recall, the KCRW report said
that this new regulation proposal resulted from pressure on the FDA from
the candy & chocolate industries. And as usual in the last few years, I
guess we can count on the FDA to come down on the side of hoodwinking
consumers in favor of greater industry profit. We seem to live in an
age where making a profit just isn't enough. Now, making a killing
seems to have become the new norm.

Emma