http://www.jimhightower.com/node/6126

Shouldn't chocolate contain, you know... chocolate? By which I mean
cocoa butter and solids, derived from the cacao tree, which the
dictionary specifically says is "the source of chocolate."

No, says Hershey, Nestle, and other candy makers that are petitioning
the Food and Drug Administration to let them blatantly lie to us
consumers about what's in their confections. They want to be able to
use no chocolate at all - instead substituting artificial sweeteners,
hydrogenated and chemically-modified vegetable fats, and other
artificial ingredients - yet still get to call their product
"chocolate." You don't have to be a chocoholic to see that this is a
raw deal.

To add insult to injury, Hershey even blames us for its proposed rip-
off, claiming that the deceptive label is needed to keep up with the
changing "consumer taste preference." Oh, right - I'm sure there's an
explosion of pent-up consumer demand all across America for that yummy
taste of chemically modified trans fats. Who wants that old cocoa
richness when we could have the waxy texture of the artificial stuff?

What we have here is a crass play by the big manufacturers to use
cheap ingredients, then advertise and sell the product as fine
chocolate. Gary Guillard of Guillard Chocolate Company is one of many
real chocolate makers who are appalled by this perversion. He says
that the manufacturers' proposal would "cheapen chocolate's great
taste, all in pursuit of shortchanging the consumer, and putting that
change in their own pockets."

If you want real chocolate instead of the fake stuff, which one group
calls "mockolate," now is the time to speak up. The FDA's public
comment period for the industry's proposal runs until June 25th. For
more information and for a direct link to the FDA for registering your
comment - go to this web site: www.dontmesswithourchocolate.com.

"Food-O-File," Austin Chronicle, May 4, 2007
"Letter to Stakeholders," www.chocolateusa.org, April 2007
"Are Chocolate Standards of Identity the Same Around the World?"
dontmesswithourchocolate.guittard.com, May 2007

rst > wrote:

> Shouldn't chocolate contain, you know... chocolate? By which I mean

<snip inaccurate rant about old news>

First, this has been talked about here at least a month ago.
Second, this guy's exaggerating a good bit when he says,
"They want to be able to use no chocolate at all."
It does no good to make wild claims if you want reasonable
people to take you seriously. As far as I know, they only
want to replace the cocoa butter, not the solids. That's
hardly "no chocolate at all." The reality is bad enough.
Making false claims just turns off people who might otherwise
see the point and agree.

Third, couldn't he have at least spelled Guittard correctly?

Who is this whacko, anyway?

Bill Ranck
Blacksburg, Va.