Search Articles:

 

Breaking News......... Judge to hear arguments in southeastern MT water quality case......... Billings man killed by holiday lightning strike......... MONDAY'S WEATHER: Squeaky clean after overnight rainshowers!......... 5-month-old golden retriever saves Missoula man from fire at condo......... Local News......... 8-year-old Missoula girl electrocuted on 4th; Man dies in Flathead boating accident........Departing doctors: State faces shortage of primary-care physicians........Departing doctors: Physicians may face legal hurdles if they leave hospitals........Primary-care physician losses minimal in Billings........Dancing with honor: Ronan teen proudly accepts responsibility as Arlee Celebration's Young Warrior........Montana Meth Project's claims under scrutiny........

SUMMARY: Redefining chocolate messes with something that doesn't need messing.

If the U.S. government didn't regulate chocolate, we wouldn't be the ones demanding it start. But since the U.S. Food and Drug Administration does already regulate chocolate along with virtually all other processed foods, we're compelled to chime in with the outrage growing throughout the land over a proposal to degrade what must fairly be considered one of the most important and necessary food groups.

Chocolate regulation doesn't quite qualify as over-regulation, since all the FDA does is define what constitutes chocolate. It's not very complicated. It takes two essential ingredients to make chocolate: cocoa solids and cocoa butter. You can add things to them - like sugar or cream - but it's not chocolate unless you have the two essential ingredients. Companies are perfectly free to make and sell products that don't meet the simple standard for chocolate; they simply must be labeled “chocolate-flavored” in stead of “chocolate.”

But get this: According to the Los Angeles Times, Bloomberg News and others, some of the major producers of brown substances that may or may not be chocolate - banding together as the Chocolate Manufacturers Association - have petitioned the FDA to revise the definition. Party to this petition are Hershey, Nestle and Archer Daniels Midland. They propose to “modernize” the standard.

Modernize? “Subvert” is a better verb. They're effectively proposing to call anything with cocoa “chocolate,” clearing the way to substitute vegetable oil or other substitutes for cocoa butter.

It's not the government's job to protect you from ersatz chocolate, but neither is it the government's job to help food manufacturers deceive consumers. If manufacturers can produce chocolate-flavored products that please consumers as much as chocolate, calling them something other than pure chocolate won't matter. The only reason to call something chocolate when it isn't is to deceive.

Abe Lincoln was right: You can't fool all the people all the time. Aided by makers of real chocolate, America's chocoholics are fighting back. Although the move to redefine chocolate was stealthy, the alarm has been sounded. Intense reaction already has forced the FDA to extend the public comment period on the chocolate-adulteration petition to June 25. If you're a fellow chocolate-lover, you'll want to check out www.dontmesswithourchocolate. guittard.com. Follow the “comment” link to register your outrage with the FDA.

---

---

Add your comment now! Write your comment in the form below.
(Email address is for verification only. If you'd like to email a story, look for the link above)

---