2007P-0085

Adopt Regulations of General Applicability to all Food Standards that would Permit Deviations from the Requirements of the Individual Food Standards of Identity

FDA Comment Number :

EC20

Submitter :

Mr. Larry Wayne

Date & Time:

04/09/2007 07:04:32

Organization :

Don't Mess With Our Chocolate

Category :

Individual Consumer

Issue Areas/Comments

GENERAL

Dear FDA:

I note with distress that your organization is considering changing the standards of identity for chocolate to include the use of substitute fats as a replacement for cocoa butter and allowing the replacement of milk for milk substitutes.

Why would you do this?

The only clear advantage to this is in the pocketbook of the large chocolate manufacturing industry. Cocoa butter is expensive. The most expensive part of the chocolate. I'm sure the chocolate industry would love to replace it with something cheaper. Unfortunately, cheap in this case uses more than one meaning.

From the Merriam-Webster dictionary:

Cheap (adj.)

1) purchasable below the going price or the real value

2) a : of inferior quality or worth

b : contemptible because of lack of any fine, lofty, or redeeming qualities.

What the manufacturers get is definition 1), and what we get as consumers is definitions 2)a and 2)b, inferior quality contemptible products that may be of such bad quality that they are actively harmful for human consumption.

Cocoa butter is a very unusual fat. It has specific properties that make it a fine confectionery ingredient. Most importantly is the fact that it melts at just a few degrees below body temperature, giving it literally a 'melt in the mouth feel' that you just can't get from non-cocoa butter substitutes.

Chocolate has been touted lately as having possible health benefits to the consumer (when eaten in moderation). What will occur when you allow the use of subtitutes that have absolutely no redeeming qualities, even substitutes containing high amounts of trans-fats? Any possible health benefits will have been wiped out, all for the sake of a higher profit margin.

To stay competetive, all of the major manufacturers will have to follow suit. Chocolate across the board will quickly and suddenly become real, honest to God 'junk food'. Due to the economics of cocoa butter suddenly having greatly lessened demand, real cocoa butter (and therefore chocolate) will become rare and ultra-expensive, with the artisans involved in the renaissance of high quality chocolates suffering the most.

As I understand it, the FDA is charged with protecting the public's interest in matters of food and medicines. The question I must ask you with the

strongest emphasis is- WHAT IS THE BENEFIT TO THE CONSUMER FOR THIS PROPOSED CHANGE? To answer my own question, there is none. Not only is there no benefit, there may be harm. In an age where we wonder about childhood obesity and the negative health effects of trans-fats, there may be great harm.

I ask you at the FDA to consider the public's right to the finest possible product formulation to protect our health, and to not cave in to demands for higher profit margins that may end up adversely affecting our health.

I ask you to consider that we have a quality product identity that has been honed over the last several centuries to produce a product that is unique, and delicious, and special. Please do not lessen our appreciation of this fine and special product by cheapening it in the name of profit at the public's expense.

Thank you for your attention.

Best Regards,

Larry Wayne