There’s been some news on the FDA Chocolate Standards change since my last post.

First, Guittard Chocolate Company has issued a press release. Below is a quote from Gary Guittard, the fourth generation chocolatemaker:

“The Citizen’s Petition proposed to FDA by the Grocery Manufacturers Association has many good points as it pertains to other foods, but if adopted it would allow the current “Gold Standard” for chocolate to be changed in a way that will ultimately result in short-changing the consumer and changing what we know and love as traditional chocolate.  There are no clear consumer benefits associated with the proposed changes.”

But what I thought was especially interesting was this point that the release also brought up:

Changing the current “Gold Standard” for chocolate by allowing the substitution of hydrogenated or chemically-modified vegetable fats for cocoa butter will also have a dramatic impact on cocoa growers in Central and South America, the Caribbean Basin, Africa, and nations in Southeast Asia at a time when the global chocolate industry is working to improve working and economic conditions of these developing countries’ farmers.  In fact, the plan to substitute these types of vegetable fats for cocoa butter would cause a disastrous economic impact on their livelihoods as the demand for cocoa butter would likely decrease and prices would plummet as some manufacturers switch to the cheaper substitutes.

Go read the whole thing.

There are a few things to remember. The new standards will expand the definition of chocolate, which will still include the current standards. This means that the chocolate that we know and love may continue to exist by those manufacturers that have customers who value their quality product. However, because of the new latitude, the cocoa butter which we know and revere for its unique mouthfeel may be replaced in part or total by other vegetable fats in products on the market that you already purchase.

I know, an oil is an oil right? You use them interchangeably all the time! Making a salad dressing? Olive oil is the same as partially hydrogenated coconut oil, isn’t it? Of course not! If you wouldn’t do it to your salad, why on earth would you do it to your chocolate?

The permission to substitute is a degradation of the already liberal standards for chocolate. It provides no benefit to the consumer. I’ve said this before, it’s perfectly legal for a confectioner to make a coconut oil based mockolate product and sell it right now. Why do they want to call it chocolate? For you? No, it’s for them to be able to sell you a cheaper product under the same name as a well-respected and high quality product. Sure, you’ll know it just by reading the ingredients, but when I buy something called orange juice, I expect the juice of oranges. When I buy chocolate, I expect the whole bean elements to be present.

In the mean time, I’ve also been doing my darndest to get a hold of the actual FDA document that we’re supposed to be commenting on. I know it seems silly, but don’t you think that the FDA has an obligation to post the document for public review within the window for public comment? Keep an eye on this page, perhaps it will be posted soon.

I’ve also contacted the Chocolate Manufacturers Association for their comment on this and I’ll have more to report on that. (I got a response, I just need to go through it completely.)

Keep this page bookmarked for all of my updated coverage on the issue. Don’t forget to do your part (and then claim your raffle ticket in my drawing!).

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!

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!)

I saved this review for after Easter. They package makes them look like an Easter product, but after having those Godiva eggs (even if they were freaktacularlly expensive), there was just no way that they were going to compare well. Now that they’re a distant memory, I feel that I can give the Hershey’s Coconut Creme Kisses my undivided attention.

I have to say that I loved the blue wave design on the foil. It was tropical and also different enough from the other foils out there that I could guess that this was coconut.

Inside the foil was a molded Kiss with a soft creme filling of coconut.

The shell of the Kisses were rather greasy. This wasn’t as noticeable when I chilled the Kisses (thanks for the suggestion!), but the chocolate outside still felt a little weird on the tongue, no matter the temperature. A little cool, a little less crumbly that the regular Kiss chocolate and of course it tasted like coconut before you got to the center.

The filling was interesting. The creme part was actually more like creme and less like fondant than the Cherry Cordial Creme I tried before. This actually seemed a bit buttery. There were also crisp little flecks of coconut in there.

It’s not at all like an Almond Joy center.

I enjoyed them, but I don’t think I’m a fan. The greasiness is just offputting. It makes the little flags translucent and of course makes my fingers oily if I linger too long while unwrapping. I enjoyed the nutty taste, but I know some other people didn’t like them. I found the lighter flavor of coconut like munching on some chocolate and suntan lotion. Like a summer at the pool. (Okay, maybe that’s not an appealing image, but it’s been so gloomy and overcast here in Los Angeles lately, maybe I’m just looking for something ‘sunny’.)

