Next time when you’re buying yourself mouth watering chocolate, it’s possible that it’s not a chocolate in real sense. Yes, it’s true, if we go by the latest norms set by FDA.
It seems that there are some who find that unacceptable and think of some wicked reasons behind the same. As usual, money seems to be the motivating factor
The FDA is considering changing the definition of chocolate to include those products that do not contain cocoa butter or even cocoa solids. It has come up with a 35 page petition proposing the change in food standards, which has been signed by juice producers, meat canners and the chocolate lobby.
In response to this the chocolate lovers have undertaken a grassroot letter-writing campaign to the FDA to inform the agency that they are against such a change in the standards.
Can chocolate be a chocolate if there is no cocoa?
Cocoa powder provides the flavor but cocoa butter is responsible for the texture and that melt in your mouth wonderfulness and if chocolate manufacturers try to cheat us with the switch, we can notice the difference. Do you know, how?
The product they’re trying to rename chocolate already exists; it’s called chocolate flavored or chocolaty or cocoalicious. You can find it on the shelves right now at your local stores.
Nestle SA and Hershey could save a bundle of money by not putting cocoa in their chocolate. I don’t think that it is right to allow these large multinational corporations to label a non-chocolate product as chocolate.
Source: WashingtonPost
