|
Thursday, April 26, 2007
Washington Post: It’s not OverThe article in the Washington Post appeared on their website a little while ago. Chocolate Purists Cry Foul as FDA Fudges Standards Here are a few interesting passages:
When I talked to Michael Rosenwald about what happens to those comments we submitted on the website, he said that the 225 number was just what they’ve processed. On the FDA website, in their dockets section they have a Daily Listing which shows what they’ve processed lately. They post updates every weekday, however they don’t necessarily process the comments immediately. There’s a big gap between the processed comments since April 16th was the only one I found and then they posted a list on April 23rd. I don’t know how many more are in the queue ... hopefully enough.
I’m not an industry insider working at a mega huge company like Hershey’s, so I don’t know about this high quality oil that’s equal to or better than cocoa butter.
This is so true. Just like there’s crappy real chocolate and really good chocolate right now. However, I think that gap will get wider. 
|
||||
ABOUT
FEEDSSEARCH
CONTACT
EMAIL DIGESTCANDY RATINGSTYPE
BRAND
COUNTRY
ARCHIVES
|
Meticulously photographed and documented reviews of candy from around the world. And the occasional other sweet adventures. Open your mouth, expand your mind.
  FEATURED NEWS ITEMS
COPYRIGHT NOTICEAll content (text and photos unless otherwise credited) is copyright 2005-2010 by Cybele May Please do not use my photos without prior permission directly from me, they represent what I ate in preparation for these reviews and are not to be used for other purposes. Design by Hop Studios &
|
|||
SUPERB
YUMMY 
TASTY 
WORTH IT 
TEMPTING 
PLEASANT 
BENIGN 
UNAPPEALING 
APPALLING 
INEDIBLE 
Pretty good headline. Rosenwald seems to be working overtime to come off as—cough— “fair and balanced”, no?
Faux. Phooey.
If he read a few of your posts (Soda Can Fizzy Candy & Sugar Babies would be a good start) he’d see you’re no chocolate-snob! Oh, well… ‘Tis great he quotes from the Harrisburg paper.
Also, that the deadline has been extended. In the meantime, I wonder if anything “interesting” will come to light re this proposal - the mega huge companies - the Bush administration - the Republican Party - the FDA.
Just following the money.
I just tried to post the below on the FDA website as linked from the Giradeli website but the submit got an error message… I respectfully urge that the changes as regards the “use a vegetable fat in place of another vegetable fat named in the standard (e.g., cacao fat).” not be allowed as requested in the petition described in the Washington Post article “Chocolate Purists Alarmed by Proposal To Fudge Standards” 27 Apr 07. If a manufacturor feels that another vegetable fat can produce a better product that is well and good. The market place will validate them (or not) but it should not be allowed to be labeled or called ‘Chocolate’. Thank you.
Just saw the article on Fark. and if there’s one thing i know, Farkers Love them some Chocolate…
Next entry: Dove Caramels & Chocolate Covered Almonds
Previous entry: Soda Can Fizzy Candy
Trackback URL: http://www.candyblog.net/trackback/1456