The LA Times today had an article on the front page called "The
Courage of Their Confections" which tells of the Grocery Manufactuers
of America, a trade group, campaign to let chocolate makers replace
cocoa butter with vegetable oils and milk (for milk chocolate) with
"milk protein concentrates." This is just *wrong*, IMHO. Sees and
Guittard Chocolate Co., two of California's oldest chocolatiers, are
having fits about this. The trade group, which says it has the support
of the Chocolate Manufacturers of America says it's "just thinking
outside the old chocolate box." It wouldn't prevent Sees and Guittard
from using cocoa butter and milk, of course, but there ought to be a
label on the vegetable oil and "milk protein concentrates" candy that
precludes the word "chocolate" or "milk chocolate," much as those
chemistry experiments at the fast food joints don't call their
products "milk shakes."

Class is open for discussion.

Terry "Squeaks" Pulliam Burd

--
"If the soup had been as hot as the claret, if the claret had been as
old as the bird, and if the bird's breasts had been as full as the
waitress's, it would have been a very good dinner."

-- Duncan Hines

To reply, replace "spaminator" with "cox"

On 2007-04-14 18:36:36 -0700, Terry Pulliam Burd
> said:

> The LA Times today had an article on the front page called "The
> Courage of Their Confections" which tells of the Grocery Manufactuers
> of America, a trade group, campaign to let chocolate makers replace
> cocoa butter with vegetable oils and milk (for milk chocolate) with
> "milk protein concentrates." This is just *wrong*, IMHO. Sees and
> Guittard Chocolate Co., two of California's oldest chocolatiers, are
> having fits about this. The trade group, which says it has the support
> of the Chocolate Manufacturers of America says it's "just thinking
> outside the old chocolate box." It wouldn't prevent Sees and Guittard
> from using cocoa butter and milk, of course, but there ought to be a
> label on the vegetable oil and "milk protein concentrates" candy that
> precludes the word "chocolate" or "milk chocolate," much as those
> chemistry experiments at the fast food joints don't call their
> products "milk shakes."
>
> Class is open for discussion.
>
> Terry "Squeaks" Pulliam Burd


I'm with you--this is a very bad idea. Given the number of clueless
consumers concerned only with price, this will make it less viable for
real chocolate manufacturers to keep making the good stuff--and
increase the pressure on them to use cheaper ingredients so they can
compete with the inferior crap that would then also be labeled
"chocolate."

Guittard has a website at http://dontmesswithourchocolate.guittard.com/
making their case against the proposed change. It includes a link to
the FDA's site where they take public comments on the proposal. I
already gave them mine!

--
MaryMc

(remove the obvious to reply)

On Sat, 14 Apr 2007 21:21:17 -0700, MaryMc
> wrote:

>On 2007-04-14 18:36:36 -0700, Terry Pulliam Burd
> said:
>
>> The LA Times today had an article on the front page called "The
>> Courage of Their Confections" which tells of the Grocery Manufactuers
>> of America, a trade group, campaign to let chocolate makers replace
>> cocoa butter with vegetable oils and milk (for milk chocolate) with
>> "milk protein concentrates." This is just *wrong*, IMHO. Sees and
>> Guittard Chocolate Co., two of California's oldest chocolatiers, are
>> having fits about this. The trade group, which says it has the support
>> of the Chocolate Manufacturers of America says it's "just thinking
>> outside the old chocolate box." It wouldn't prevent Sees and Guittard
>> from using cocoa butter and milk, of course, but there ought to be a
>> label on the vegetable oil and "milk protein concentrates" candy that
>> precludes the word "chocolate" or "milk chocolate," much as those
>> chemistry experiments at the fast food joints don't call their
>> products "milk shakes."
>>
>> Class is open for discussion.
>>
>> Terry "Squeaks" Pulliam Burd
>
>
>I'm with you--this is a very bad idea. Given the number of clueless
>consumers concerned only with price, this will make it less viable for
>real chocolate manufacturers to keep making the good stuff--and
>increase the pressure on them to use cheaper ingredients so they can
>compete with the inferior crap that would then also be labeled
>"chocolate."
>
>Guittard has a website at http://dontmesswithourchocolate.guittard.com/
>making their case against the proposed change. It includes a link to
>the FDA's site where they take public comments on the proposal. I
>already gave them mine!