Previous Kiss Reviews: Cherry Cordial Creme, Orange Creme Kisses, Caramel Kisses, Peanut Butter Kisses, Candy Cane Kisses & Mint Kisses and Chocolate Truffle Kisses.

Note: These are limited edition, but it’s unclear if they are an Easter item. Some stores will put all the Limited Edition stuff on sale with the Easter goodies (that’s how I got my KitKat Mini Dark Mint), so keep a look out ... when in doubt just ask!

UPDATE April 12, 2009: Coconut Kisses returned again for srping 2009. Since some folks have noted it in the comments, I did taste this years version and agree, they’re not greasy. Perhaps Hershey’s rectified the ingredient/production issue that was making them that way.

Related Candies

1. Hershey’s Mint Truffle Kisses
2. Candy Corn Kisses
3. Kisses Chocolate Truffles
4. The Mint Kisses: Chocolate Mint & Candy Cane
5. Peanut Butter Kisses
6. Cherry Cordial Creme Kisses
7. Head to Head: Rolo vs Caramel Kisses
8. Short & Sweet: Caramello /  Mega M&Ms / Orange Kisses

I picked up these Koppers chocolate morsels called Cayenne Pepper Savory. They were powerful strong. Every once in a while I would eat another one and I’d be back to my original assement, “It burns! It burns!” (Review over here.)

But I really liked them and thought there might be a way to use them in something else that would temper that sizzling aftertaste.

So I dug out the traditional recipe for Nestle Toll House Cookies and mucked around with it.

375 F Degree Oven - Bakes 9-11 Minutes - Makes 48 cookies (I make mine big)

Here’s where I diverged from the regular recipe ... I didn’t have the 3/4 of a cup of brown sugar the traditional recipe calls for so I just made up the difference with white sugar. Really, this is a bad compromise. Get yourself some brown sugar - the cookie part was just too bland and didn’t have that good crystalized crunch that brown sugar gives it.

Second divergence, I only had 1 cup of the Cayenne Chocolate, so I chopped up another cup of a mix of milk and dark chocolate Wilbur Buds. (That probably saved the cookies from being totally noxious.)

Third divergence, I prefer Pecans in my chocolate chip cookies. But I didn’t have those. So I took some raw whole almonds, chopped them up coarsely and stuck them in the pre-warming oven to toast up.

I used my new KitchenAide mixer and place the butter and sugar in there and blended on low with the mixing paddle until it seemed pretty smooth. Then I added one egg at a time and let those beat in. Then a dash or two of vanilla.

In a separate bowl I combined the other dry ingredients: flour, baking soda and salt. Then poured that in, in thirds, to the mixer and let it mix together on one of the lower settings.

Then I pulled out the beater paddle and mixed in the two cups of chocolate and the nuts (remember to let the nuts cool, I didn’t, and they can make the batter a little runny).

Scoop small spoonfuls onto a clean, ungreased cookie sheet and place in center of oven to bake.

Mine ended up going about 13 minutes each. It might have been the change of the brown sugar/white sugar that made the difference, or I might just prefer mine a little crispier.

If you’re looking for a cookie recipe that you can make and not end up eating all of them at once, well, this might be for you.

I give these a 4 out of 10. (My husband gave them a 7 out of 10, but he doesn’t have the same issues with overly spicy things that I do.) I don’t like having to pick the chocolate out of my chocolate chip cookies. What was I thinking?

Here’s the proposal ... I’m going to do another drawing for some free tasty goodies.

I don’t know what the actual prize is yet, but I can tell you that it will be GOOD chocolate.

How can you get some? You have to help get the word out about the open comment period on the FDA’s proposed changes for the definition of chocolate.

(Don’t worry, I’m not telling you what to say, you can go on there and comment in support of mockolate if you want. I want the FDA to actually hear from the citizens who buy the stuff and not just the industry action groups.)

For each one of the actions below, you can earn a virtual raffle ticket. The more you do, the better your chances:

Here are a few extra rules:

Please do not comment on the FDA site if you’re not in the United States or an American living abroad. That doesn’t mean that folks outside US can’t enter, you just don’t qualify for that particular point. (I could be wrong about foreigners commenting ... someone correct me.)

