Food Snob > wrote:
> On May 21, 10:27 pm, 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.

> George W. Bush's FDA. They're not going to allow only "plant oils,"
> but hydrogenated oils.

Well, really, the only way they are going to get any oils to be solid
at room temperature, other than real cocoa butter, is to hydrogenate
them. That's been my objection to this idea all along. Can you
say, "trans fats out the wazoo?"

They also want to allow whey protein concentrate instead of powered
milk for use in milk chocolate. I'm not quite as bothered by that,
but some folks are.

As far as I can tell, they will still require a specific percentage
of cocoa solids (I think the low end is in the 30-something percent
range) and no subtitutes for this.

You know, it's only been a couple years since they decided to allow
us to call white chocolate by that name. Before that it had to be
called confectinary coating or something, even if it was pure cocoa
butter, sugar and milk solids. To them, the cocoa solids had to be
present for "chocolate."

Bill Ranck
Blacksburg, Va.