posted
Meh. American chocolate has never been any good anyway; so they make it worse, so what? Eat European.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
There are lots of good American chocolate companies.
What I'm more concerned with, is trying to buy chocolate cake mix or chocolate milk, and wondering what they're really using to make it taste like chocolate.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
So, read the ingredients. If this passes it will allow companies to use vegetable fat instead of cocoa butter, not require them to. The only companies that are going to swtich are the ones who are making crappy chocolate anyway. The high end brands that you're already paying a premium for aren't going to change their formulas.
Also, chocolate milk and chocolate cake mix are flavored with cocoa powder, not chocolate, anyway and don't have added cocoa butter.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:What I'm more concerned with, is trying to buy chocolate cake mix or chocolate milk, and wondering what they're really using to make it taste like chocolate.
Good thing we have ingredient lists...
Posts: 5879 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
We already have a thing called "Chocolate", which I shouldn't have to read the ingredients of. Just because we have ingredient lists, companies should not be allowed to make food out of whatever they want and call it something else.
I can't think of any good reason to expect less honesty from the people we trust to make our food.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
But, many companies already use mostly vegetable oil instead of cocoa butter. It's not against the rules to substitute some, just to substitute all, and not use any cocoa butter. So if you want good chocolate, you already have to check the lable. Now, if they were saying that you could make something that didn't contain any cocoa powder and call it chocolate, I'd agree with you that they were making a food out of whatever they want and call it something else. Cocoa powder is what adds the flavor. Cocoa butter is just about mouth feel.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ElJay: But, many companies already use mostly vegetable oil instead of cocoa butter. It's not against the rules to substitute some, just to substitute all, and not use any cocoa butter. So if you want good chocolate, you already have to check the lable. Now, if they were saying that you could make something that didn't contain any cocoa powder and call it chocolate, I'd agree with you that they were making a food out of whatever they want and call it something else. Cocoa powder is what adds the flavor. Cocoa butter is just about mouth feel.
Not true. At least it wasn't true ten years ago. At that time In the US, no product could be labeled chocolate if it contained vegetable fats. It could be labeled "chocolate flavored" but not chocolate.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ElJay: But, many companies already use mostly vegetable oil instead of cocoa butter. It's not against the rules to substitute some, just to substitute all, and not use any cocoa butter. So if you want good chocolate, you already have to check the lable. Now, if they were saying that you could make something that didn't contain any cocoa powder and call it chocolate, I'd agree with you that they were making a food out of whatever they want and call it something else. Cocoa powder is what adds the flavor. Cocoa butter is just about mouth feel.
Not true. At least it wasn't true ten years ago. At that time In the US, no product could be labeled chocolate if it contained vegetable fats. It could be labeled "chocolate flavored" but not chocolate.
I thought this was still true. That's why Hershey's makes "chocolate flavored" syrup. And ice cream bars have "chocolate flavored" coating.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, sometimes this sort of "consumer advocacy" irks me. What ever happened to the power of the free market? Don't buy it, if it's inferior. And, if the market is willing to pay a premium for original chocolate, then the companies should be charging a premium. If it costs too much for you, too bad.
Posts: 433 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ElJay: But, many companies already use mostly vegetable oil instead of cocoa butter. It's not against the rules to substitute some, just to substitute all, and not use any cocoa butter. So if you want good chocolate, you already have to check the label. Now, if they were saying that you could make something that didn't contain any cocoa powder and call it chocolate, I'd agree with you that they were making a food out of whatever they want and call it something else. Cocoa powder is what adds the flavor. Cocoa butter is just about mouth feel.
Not true. At least it wasn't true ten years ago. At that time In the US, no product could be labeled chocolate if it contained vegetable fats. It could be labeled "chocolate flavored" but not chocolate.
I thought this was still true. That's why Hershey's makes "chocolate flavored" syrup. And ice cream bars have "chocolate flavored" coating.
Yup.
This policy change would not just make new products (or altered ones) available; it would allow currently existing products that must call themselves "chocolate flavored" to relabel themselves as chocolate.
(It would also have kashrus implications, which is how I found out about it. But I'm mostly annoyed about it for the reasons given on the Guittard-sponsored website I linked to.)
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
