If they succeed, the big producers will make worse chocolate, using less cocoa.  Thus they will purchase less cut-rate chocolate from exploited farmers, and their product quality will suffer.

In the meantime, the premium chocolate companies will probably capture more market share, as the difference between their products and the mass produced crap becomes more obvious, and thus the demand for good quality, carefully grown chocolate will increase.

What's the downside here?

www.grist.org

The FDA is considering MANY things within the docket under consideration. That's why there are so many names on that "citizen's petition". Yes, ADM would benefit in many areas should this pass as they make both chocolate and many of the substitute oils.

The curious thing about this docket is that there is an open comment period, but the precise contents of the docket have not been posted on the FDA website for the public to view. (As the originator of the editorial in the LATimes, I tried very hard to get a hold of the text.)

The portion about chocolate has come to light because a member of the CMA has dissented from the organization and passed around the proposed changes while we could still voice our opinion.

The proposal will simply ALLOW manufacturers to use cheaper, substandard ingredients. It won't insist that they do. There are fine chocolate companies that exceed the minimums right now. But you know, once you open the can of worms...

My ultimate suspicion is that this will have less of an impact on our day to day chocolate bars, but more in foods where chocolate is an ingredient, such as baked goods. Mockolate Chip Cookies anyone?

If the goal of the described policy campaign is to enable more, cheaper chocolate to flood the market, then increased compeition may evolve to compete with existing low quality chocolate. Theoretically, true connaisseurs will still choose higher quality chocolate, with cocoa butter, if they can afford it, and if new regulations don't ban it.  The big question is, what kinds of implications might the change in U.S. policy have for for foreign chocolate imports? What woiuld it take for policy to evolve to favor free-trade chocolate over junk? So much for a society where elected leaders seek to increase awareness of health conscious choices. The curious are still prompted to ask, "what's in this policy for them and us?"

Positive change begins with each of us

Seems that the marketplace will decide what it wants.  Does the change not prohibit choclatiers from advertising: "chocolate made with pure cocoa butter"?

Who cares?  Is this the what the FDA is spending their time on?  For Christ Sake, there are bigger FDA issues in the the world than this.  Maybe the FDA has too much time on its hands and should reallocate some personnel to solving some of the serious issues facing the nation and planet.

Cheers, Gary Gifford

The point is that the candy companies are already permitted to make this product that contains substitute vegetable fats. They are just not allowed to call it chocolate.

So what they're asking the FDA is to put one over on the consumer. If you read the petition, it says that we've formed no expections. So if we haven't, why don't we buy cheaper quasi chocolate instead?

Fake chocolate is also over-modified. There are too many emulsifiers and different sources for the ingredients. The simpler the product, ultimately the better in most cases. Not only nutritionally, but most people prefer it taste-wise.

I'm not advocating anything more than leave standards the way they are.

Two items:
First - Amano was wrong, or at least misleading, when they said "it costs significant amounts of money for the farmers to become fair-trade certified". As a company who imports and sells at least 500,000 pounds of Fair Trade Certified cocoa/chocolate a year we at Equal Exchange can attest that the Fair Trade system delivers real benefits for small-scale farmers. (All told we work with over 30 Fair Trade Certified farmer co-ops in 13 countries, and involving coffee, tea, cocoa, sugar, and rooibos.) While certification does take time (and could admittedly be streamlined) and requires a fee (just as with organic certification, but cheaper) to help cover the costs of the certification process the fee is dwarfed by the higher prices Fair Trade farmer co-ops receive. For example, thanks to the Fair Trade system in just the last 5 years our small company alone has paid farmers $8 million ABOVE the market price for their crops. See in that context the fees are irrelevant.

Second - I thought it amusing to see the posting plugging Dagoba, as they are part of Hershey's. Assuming that the staff at Dagoba want to object to the FDA/Chocolate Manufacturer's effort to dilute the integrity of chocolate I wonder how'll they do it without running afoul of the Hersheys executives. Likewise, I wonder if Scharfenberger (also owned by Hersheys) will speak up on this issue.

This is just a list of products I've tried and enjoyed. I'm sure other folks have found other brands and can add to the list.

Fair Trade chocolate manufacturers available in the US:

Equal Exchange Chocolate - Organic & Fair Trade (made in Switzerland)
Divine Chocolate - Fair Trade (made in the UK)
Endangered Species - some ethically traded products, some organic (made in the US)
Terra Nostra - fair trade and organic (made in Canada & Switzerland)
Theo Chocolate - Fair Trade and organic (made in US)

When picking a chocolate product fair trade is usually best, but when choices are limited organic is also a good choice as it is grown more sustainably and the farmers are paid a premium.

To the list I'd add:

Cocoa Camino (a Canadian worker co-op): 100% organic & Fair Trade

Art Bar (by Ithaca Fine Chocolates):organic, Fair Trade

Sweet Earth Organics (made in California): organic, Fair Trade

Shaman Chocolates: some?all? Fair Trade

Omanhene Cocoa Bean Company (made in Ghana)- good people, but I don't know the details.