While working on my editorial for the LATimes I did a lot of research. I looked at the issue from a lot of different points of view in order to figure out the best way to frame my 700 words on the subject.

One of the points that a few commenters have made is that restricting confectioners through FDA regulations creates a nanny state. While I think this is true in general, I think that speaks more for keeping the definitions the way that they are. As consumers we’re just asking for consistency. We’re not saying that they can’t use vegetable oils, we’re just asking for the commonly accepted language to be maintained.

The naming convention also protects people who are buying products that are not individually labeled, such as chocolates from a bakery or candy shop. If you’re looking at a row of confectionery creations like chocolate covered strawberries, rocky road, chocolate croissants, chocolate chip cookies, chocolate dipped apples or chocolate pretzels you probably have an assumption about what that chocolate stuff is. With such a wide latitude under the new rules, are you going to be faced with playing 20 questions with the staff behind the counter about what exactly is in that chocolate? Do you seriously believe that they’ll be equipped to answer those questions? (Having worked in a bakery before, I’m going to say no.)

One of the other things I also examined was the value of real chocolate in the consumer candy market. I’m not talking about the high end stuff, I’m talking about plain old candy bars made with chocolate. I’ve said it over and over again, confectioners don’t need the FDA’s permission to make mockolate. They just want their blessing the relabel their existing products as real chocolate. I think it’s rather telling that of the top chocolate candy bars, there is one that is made with mockolate (Butterfinger). So success is possible with a non-chocolate product in the chocolate category (see chart below).

According to one of the articles I read, about 25% of chocolate is made from cocoa butter. Cocoa butter costs three times as much as vegetable oil substitutes. So the end product may cost 18% less for manufacturers. I can see why this is a tantalizing proposition for them (again, see chart below). The soda companies changed to high fructose corn sweeteners, check out Kate Hopkins analysis of that (note that the majority of a soda is water, not sweetener). Soda manufacturers who still use sugar are few and far between and charge a premium, Jones is the first one that comes to mind.

Don’t forget to spread the word and enter the Keep it Real Raffle.

* mockolate
Source as of November 2006

My editorial in the LATimes was published.

If you’re looking for the comment form on the FDA Site, go here. (Tutorial here.) Deadline is

June 25th.

Hands off my chocolate, FDA!
The FDA may allow Big Chocolate to pass off a waxy substitute as the real thing.
By Cybele May, CYBELE MAY is a writer who reviews candy on her blog, candyblog.net.
April 19, 2007
THE AVERAGE American eats 12 pounds of chocolate a year. That’s about a chocolate bar every other day. (I am above average, judging by the fact that I eat enough chocolate to deduct it as a line item on my tax return.)

To sum up so far: Americans eat a lot of chocolate.

That’s cool, because we also make a lot of it. We make everything from the inexpensive milk chocolate bars that you buy at the supermarket checkout counter to the decadent, limited-edition chocolate bars made from “handpicked beans from a single hillside in Venezuela,” for which there’s a waiting list.

It’s all basically made the same way: cacao pods are fermented and then roasted and ground into a fine paste that can be separated into two components: cacao solids (commonly called cocoa powder) and cocoa butter. Each chocolatier uses different proportions but generally blends sugar, cocoa solids and cocoa butter plus the optional ingredients—emulsifiers, flavors (typically vanilla) and milk solids (to make milk chocolate)—and molds that into a chocolate bar.

A little over 100 years ago, Milton Hershey created the nickel bar, the first American chocolate bar for the masses. Today, these small purchases of chocolate products add up to an $18-billion business. Like all foods in the United States, chocolate is regulated by the Food and Drug Administration to ensure that consumers get a safe and consistent product.

But perhaps no longer. The FDA is entertaining a “citizen’s petition” to allow manufacturers to substitute vegetable fats and oils for cocoa butter.

The “citizens” who created this petition represent groups that would benefit most from this degradation of the current standards. They are the Chocolate Manufacturers Assn., the Grocery Manufacturers Assn., the Snack Food Assn. and the National Cattlemen’s Beef Assn. (OK, I’m not sure what’s in it for them), along with seven other food producing associations.

This is what they think of us chocolate eaters, according to their petition on file at the FDA:

“Consumer expectations still define the basic nature of a food. There are, however, no generally held consumer expectations today concerning the precise technical elements by which commonly recognized, standardized foods are produced. Consumers, therefore, are not likely to have formed expectations as to production methods, aging time or specific ingredients used for technical improvements, including manufacturing efficiencies.”

