The newspapers are still latching onto the story. Browse through a few stories:
Contra Costa Times: Fudging Chocolate by Janis Mara
The Missoulian: Don’t deceive us with ersatz ‘chocolate’
News with Views: Heart Attack Chocolate by Jon Christian Ryter
About: Chocolate Lovers Unite, then Write the FDA by Kathy Gill
San Jose Mecury News: Chocolate change would leave bad taste
It’s important to keep the coverage going through blog posts and message boards and letters to the editor. The story should saturate the news so that the comments at the FDA will ultimately reflect the citizens and not just manufacturers.
Woo-hoo!! Glad that the media is picking up this story!
I was excited to see a mention of this story in print today. Philadelphia Weekly included it in its weekly scorecard and gave the FDA and pro-mockolate chocolate companies a D-!
The “news with views” article opposes the change, based mostly on the trans-fat issue, but also includes an odd interjection:
“The answer is because of the political clout of Archer Daniel Midland and because if a new global source of artificial “chocolate” can be found there is little else standing in the way of destroying the world’s cocoa trees to eliminate the world’s supply of cocaine.”
Not sure what to say about that.
Cocoa, and coca, are two different plants. The cocoa tree is where we get chocolate, the coca plant is where we get cocaine. The use of mockolate has nothing to do with trying to “destroy the world’s cocoa trees to eliminate the world’s supply of cocaine.”
Next entry: Skittles Carnival Flavors
Previous entry: Hubba Bubba Sour Gummi Tape