After the way certain classics have been adulterated by substituting
corn syrup, fructose and worst of all... beet sugar for real cane
sugar, this is a fight they can't afford to lose. Just think about
what happened to Coke. It *tastes* better in Hawaii, because it *is*
better.

--
See return address to reply by email

said...

> Just think about
> what happened to Coke. It *tastes* better in Hawaii, because it *is*
> better.


I thought it tasted better in Hawaii because it is Hawaii!!

Coke SUCKS in Philly by comparison. <G>

Andy

Terry Pulliam Burd wrote:
> The LA Times today had an article on the front page called "The
> Courage of Their Confections" which tells of the Grocery Manufactuers
> of America, a trade group, campaign to let chocolate makers replace
> cocoa butter with vegetable oils and milk (for milk chocolate) with
> "milk protein concentrates." This is just *wrong*, IMHO. Sees and
> Guittard Chocolate Co., two of California's oldest chocolatiers, are
> having fits about this. The trade group, which says it has the support
> of the Chocolate Manufacturers of America says it's "just thinking
> outside the old chocolate box." It wouldn't prevent Sees and Guittard
> from using cocoa butter and milk, of course, but there ought to be a
> label on the vegetable oil and "milk protein concentrates" candy that
> precludes the word "chocolate" or "milk chocolate," much as those
> chemistry experiments at the fast food joints don't call their
> products "milk shakes."
>
> Class is open for discussion.
>
> Terry "Squeaks" Pulliam Burd
>

Its the "Walmart syndrome", where the only thing that can ever matter is
how cheaply something can be purchased.

On Sun, 15 Apr 2007 03:48:50 -0500, Andy <q> wrote:

> said...
>
>> Just think about
>> what happened to Coke. It *tastes* better in Hawaii, because it *is*
>> better.
>
>
>I thought it tasted better in Hawaii because it is Hawaii!!
>
>Coke SUCKS in Philly by comparison. <G>
>
Since I haven't tried cooking with Coke yet (I'm going to try coke
basted ham someday), the only *good* Coke is one with several shots of
bourbon or rum in it.

FYI: Coke syrup is (was?) made with real cane sugar in Hawaii long
after the pretend stuff was common here on the mainland... Mexico used
cane sugar the last time I noticed, too.

Hopefully, Beans will grab a bottle of Coke and read the ingredient
list for me. This is becomming a burning question!

--
See return address to reply by email

Michael "Dog3" Lonergan wrote:

> I'm with you and Terry. There are substitutions for sugar, butter, lard,
> oils etc. There are probably a Godzillion substitutions out there. Some
> have been substituted and touted as a healthy alternative. Others have
> just quietly substituted a product for something else to lower the price
> in order to increase sales. Fake crab meat comes to mind immediately. I
> draw the line at chocolate. Seriously. Let Sandra Lee and her followers
> eat crap if they want to. Just leave my chocolate, crab meat, butter and
> lard alone.

In reference to fake crab, the problem is you're thinking of it as "fake
crab". Surimi is an ingredient in its own right and has its uses. I
don't use it as a crab substitute.

--Charlene

--
I have found out that there ain't no surer way to find out whether you
like people or hate them than to travel with them. -- Mark Twain


email perronnellec at earthlink . net

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

On Apr 14, 9:36?pm, Terry Pulliam Burd >
wrote:
> The LA Times today had an article on the front page called "The
> Courage of Their Confections" which tells of the Grocery Manufactuers
> of America, a trade group, campaign to let chocolate makers replace
> cocoa butter with vegetable oils and milk (for milk chocolate) with
> "milk protein concentrates." This is just *wrong*, IMHO. Sees and
> Guittard Chocolate Co., two of California's oldest chocolatiers, are
> having fits about this. The trade group, which says it has the support
> of the Chocolate Manufacturers of America says it's "just thinking
> outside the old chocolate box." It wouldn't prevent Sees and Guittard
> from using cocoa butter and milk, of course, but there ought to be a
> label on the vegetable oil and "milk protein concentrates" candy that
> precludes the word "chocolate" or "milk chocolate," much as those
> chemistry experiments at the fast food joints don't call their
> products "milk shakes."
>
> Class is open for discussion.
>
> Terry "Squeaks" Pulliam Burd
>
> --
> "If the soup had been as hot as the claret, if the claret had been as
> old as the bird, and if the bird's breasts had been as full as the
> waitress's, it would have been a very good dinner."
>
> -- Duncan Hines
>
> To reply, replace "spaminator" with "cox"

I think it's a bad idea. It would force the price of real chocolate
to go through the roof. Chocolate manufacturers would be able to
charge whatever they wanted to for real chocolate because they know
real chocolate connoisseurs will seek out only the real thing.