You are limited to five entries (though you’re free to make greater efforts, but only the first five will count).

You are responsible for calculating your “raffle tickets”. Just come here and leave a list of your deeds (you don’t have to list them all on the same day).

You must comment with a valid email address, don’t worry, no one sees it but me (how else can I tell you that you won?).

Final note, the object of this challenge is not to create a bunch of empty chatter, but to just widen awareness of this issue by engaging you, sweet readers, to pass the info along. So keep in mind that we’ll all win if we Keep It Real.

Deadline for all comments here is April 25th at 11:59 PM PDT.

UPDATE 4/17/2007: The first prize will be a $100 Gift Certificate to Chocosphere

Also, since folks have asked, yes emailing your friends also qualifies. (Just don’t spam them over and over again ... but you wouldn’t do that.)

UPDATE 4/26/2007: Contest entries are now closed. I’ll announce a winner later. Since the comment period has been extended by the FDA I’ll start a new raffle with a new prize.

Folks are obsessed with Peeps around this time of the year. As I’ve stated before, I love the idea of Peeps, I just don’t really enjoy eating them. So I thought I’d try to improve my experience by creating some Peeps Mash-Ups. These aren’t full-blown recipes but more of a “dry fondue” with some items I had lying around:

Peeps Rocks - here I’ve mashed my Peep into some Strawberry Pop Rocks.

First, when mashing a Peep, it helps to pull it apart. This way you have two sticky halves for picking up other candy goodness as well as alleviating the issue of “double dipping” if you’re mashing with a buddy.

When I mashed the Pop Rocks into this fresh Peep, the rocks started snapping immediately. (You can’t see the noise in the photo, but it’s cracklin’ away, trust me.)

The cotton-candy-like flavor of the strawberry goes really well with the flavorless Peep. Light and refreshing. The pops give it a little sizzle.

Peeps Nerds - when you look at it, a Peep is really just a giant spongy Nerd with a pointy nose. Oh, and eyes. Nerds may have eyes in their little cartoon versions on the packaging, but not on the real candies like Peeps do.

I wasn’t really fond of this flavor combination, or the colors. The red and green (cherry & watermelon) looked too Christmasy. The taste combo was pretty good though. The crunch of the Nerds gave the spongy marshmallow a good texture and the zap of tartness also balanced out the sweetness of the Peep.

Peeps & Mini M&Ms - this is a natural combo and the colors couldn’t look better together if I tried. The little M&Ms adhere really well to the Peep’s exposed marshmallow. The sweet chocolate has a good crunch though it might be a little too sweet.

You could probably try mini dark chocolate baking chips for a less sweet experience (though you’d lose the crunch). The little tube they come in is especially easy for mashing on the go, just press the stickiness to the opening and tip the M&Ms Minis into it.

Peep Tarts - I have to admit that I was especially proud of the name for this one. Originally I wanted to use Pixy Stix for the powder, but I couldn’t find any (I try not to keep them in the house, for sanity’s sake). So I took the powder from an extra Topps Baby Bottle Pop. The Citrus Craze powder is already less sweet because it’s also intended to be “mashed up” with the lollipop top, so it adds flavor and tartness without more throat-burning sugar.

I’m not really sold on the combo, but after eating everything pictured here within about 15 minutes I had a stomach ache. Gah, I’m getting another one just typing this up!

So, what are your ideas for Peeps Mash-ups - either theoretical ones, or ones that you actually do?

(See previous Marshmallow Mashing: Marshmallow Mash-ups & More Marshmallow Mash-Ups.)

Related Candies

1. Peeps Mash Ups - Savory
2. Peeps Chocolate Mousse (Bears & Bunnies)
3. Peeps inside a Milk Chocolate Egg
4. Peppermint Peep Stars
5. Peeps Spooky Friends
6. Palmer Nest Eggs
7. Peeps Spooky Cats & Cocoa Bunnies
8. Kinder Egg

This is a great little assortment provided by Amber (via Bronwen) all the way from Toronto. I’m not sure why they don’t sell bags of these in the United States. Inside are four different items. There are little solid foil wrapped eggs of Dairy Milk chocolate, then there are mini Caramilk Eggs (Caramilk Oeuf) and mini Creme Eggs (Oeuf Fondant).