Let me translate: “Consumers won’t know the difference.”

I can tell you right now—we will notice the difference. How do I know? Because the product they’re trying to rename “chocolate” already exists. It’s called “chocolate flavored” or “chocolaty” or “cocoalicious.” You can find it on the shelves right now at your local stores in the 75% Easter sale bin, those waxy/greasy mock-chocolate bunnies and foil-wrapped eggs that sit even in the most sugar-obsessed child’s Easter basket well into July.

It may be cocoa powder that gives chocolate its taste, but it is the cocoa butter that gives it that inimitable texture. It is one of the rare, naturally occurring vegetable fats that is solid at room temperature and melts as it hits body temperature—that is to say, it melts in your mouth. Cocoa butter also protects the antioxidant properties of the cocoa solids and gives well-made chocolate its excellent shelf life.

Because it’s already perfectly legal to sell choco-products made with cheaper oils and fats, what the groups are asking the FDA for is permission to call these waxy impostors “chocolate.” Because we “haven’t formed any expectations.”

I’d say we’ve already demonstrated our preference for true chocolate. That’s why real chocolate outsells fake chocolate. Nine of the 10 bestselling U.S. chocolate candies are made with the real stuff. M&Ms, Hershey Bars, Reese’s Peanut Butter Cups—all real chocolate. Butterfinger is the outlier.

Granted, a change to the “food standards of identity” won’t require makers to remove some or all of the cocoa butter, it would just allow them to. But really, why else would they ask?

But as long as they’re asking, the FDA does have a way for other citizens to voice their expectations. It’s buried deep in its website. Until April 25, the agency is accepting comments—by fax, mail or online—on a docket with the benign-sounding name of “2007P-0085: Adopt Regulations of General Applicability to All Food Standards that Would Permit, Within Stated Boundaries, Deviations from the Requirements of the Individual Food Standards of Identity.”

I’m telling them to keep it real.

I’ve been madly typing away on an editorial for the LA Times for the past week. Honing it, submitting it, editing it.

And I’m feeling pretty good. I’m taking a stand, getting the word out. Because I was feeling like this topic was neglected in the mass media.

So I ran into my neighbor this morning, who happens to work at the LA Times (no, she’s not the one who spits things out) and she said, “Did you see the LATimes this morning?”

I said I saw it, but I didn’t read it (because it was in an opaque wrapper that was an ad for Sprint and I couldn’t see the headlines). I had stuff to do and got up early and headed out.

She said I should read it because there is an article on the front page about the cocoa butter substitution proposal.

(Sigh. So my editorial is a no-go at the moment. Maybe some retooling.)

Here are some highlights of the article with my commentary:

A pound of chocolate contains more than 4 ounces of cocoa butter, at a cost of about $2.30, said Guittard Chocolate, based in Burlingame, Calif. The same amount of vegetable oil was 70 cents.

Think about that for a moment. So a quarter of what we’re eating when we consume chocolate is actually cocoa butter. And replacing that huge proportion with an ingredient that doesn’t make it taste better also isn’t going to improve the nutritional profile of chocolate. It’s going to make it worse. Sure, chocolate is high in fat (hello? it’s 25% fat) but it has been found to be neutral when it comes to our cholesterol profile (that’s just plain cocoa butter, chocolate itself as a combination of both cocoa solids high in antioxidants and the neutral butter lowers bad cholesterol and raises good cholesterol). The fats they want to put in place of cocoa butter are nasty. They contain higher levels of saturated fats and can even contain trans fatty acids.

By adopting the proposal, the FDA would be providing “flexibility to make changes based on consumer taste preferences, ingredient costs and availability and shelf life,” said Kirk Saville, spokesman for the Hershey, Pa.-based company.

Saville said it could be years before the FDA issued a decision.

That flexibility already exists. Hershey is free to make products without cocoa butter in them right now. In fact, they do. They put a vegetable oil based coating on the current version of the 5th Avenue Bar. I’ve had it. And as a consumer with taste, I prefer the old version. I resent the fact that if this proposal goes through they can take the current mockolate formulation and put a big banner across the front of the package that says “Now with Real Chocolate” without changing a thing in the actual ingredients. Tell me they’re doing it becuaseof my preference and I will laugh in your face.