Terry Pulliam Burd wrote:
> The LA Times today had an article on the front page called "The
> Courage of Their Confections" which tells of the Grocery Manufactuers
> of America, a trade group, campaign to let chocolate makers replace
> cocoa butter with vegetable oils and milk (for milk chocolate) with
> "milk protein concentrates." This is just *wrong*, IMHO. Sees and
> Guittard Chocolate Co., two of California's oldest chocolatiers, are
> having fits about this. The trade group, which says it has the support
> of the Chocolate Manufacturers of America says it's "just thinking
> outside the old chocolate box." It wouldn't prevent Sees and Guittard
> from using cocoa butter and milk, of course, but there ought to be a
> label on the vegetable oil and "milk protein concentrates" candy that
> precludes the word "chocolate" or "milk chocolate," much as those
> chemistry experiments at the fast food joints don't call their
> products "milk shakes."
>
> Class is open for discussion.

Horrors! I sure hope they aren't allowed to call it chocolate.
And I sure wish we could get the fake crab users to quit calling
it crab. Drives me bananas, although I've trained myself to
always ask if it's real crab or not! I really can't see how
companies get away with some of their labeling and advertising
claims. We really ought to have much stricter laws, requiring
them to tell the absolute truth, no matter what. And another
thing, while I'm ranting is the pictures of foods you see on
labels, tv, ads, etc. They look nothing like what you actually
get when you open the package or wrapper. It should be the
law that they have to use pictures of the actual food the
way it looks when served to the customer or whatever. I love
the boxes of frozen foodsl that have a giant picture of what's
supposedly inside (I think they have somewhere in tiny print
that the picture is larger than life-sized, but . . .) and then
you open it and it's half the size of the picture and not nearly
as "pretty".

Kate


--
Kate Connally
“If I were as old as I feel, I’d be dead already.”
Goldfish: “The wholesome snack that smiles back,
Until you bite their heads off.”
What if the hokey pokey really *is* what it's all about?

sf wrote:

> On Sun, 15 Apr 2007 03:48:50 -0500, Andy <q> wrote:
>
>
>>said...
>>
>>
>>> Just think about
>>>what happened to Coke. It *tastes* better in Hawaii, because it *is*
>>>better.
>>
>>
>>I thought it tasted better in Hawaii because it is Hawaii!!
>>
>>Coke SUCKS in Philly by comparison. <G>
>>
> Since I haven't tried cooking with Coke yet (I'm going to try coke
> basted ham someday), the only *good* Coke is one with several shots of
> bourbon or rum in it.

I agree that it was a sin to change from sugar to
corn syrup, nevertheless, Coke is still the best cola
out there and I won't dring anything else. It's infinitely
better than Pepsi (spawn of the evil empire).

Kate

--
Kate Connally
“If I were as old as I feel, I’d be dead already.”
Goldfish: “The wholesome snack that smiles back,
Until you bite their heads off.”
What if the hokey pokey really *is* what it's all about?

"Charlene Charette" > wrote
> In reference to fake crab, the problem is you're thinking of it as "fake
> crab". Surimi is an ingredient in its own right and has its uses. I
> don't use it as a crab substitute.
>

True. Even though I am from Maryland, I use surimi in some pasta
salads I make. When I want crab I buy crab.

