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.

Emma

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.

It's old news and has been discussed.

--
Dave
www.davebbq.com

"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

In article >,
says...
> 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.
>
> Emma
>

At present, to be called chocolate an item has to contain cocoa butter,
the fat that comes from cocoa beans. The industry proposal would allow
an item to be made with corn oil and other fats and still be called
chocolate.

The advantage of cocoa butter is that it melts right about at body temp,
so it gives that great mouth-feel that is one of the nice things about
good chocolate.


--
Peter Aitken

In article >,
says...
>
> 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.
>
> Emma
>

To send a comment to the FDA, go he

http://dontmesswithourchocolate.guittard.com/

--
Peter Aitken

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

Emma Thackery wrote:
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.


As long as the ingredient list on the side of the package was still
accurate as to which products contain cocoa butter and which contain
vegetable oil, this doesn't seem like a top priority to me. Sure I'd
like the labeling rules to remain the same, but it's not information is
being withheld or anyone is being hoodwinked. People who care would
learn to ignore the word "chocolate" in big letters on the front of the
package and would further learn to pay attention to the ingredients.


I'd be outraged if FDA changed its rules to say that it was O.K. to
advertise "pure chocolate made with real cocoa butter" if that wasn't
the case.


--Lia

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. Another reason to hate Bush and everyone like
him.
>
> Emma

--Bryan

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. Another reason to hate Bush and everyone like
him.
>
> Emma

--Bryan

In article >,
Julia Altshuler > wrote:

> Emma Thackery wrote:
> 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.
>
> As long as the ingredient list on the side of the package was still
> accurate as to which products contain cocoa butter and which contain
> vegetable oil, this doesn't seem like a top priority to me.

Your scenario not only defies logic (and ethics) by legitimizing
dishonest labeling but also places an undue burden by requiring the
consumer to take extra time while shopping to read each ingredient list
to determine if the label is even accurate or not! For multiple
products, this could become very time consuming. Industry is banking on
consumers not reading the labels.

Moreover, ingredient lists do not tell you how much of an ingredient is
in a product so the manufacturer, by the rule you would sanction, could
put in the tiniest amount of chocolate possible and still label the item
as a chocolate bar.

> ...Sure I'd like the labeling rules to remain the same, but it's not
> information is being withheld or anyone is being hoodwinked.

Since when is calling one thing another honest? Check your premises.

"Steve Wertz" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 22 May 2007 09:18:17 -0500, Emma Thackery wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> Not to worry. Janet B has been keeping us abreast of all the
> evil-doings going on in the food industry in your absence.
>
> -sw
I'm curious, don't you want to cook with clean food, good food,
uncontaminated food?
However, if my postings weary or annoy you, skip me or block me.
Janet

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.

On Mon, 21 May 2007 23:27:06 -0500, Emma Thackery >
rummaged among random neurons and opined:

>
>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.

Actually, I posted the link to the LA Times article several weeks ago.
Old news.

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"