Oh, and it could be years? Yes, but the open comment period for the public to respond is now, so that sort of mollifying comment is like saying, “don’t worry your pretty little head about it. We’ll do what’s right for you. Look at how much we have your interests at heart, because we’ve already publicly stated that customers may actually prefer a version of chocolate that don’t have cocoa butter in it.”

Gary Guittard believes that in proposing to change the rules, the food industry is overthinking what he believes should be one of the simple joys of life.

“Why add ingredients to something that is just fine the way it is?” he asked.

Honestly, this sums it up so well. Industry is overthinking this. It’s a simple thing that we want, we just want chocolate. Keep it real, guys. Don’t mess with out chocolate.

Note: Jerry Hirsch’s article also appeared in the Seattle Times.

There’s been some news on the FDA Chocolate Standards change since my last post.

First, Guittard Chocolate Company has issued a press release. Below is a quote from Gary Guittard, the fourth generation chocolatemaker:

“The Citizen’s Petition proposed to FDA by the Grocery Manufacturers Association has many good points as it pertains to other foods, but if adopted it would allow the current “Gold Standard” for chocolate to be changed in a way that will ultimately result in short-changing the consumer and changing what we know and love as traditional chocolate.  There are no clear consumer benefits associated with the proposed changes.”

But what I thought was especially interesting was this point that the release also brought up:

Changing the current “Gold Standard” for chocolate by allowing the substitution of hydrogenated or chemically-modified vegetable fats for cocoa butter will also have a dramatic impact on cocoa growers in Central and South America, the Caribbean Basin, Africa, and nations in Southeast Asia at a time when the global chocolate industry is working to improve working and economic conditions of these developing countries’ farmers.  In fact, the plan to substitute these types of vegetable fats for cocoa butter would cause a disastrous economic impact on their livelihoods as the demand for cocoa butter would likely decrease and prices would plummet as some manufacturers switch to the cheaper substitutes.

Go read the whole thing.

There are a few things to remember. The new standards will expand the definition of chocolate, which will still include the current standards. This means that the chocolate that we know and love may continue to exist by those manufacturers that have customers who value their quality product. However, because of the new latitude, the cocoa butter which we know and revere for its unique mouthfeel may be replaced in part or total by other vegetable fats in products on the market that you already purchase.

I know, an oil is an oil right? You use them interchangeably all the time! Making a salad dressing? Olive oil is the same as partially hydrogenated coconut oil, isn’t it? Of course not! If you wouldn’t do it to your salad, why on earth would you do it to your chocolate?

The permission to substitute is a degradation of the already liberal standards for chocolate. It provides no benefit to the consumer. I’ve said this before, it’s perfectly legal for a confectioner to make a coconut oil based mockolate product and sell it right now. Why do they want to call it chocolate? For you? No, it’s for them to be able to sell you a cheaper product under the same name as a well-respected and high quality product. Sure, you’ll know it just by reading the ingredients, but when I buy something called orange juice, I expect the juice of oranges. When I buy chocolate, I expect the whole bean elements to be present.

In the mean time, I’ve also been doing my darndest to get a hold of the actual FDA document that we’re supposed to be commenting on. I know it seems silly, but don’t you think that the FDA has an obligation to post the document for public review within the window for public comment? Keep an eye on this page, perhaps it will be posted soon.

I’ve also contacted the Chocolate Manufacturers Association for their comment on this and I’ll have more to report on that. (I got a response, I just need to go through it completely.)

Keep this page bookmarked for all of my updated coverage on the issue. Don’t forget to do your part (and then claim your raffle ticket in my drawing!).

I thought I’d put together a list of the conversations I’ve seen out there about the FDA’s proposed shift in the definition of chocolate to include products without cocoa butter. Thanks to everyone for the linky love on the issue!

Can I just say Wow! It makes me feel like we’re mobilizing ... that we might actually be heard on the issue. (Those were in no particular order and I may have some blog names wrong.)

On the other side of the fence we have some interesting commentary (and I totally understand some of their points):
John Wright at Libertarian Reason (this is an older post about the “vegelate” moniker for UK chocolate)
Joe at JoePastry.com - makes the argument that non-cocoabutter confections are valid and deserve to be explored, like spreadable chocolate.  (My feeling is those are totally cool things, which can be sold now and don’t need to be sold as “chocolate”.)