Another good reason for making a distinction between surimi and
crab is for those who want to limit carbohydrates. The surimi I have
used has been full of potato starch, whereas crab has no carbs.

kilikini wrote:
> cybercat wrote:
>> "Charlene Charette" > wrote
>>> In reference to fake crab, the problem is you're thinking of it as
>>> "fake crab". Surimi is an ingredient in its own right and has its
>>> uses. I don't use it as a crab substitute.
>>>
>> True. Even though I am from Maryland, I use surimi in some pasta
>> salads I make. When I want crab I buy crab.
>>
>> Another good reason for making a distinction between surimi and
>> crab is for those who want to limit carbohydrates. The surimi I have
>> used has been full of potato starch, whereas crab has no carbs.
>
> That's exactly true. I had no idea how much sugar was in surimi until I
> really looked at the label. I still eat it, though, and I like it for
> stuffed fish and on it's own as a "crab" salad sandwich. I don't think it
> tastes anything like crab, but I like it; I buy it.

I like it, too. I sometimes dip it in melted butter, or warm it
with butter and eat it that way.

> kili <------ putting on her flame retardant suit

Eh. Everyone has something trashy they like. :-) My Japanese friend
calls surimi "the hot dog of the fish world" and our response around
here is "yeah, but hot dogs are good".

Serene

cybercat wrote:
> "Charlene Charette" > wrote
>> In reference to fake crab, the problem is you're thinking of it as
>> "fake crab". Surimi is an ingredient in its own right and has its
>> uses. I don't use it as a crab substitute.
>>
>
> True. Even though I am from Maryland, I use surimi in some pasta
> salads I make. When I want crab I buy crab.
>
> Another good reason for making a distinction between surimi and
> crab is for those who want to limit carbohydrates. The surimi I have
> used has been full of potato starch, whereas crab has no carbs.

That's exactly true. I had no idea how much sugar was in surimi until I
really looked at the label. I still eat it, though, and I like it for
stuffed fish and on it's own as a "crab" salad sandwich. I don't think it
tastes anything like crab, but I like it; I buy it.

kili <------ putting on her flame retardant suit

Serene-y the Meanie wrote:
> kilikini wrote:
>> cybercat wrote:
>>> "Charlene Charette" > wrote
>>>> In reference to fake crab, the problem is you're thinking of it as
>>>> "fake crab". Surimi is an ingredient in its own right and has its
>>>> uses. I don't use it as a crab substitute.
>>>>
>>> True. Even though I am from Maryland, I use surimi in some pasta
>>> salads I make. When I want crab I buy crab.
>>>
>>> Another good reason for making a distinction between surimi and
>>> crab is for those who want to limit carbohydrates. The surimi I have
>>> used has been full of potato starch, whereas crab has no carbs.
>>
>> That's exactly true. I had no idea how much sugar was in surimi
>> until I really looked at the label. I still eat it, though, and I
>> like it for stuffed fish and on it's own as a "crab" salad sandwich.
>> I don't think it tastes anything like crab, but I like it; I buy it.
>
> I like it, too. I sometimes dip it in melted butter, or warm it
> with butter and eat it that way.
>
>> kili <------ putting on her flame retardant suit
>
> Eh. Everyone has something trashy they like. :-) My Japanese friend
> calls surimi "the hot dog of the fish world" and our response around
> here is "yeah, but hot dogs are good".
>
> Serene

LOL. I've never had it with butter; when I use it, it's usually an
enhancement ingredient. I'll try it your way sometime! Around here though,
almost every buffet has it as a "crab" salad with celery, mayo and onion and
I put it on my plate only because it's not deep fried or cooked to death
like everything else is down here. :~)

kili

On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 12:38:53 -0400, Kate Connally >
wrote:

>It's infinitely
>better than Pepsi (spawn of the evil empire).


LOL! I like Pepsi, but I like Dr. Pepper better than both.
PS: I lost the Coke challenge. I chose Pepsi, thinking it was Coke.

--
See return address to reply by email

On 15 Apr 2007 22:38:54 -0700, " >
wrote:

>
>I think it's a bad idea. It would force the price of real chocolate
>to go through the roof. Chocolate manufacturers would be able to
>charge whatever they wanted to for real chocolate because they know
>real chocolate connoisseurs will seek out only the real thing.

I think the chocolate people need to get smart and start marketing
high end chocolate like coffee. I think it was Food Network where I
saw a show about the distinct qualitites of chocolate from various
countries/areas.

