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!
David at DavidLebovitz.com
Nic at BakingBites
Coasting Granny at Grannie’s Tasties
jsu at Topix.net
Kate at AccidentalHedonist.com
Food Chronicles
Meg at NotMartha.org
Buddha Canvas
YumSugar.com
MFred33 at Center of the Universe
Rage Diaries
Daily Ping
Enslaved to Supermuse
I’m gonna write down whatever ...
Baking & Books
Noirbettie at Through the Looking Glass
Well Seasoned Cook
Mirthfairy
Dethboy
K9Pincushion
Breezeek
LA.Eater
For those random little things…
Teddy
Aleat?rio - O lado rand?mico ...
Our Adventures in Japan
MsBooch
Celebrate Life Daily (tm)
Spin or Dye
Laura Rebecca’s Kitchen
YouNever
As the Worm Turns
Couteau Bonswan
TNTFamily
The Wandering Eater
The Boulder Belt Blog
Llama Pyjamas
Quod Me Nutrit
Yukino
Pass the Sky
Bean Mom
The 1st Daughter
Book Nut
MikeM
Slinkster Feline
Escapades: The Secret Plans
Krista Says
Yayo’s
KQED - Bay Area Bites
My Chocolate Journal
BlogHer
CyberChocolate
KandyExchange
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!)
“My feeling is those are totally cool things, which can be sold now and don?t need to be sold as ‘chocolate.’”
That argument goes both ways. Changing the identity standard won’t prevent chocolate with cocoa butter from being sold, and it won’t remove the requirement for an ingredients list.
Hm. I wouldn’t eat a “chocolate” that included anything other than cacao, sugar, cocoa butter, lecithin, and vanill(a/in) - so I have trouble caring what the legal definition of chocolate is. I’m not going to suddenly start eating garbage, and Scharffen-Berger isn’t about to start producing said garbage.
I.e., what’s the problem? Let the FDA change their silly little rules - the reality of the situation is that nothing changes. All the ingredients are still listed on the label.
Next entry: Das French Salted Caramels
Previous entry: Kisses Coconut Creme