This way there’s something for everyone, and not too much of anything (because they’re the minis). The wrappings aren’t exactly Easter-ish, but maybe I’m locked into thinking that Easter is a pastel holiday.

All of the items are slightly different in side. I’ll go from smallest to largest.

Dairy Milk eggs - smooth and creamy with a rather noticeable caramelized milk taste to it. It’s slightly different from the American Cadbury chocolate, just a little less crumbly, a little more fudgy.

Caramilk Eggs (Caramilk Oeuf) - these are wrapped in pretty little orange and brown foil. Under the wrapping is a texturized surface, kind of like crocodile. Inside the chocolate shell are two halves that have been pressed together to form the egg. They’re filled with the sticky Caramilk caramel, which again is like a cross between a syrupy flowing caramel and a dulce de leche. Not too sweet, just a really thick texture that just about sticks to the roof of my mouth, and definitely to my ribs.

Creme Eggs (Oeuf Fondant) - this is the largest of the three and cloaked in the gaudiest of purple, red and yellow foil. These do not have the septum of the Caramilk eggs, so biting into them is a pure fondant experience. The filling on these is a saffron yellow and much thicker than the flowing stuff I’m accustomed to with the larger eggs I’ve had from the States. This fondant has a slight crumbly look to it, but the same flavor ... sweet. The texture reminds me a little bit of Oreos and the larger ratio of chocolate helps me to keep from going completely batty on sugar overload.

None of them are particularly pretty after de-foiling (come on, that Caramilk one looks like the progeny of The Thing!), the surface of many of them doesn’t have that bright unspoiled sheen of, oh, the Godiva ones. But at about 80% of the price, I’m willing to just look at them fully clothed.

These aren’t bad but I’m not sure if they’re better than the American ones available, since I didn’t taste the mini ones that are available here (and it’s been a whole year). I certainly liked this set of ratios better than the large ones. Cadbury Canada does not use PGPR in their chocolate (but then again, neither do the American creme eggs).

Related Candies

1. Elmer’s Toasted Marshmallow Eggs
2. Cadbury Popping Mini Eggs
3. Lindt Lindor Truffle Eggs
4. Palmer Nest Eggs
5. See’s Scotchmallow Eggs
6. Dove Truffle and Snickers Eggs

I’ve been doing much more research on the issue of the FDA allowing chocolate companies to sell us chocolate that doesn’t contain cocoa butter. First, there’s nothing stopping confectioners from creating a product that contains cocoa solids and other fats. It’s perfectly legal. They want the FDA’s blessing to confuse consumers by letting them call an inferior product CHOCOLATE.

I read over the “Citizen’s Petition” (PDF) on the FDA website for 2007P-0085: Adopt Regulations of General Applicability to all Food Standards that would Permit, within Stated Boundaries, Deviations from the Requirements of the Individual Food Standards of Identity. This is what it says:

Consumer expectations still define the basic nature of a food. These are, however, no generally held consumer expectations today concerning the precise technical elements which commonly recognized, standardized foods are produced. Consumers, therefore, are not likely to have formed expectations as to production methods, aging time, or specific ingredients used for technical improvements, including manufacturing efficiencies.

I’m not sure which ‘consumers’ they’re talking about when it comes to our generally held expectations about the precise technical elements of chocolate, but I’m pretty sure the majority of chocolate consumers would be able to tell the difference between mockolate and chocolate - both by looking at the label but more importantly by tasting the product. (I will grant you that I’ve had passably good mockolate from Guittard and Wilbur, which is useful your home kitchen when you don’t want a chocolate that you need to temper, like with dipped strawberries.)

And which citizens are saying this to the FDA on our behalf? Well, that’d be our good neighbors:

But let’s get back to the simple fact that the confectionery companies can make mockolate and sell it right now. So ask yourself, why do they want to call it chocolate? Because it saves on printing costs to simply say “chocolate” instead of “chocolate flavored coating”? Or is it because vegetable oil substitutes cost 70% less than cocoa butter? (source)

If you’re curious about the current definitions, Hershey’s even has it all spelled out very well on their site.

The FDA is The Nation’s Premier Consumer Protection & Health Agency ... the open comment period on this proposed shift is our opportunity to keep the CONSUMER in mind.