--
See return address to reply by email

On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 12:36:00 -0400, Kate Connally >
wrote:

>Horrors! I sure hope they aren't allowed to call it chocolate.

Hopefully it will be labeled "chocolatish".



--
See return address to reply by email

said...

> On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 12:38:53 -0400, Kate Connally >
> wrote:
>
> PS: I lost the Coke challenge. I chose Pepsi, thinking it was Coke.


Coke uses natural orange flavoring.
Pepsi uses natural lime flavoring.

Andy

sf wrote:
>
> On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 12:38:53 -0400, Kate Connally >
> wrote:
>
> >It's infinitely
> >better than Pepsi (spawn of the evil empire).
>
> LOL! I like Pepsi, but I like Dr. Pepper better than both.
> PS: I lost the Coke challenge. I chose Pepsi, thinking it was Coke.

For most people it is a matter of image. Don't forget the New Coke fiasco
<?>. Coca Cola was trying to improve its market share by improving its
product, a novel concept. It did a some blind taste tests and determined
that most people preferred Pepsi over Coke. They tinkered with their
formula to make a product that tasted more like Pepsi, and when they
conducted taste tests they found that people preferred the New Coke to both
the old Coke and Pepsi.


Public reaction to the New Coke was a rude surprise to the company. People
went nuts and rejected the new product. New Coke was a flop. However, they
were able to turn the whole think around. The public reaction generated a
lot of free press. Coke went back to the old formula and renamed it Coke
Classic and sales increased.

On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 15:53:04 -0500, "kilikini"
> wrote:

>Serene-y the Meanie wrote:
>> kilikini wrote:
>>> cybercat wrote:
>>>> "Charlene Charette" > wrote
>>>>> In reference to fake crab, the problem is you're thinking of it as
>>>>> "fake crab". Surimi is an ingredient in its own right and has its
>>>>> uses. I don't use it as a crab substitute.
>>>>>
>>>> True. Even though I am from Maryland, I use surimi in some pasta
>>>> salads I make. When I want crab I buy crab.
>>>>
>>>> Another good reason for making a distinction between surimi and
>>>> crab is for those who want to limit carbohydrates. The surimi I have
>>>> used has been full of potato starch, whereas crab has no carbs.
>>>
>>> That's exactly true. I had no idea how much sugar was in surimi
>>> until I really looked at the label. I still eat it, though, and I
>>> like it for stuffed fish and on it's own as a "crab" salad sandwich.
>>> I don't think it tastes anything like crab, but I like it; I buy it.
>>
>> I like it, too. I sometimes dip it in melted butter, or warm it
>> with butter and eat it that way.
>>
>>> kili <------ putting on her flame retardant suit
>>
>> Eh. Everyone has something trashy they like. :-) My Japanese friend
>> calls surimi "the hot dog of the fish world" and our response around
>> here is "yeah, but hot dogs are good".
>>
>> Serene
>
>LOL. I've never had it with butter; when I use it, it's usually an
>enhancement ingredient. I'll try it your way sometime! Around here though,
>almost every buffet has it as a "crab" salad with celery, mayo and onion and
>I put it on my plate only because it's not deep fried or cooked to death
>like everything else is down here. :~)
>
>kili
>

refresh my memory, kili - whereat is down here?

your pal,
blake

On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 04:03:21 -0500, Andy <q> wrote:

> said...
>
>> On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 12:38:53 -0400, Kate Connally >
>> wrote:
>>
>> PS: I lost the Coke challenge. I chose Pepsi, thinking it was Coke.
>
>
>Coke uses natural orange flavoring.
>Pepsi uses natural lime flavoring.
>
>Andy

i don't know what it is, but i've known two women who liked diet coke
more than i like beer. and that's saying something.

your pal,
blake

On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 08:37:24 -0400, Dave Smith
> wrote:

