Chocolate Purists Alarmed by Proposal To Fudge Standards: Lines Drawn Over Cocoa Butter
Rarely do documents making their way through federal agencies cause chocolate lovers to totally melt down. Then came Appendix C. Accompanying a 35-page petition signed by a diverse set of culinary groups — juice producers, meat canners and the chocolate lobby — the appendix charts proposed changes to food standard definitions set by the Food and Drug Administration, including this one: “use a vegetable fat in place of another vegetable fat named in the standard (e.g., cacao fat).” Chocolate lovers read that as a direct assault on their palates. That’s because the current FDA standard for chocolate says it must contain cacao fat — a.k.a. cocoa butter — and this proposal would make it possible to call something chocolate even if it had vegetable oil instead of that defining ingredient. Whoppers malted milk balls, for instance, do not have cocoa butter.
First they came for the Jews, and I remained silent, for I’m not Jewish. Then they came for the Libertarians, and I said nothing, for most Libertarians are borderline nutjobs anyway. Then they came for the chocolate…and all hell broke loose, as women from coast to coast threatened to withhold sex until the politicians decided it was in their best interest to leave the chocolate alone (Hey, it worked in Lysistrata….).
I should throw in the disclaimer than I’m not a big chocolate fan. I don’t dislike chocolate, but neither do I wax rhapsodic in paroxysms of blissful, rapturous passion over it. To me, this issue is less about diluting the meaning, quality, and mythic image of chocolate than it is about Republicans once again looking to take from the American sheeple in their efforts to appease Big Business.
Chocolate purists, of which there are apparently many, have undertaken a grassroots letter-writing campaign to the FDA to inform the agency that such a change to the standards is just not okay with them. More than 225 comments to the petition have been processed so far by the agency, and chocolate bloggers are pressing for more. In the annals of bureaucratic Washington battles, this is a sweet one.
“If this puts a smile on people’s faces even though it’s a serious matter, that’s what chocolate is meant to do,” said California chocolate maker and traditionalist Gary Guittard, whose Web site, http://DontMessWithOurChocolate.com, has led the counterassault.
Part of the reason for the passionate uprising against the assault on the definition of chocolate is that chocolate possesses an almost mythic status in our culture. Chocolate is for some a passion almost on a par with sex. Listen to women talk about top-notch chocolate, and if you weren’t paying close attention, you’d almost think they were talking about orgasms.
[C]hocolate isn’t just food. It symbolizes passion, and for its lovers, it borders on religion. They buy chocolate based on cacao content — some desire 70 percent, others will go higher. The most demanding examine labels to make sure it is from one region, not a blend, focusing on production methods much the same way that coffee lovers home in on where beans are grown. Even mass chocolate producers are trying to tap into this spirit. There’s now a Limited Edition Dark Snickers bar.
I’m a coffee aficionado, and while I don’t wax rhapsodic abouts varieties and roasts, I am more than willing to pay higher prices for a good cup of coffee. To me, a bad cup of coffee is like bad sex- it might start out with some promise, but ultimately you’re left with little but a bad taste in your mouth and a lingering sense of disappointment. Because of this, I can understand the passion that some hold for chocolate. We should all be passionate about something…and at least chocolate is safe and legal.
The proposal to water down the definition of chocolate may seem like a small thing to some, but it’s not to those who worship at the Church of Cadbury. The sad thing about the proposal is that it represents yet another instance of the FDA’s ineptitude, inefficiency, and willingness to pander to Big Business. The FDA’s mission is , in part, to protect the American food supply, a part of their job at which they’ve continued to demonstrate a highly degree of ineptitude. Yet they always seem willing to bend over and let various parts of the food industry drive it home for their own benefit and advantage.
Spinach, anyone??
You may not like or care about chocolate per se, but there’s a principle involved here. For the past six-plus years, we’ve seen a gradual rolling back of the federal government’s willingness to do their job- which, by and large, is protecting the American people.
STILL GLAD YOU VOTED REPUBLICAN??