Hopefully I’ll be updating this list or posting a new one as the word spreads. Remember, April 25th is the deadline for comments. (Anyone who’s posted about it is eligible for a raffle ticket for my Keep it Real Raffle, too!)

Finally there’s some big media coverage of the FDA’s new proposal to replace cocoa butter with other vegatable fats.

Robert Noel of ChocolateGuild.com & Gary Guittard of Guittard Chocolate on CBS 5 in the Bay Area.

Here’s the proposal ... I’m going to do another drawing for some free tasty goodies.

I don’t know what the actual prize is yet, but I can tell you that it will be GOOD chocolate.

How can you get some? You have to help get the word out about the open comment period on the FDA’s proposed changes for the definition of chocolate.

(Don’t worry, I’m not telling you what to say, you can go on there and comment in support of mockolate if you want. I want the FDA to actually hear from the citizens who buy the stuff and not just the industry action groups.)

For each one of the actions below, you can earn a virtual raffle ticket. The more you do, the better your chances:

Here are a few extra rules:

Please do not comment on the FDA site if you’re not in the United States or an American living abroad. That doesn’t mean that folks outside US can’t enter, you just don’t qualify for that particular point. (I could be wrong about foreigners commenting ... someone correct me.)

You are limited to five entries (though you’re free to make greater efforts, but only the first five will count).

You are responsible for calculating your “raffle tickets”. Just come here and leave a list of your deeds (you don’t have to list them all on the same day).

You must comment with a valid email address, don’t worry, no one sees it but me (how else can I tell you that you won?).

Final note, the object of this challenge is not to create a bunch of empty chatter, but to just widen awareness of this issue by engaging you, sweet readers, to pass the info along. So keep in mind that we’ll all win if we Keep It Real.

Deadline for all comments here is April 25th at 11:59 PM PDT.

UPDATE 4/17/2007: The first prize will be a $100 Gift Certificate to Chocosphere

Also, since folks have asked, yes emailing your friends also qualifies. (Just don’t spam them over and over again ... but you wouldn’t do that.)

UPDATE 4/26/2007: Contest entries are now closed. I’ll announce a winner later. Since the comment period has been extended by the FDA I’ll start a new raffle with a new prize.

I’ve been doing much more research on the issue of the FDA allowing chocolate companies to sell us chocolate that doesn’t contain cocoa butter. First, there’s nothing stopping confectioners from creating a product that contains cocoa solids and other fats. It’s perfectly legal. They want the FDA’s blessing to confuse consumers by letting them call an inferior product CHOCOLATE.

I read over the “Citizen’s Petition” (PDF) on the FDA website for 2007P-0085: Adopt Regulations of General Applicability to all Food Standards that would Permit, within Stated Boundaries, Deviations from the Requirements of the Individual Food Standards of Identity. This is what it says:

Consumer expectations still define the basic nature of a food. These are, however, no generally held consumer expectations today concerning the precise technical elements which commonly recognized, standardized foods are produced. Consumers, therefore, are not likely to have formed expectations as to production methods, aging time, or specific ingredients used for technical improvements, including manufacturing efficiencies.

I’m not sure which ‘consumers’ they’re talking about when it comes to our generally held expectations about the precise technical elements of chocolate, but I’m pretty sure the majority of chocolate consumers would be able to tell the difference between mockolate and chocolate - both by looking at the label but more importantly by tasting the product. (I will grant you that I’ve had passably good mockolate from Guittard and Wilbur, which is useful your home kitchen when you don’t want a chocolate that you need to temper, like with dipped strawberries.)

And which citizens are saying this to the FDA on our behalf? Well, that’d be our good neighbors:

But let’s get back to the simple fact that the confectionery companies can make mockolate and sell it right now. So ask yourself, why do they want to call it chocolate? Because it saves on printing costs to simply say “chocolate” instead of “chocolate flavored coating”? Or is it because vegetable oil substitutes cost 70% less than cocoa butter? (source)

If you’re curious about the current definitions, Hershey’s even has it all spelled out very well on their site.

The FDA is The Nation’s Premier Consumer Protection & Health Agency ... the open comment period on this proposed shift is our opportunity to keep the CONSUMER in mind.