>sf wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 12:38:53 -0400, Kate Connally >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >It's infinitely
>> >better than Pepsi (spawn of the evil empire).
>>
>> LOL! I like Pepsi, but I like Dr. Pepper better than both.
>> PS: I lost the Coke challenge. I chose Pepsi, thinking it was Coke.
>
>For most people it is a matter of image. Don't forget the New Coke fiasco
><?>. Coca Cola was trying to improve its market share by improving its
>product, a novel concept. It did a some blind taste tests and determined
>that most people preferred Pepsi over Coke. They tinkered with their
>formula to make a product that tasted more like Pepsi, and when they
>conducted taste tests they found that people preferred the New Coke to both
>the old Coke and Pepsi.
>
>
>Public reaction to the New Coke was a rude surprise to the company. People
>went nuts and rejected the new product. New Coke was a flop. However, they
>were able to turn the whole think around. The public reaction generated a
>lot of free press. Coke went back to the old formula and renamed it Coke
>Classic and sales increased.

seriously. everyone should be lucky enough to 'blunder' in such a
fashion.

your pal,
george

On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 19:18:56 GMT, blake murphy >
wrote:

>On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 15:53:04 -0500, "kilikini"
>> Around here though,
>>almost every buffet has it as a "crab" salad with celery, mayo and onion and
>>I put it on my plate only because it's not deep fried or cooked to death
>>like everything else is down here. :~)
>>
>>kili
>>
>
>refresh my memory, kili - whereat is down here?
>
Florida

--
See return address to reply by email

blake murphy wrote:
>
>
> >Public reaction to the New Coke was a rude surprise to the company. People
> >went nuts and rejected the new product. New Coke was a flop. However, they
> >were able to turn the whole think around. The public reaction generated a
> >lot of free press. Coke went back to the old formula and renamed it Coke
> >Classic and sales increased.
>
> seriously. everyone should be lucky enough to 'blunder' in such a
> fashion.

No kidding, eh. They came up with a formula that its customers preferred.
The public, consisting of a lot of very foolish people, rebelled and
demanded the return of their old favourite, even though they did not like
it as much. They declared their brand loyalty and flocked to the old
formula, now affectionately called Coke Classic. A marketing disaster
turned into an outstanding success.

Dave Smith wrote:
>
> Coke went back to the old formula and renamed it Coke
> Classic and sales increased.

Except that they didn't go back to the old formula.
The old version was based on sucrose. All of the
new versions made in the U.S. (including Coke Classic)
are based on high-fructose corn syrup. I haven't
compared them, but some people say there's a noticable
difference between the two.

You can get sucrose-based Coke at many Mexican food
stores, who import it from Mexico. According to
the label on those bottles, it can be made from
either sucrose or HFCS, but I doubt it would make
any sense to use HFCS in Coke made in Mexico.
Mexico is a major producer of cane sugar, and does
not have the powerful sugar lobby that keeps prices
high in the U.S.

Mark Thorson > wrote:

> You can get sucrose-based Coke at many Mexican food
> stores, who import it from Mexico. According to
> the label on those bottles, it can be made from
> either sucrose or HFCS, but I doubt it would make
> any sense to use HFCS in Coke made in Mexico.

If you want to be sure, find some Coke that is
labeled "Kosher for Passover." They can't have
any corn derived products in that, so it has pure
can sugar.

Bill Ranck
Blacksburg, Va.

Mark Thorson > wrote:

> Except that they didn't go back to the old formula.
> The old version was based on sucrose. All of the
> new versions made in the U.S. (including Coke Classic)
> are based on high-fructose corn syrup. I haven't

I'm pretty sure they were using HFCS before the New Coke
debacle. Not everywhere, but in some parts of the country.

Bill Ranck
Blacksburg, Va.

On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 22:35:36 -0700, sf wrote:

>On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 19:18:56 GMT, blake murphy >
>wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 15:53:04 -0500, "kilikini"
>>> Around here though,
>>>almost every buffet has it as a "crab" salad with celery, mayo and onion and
>>>I put it on my plate only because it's not deep fried or cooked to death
>>>like everything else is down here. :~)
>>>
>>>kili
>>>
>>
>>refresh my memory, kili - whereat is down here?
>>
>Florida

okey-dokey. maryland, home of the blue crab, here.

your pal,
blake

> I agree that it was a sin to change from sugar to
> corn syrup, nevertheless, Coke is still the best cola
> out there and I won't dring anything else. It's infinitely
> better than Pepsi (spawn of the evil empire).

Are there really only two options for most of the country? I don't
drink soda, but my husband prefers RC cola.

