Is Chocolate Part of Your Religion?

Now, in most of my modes I can take or leave chocolate, but I know for more than a few of you, this is a fairly significant thing.

See, right now, chocolate contains two things, by definition: cocoa, and cocoa butter. White "chocolate" is all cocoa butter and isn't properly chocolate at all, but that's not what I'm sending around for comments, rants, and a bit of the old direct action: I care because food should be what it says it is!

The Chocolate Makers' Association would like to be able to use any old oil instead of the cocoa butter, and stll be able to call it chocolate. Plus, the milk in milk chocolate would no longer have to be milk, but could be milk substitutes.

Yes, primarily this means that crappy chocolate would get crappier.

Check out this op-ed piece in the Modesto Bee, and then this straight-up advocacy site:

http://www.dontmesswithourchocolate.com/

'ware, however, that you're stepping on Astroturf, not real grass roots: Guittard makes no effort to hide that they wrote it. As a high-end candymaker, they would obviously stand to lose some if this regulation were to pass, but on the other hand, it appears that the founder has a real, personal, interest in this issue.

The second site has full directions on how to poke the FDA, and provides a helpful link, which I copy for your edification here.

Food labels are already pretty worn things, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't defend the ones we've got!

-- Lorrie