--Charlene

--
I have found out that there ain't no surer way to find out whether you
like people or hate them than to travel with them. -- Mark Twain


email perronnellec at earthlink . net

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

In article >,
Terry Pulliam Burd > wrote:

> The LA Times today had an article on the front page called "The
> Courage of Their Confections" which tells of the Grocery Manufactuers
> of America, a trade group, campaign to let chocolate makers replace
> cocoa butter with vegetable oils and milk (for milk chocolate) with
> "milk protein concentrates." This is just *wrong*, IMHO. Sees and
> Guittard Chocolate Co., two of California's oldest chocolatiers, are
> having fits about this. The trade group, which says it has the support
> of the Chocolate Manufacturers of America says it's "just thinking
> outside the old chocolate box." It wouldn't prevent Sees and Guittard
> from using cocoa butter and milk, of course, but there ought to be a
> label on the vegetable oil and "milk protein concentrates" candy that
> precludes the word "chocolate" or "milk chocolate," much as those
> chemistry experiments at the fast food joints don't call their
> products "milk shakes."
>
> Class is open for discussion.

This is the perfect example of an issue where the marketplace can decide
just fine. As long as this is clearly labeled, I have no problem with
using vegetable oils and milk instead of real cocoa butter because, if
enough people dislike the product, they will simply not buy it and opt
for more expensive premium chocolate.

Stan Horwitz > wrote:

>This is the perfect example of an issue where the marketplace can decide
>just fine. As long as this is clearly labeled, I have no problem with
>using vegetable oils and milk instead of real cocoa butter because, if
>enough people dislike the product, they will simply not buy it and opt
>for more expensive premium chocolate.

Don't you think it is reasonable to have a few shortcuts so
that some popular products are succinctly labled? For example
"milk" means cow's milk not elephant milk, even when you don't
read the fine print.

Steve

Terry Pulliam Burd > wrote:
> of America, a trade group, campaign to let chocolate makers replace
> cocoa butter with vegetable oils and milk (for milk chocolate) with
> "milk protein concentrates." This is just *wrong*, IMHO. Sees and

I'm somewhat curious as to how "milk protein concentrates" differs
from "milk solids" which are currently used. The milk in milk chocolate
has been powdered milk of some sort for 100 years or more. I'm not
a big fan of the vegetable oils in chocolates, because they generally
have to hydrogenate them to keep them solid at room temperatures.

On the other hand, Hershey convinced the FDA a few years ago to let
them call white chocolate, white chocolate. Before that anything
that did not have a certain percentage of cocoa solids in it wasn't
allowed to be called "chocolate" even if it used pure cocoa butter.

Bill Ranck
Blacksburg, Va.

In article >,
(Steve Pope) wrote:

> Stan Horwitz > wrote:
>
> >This is the perfect example of an issue where the marketplace can decide
> >just fine. As long as this is clearly labeled, I have no problem with
> >using vegetable oils and milk instead of real cocoa butter because, if
> >enough people dislike the product, they will simply not buy it and opt
> >for more expensive premium chocolate.
>
> Don't you think it is reasonable to have a few shortcuts so
> that some popular products are succinctly labled? For example
> "milk" means cow's milk not elephant milk, even when you don't
> read the fine print.

No. If a product that is heavily based on a particular ingredient, such
as milk in a bar of chocolate, is non-standard, the difference should be
clearly labeled.

On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 12:41:01 -0500, in rec.food.cooking, Charlene Charette
wrote:

>> I agree that it was a sin to change from sugar to
>> corn syrup, nevertheless, Coke is still the best cola
>> out there and I won't dring anything else. It's infinitely
>> better than Pepsi (spawn of the evil empire).
>
>Are there really only two options for most of the country? I don't
>drink soda, but my husband prefers RC cola.

So do I, but I'm in the UK and we don't have it here.
But what we do have in Europe that the US doesn't have is Pepsi Max, a
diet version of Pepsi (not Diet Pepsi) that tastes like regular Pepsi.

When I'm visiting family in Indiana I drink RC.

Doug
--
Doug Weller --
A Director and Moderator of The Hall of Ma'at http://www.hallofmaat.com
Doug's Archaeology Site: http://www.ramtops.co.uk
Amun - co-owner/co-moderator http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Amun/