A few recent tidbits concerning that “save the chocolate” thing:

• If you follow the comments on my entries, you may recall The Girlfriend reporting last week that the FDA website wasn’t allowing her to comment, and I wondered if the comment period might have closed after all. Today, however, she informs me that the site is working now, and the Don’t Mess With Our Chocolate campaign says that the comment period has been extended again, through June 25. Don’t hesitate because we’ve been granted a little breathing room, though. If you care about keeping your chocolate real (and easily affordable), or if you dislike corporations thinking they can pull fast ones on the uninformed consumer and prefer that stuff be labelled for what it really is instead of what it resembles — which is what this issue really comes down to — you need to hop on over and make your voice heard now.
• If you’re still not sure exactly what the hell I’m talking about, this article from the Washington Post lays out the background pretty clearly, although the tone of the article is a bit mocking and cutesy.
• Much better is this op-ed in the LA Times by Cybele May, who reviews candy on her candyblog.net. Cybele explains how chocolate is made, how the FDA’s chocolate standard will change if the petition from the corporations succeeds, and what it is about this proposal that really rankles, namely that the big corporations in question think consumers are stupid. Significant quote:
  

  This is what they think of us chocolate eaters, according to their petition on file at the FDA:
  “Consumer expectations still define the basic nature of a food. There are, however, no generally held consumer expectations today concerning the precise technical elements by 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.”

   

  Let me translate: “Consumers won’t know the difference.”

   

  I can tell you right now — we will notice the difference. How do I know? Because the product they’re trying to rename “chocolate” already exists. It’s called “chocolate flavored” or “chocolaty” or “cocoalicious.” You can find it on the shelves right now at your local stores in the 75% Easter sale bin, those waxy/greasy mock-chocolate bunnies and foil-wrapped eggs that sit even in the most sugar-obsessed child’s Easter basket well into July.

   

  …Because it’s already perfectly legal to sell choco-products made with cheaper oils and fats, what the groups are asking the FDA for is permission to call these waxy impostors “chocolate.” Because we “haven’t formed any expectations.”

   

  …Granted, a change to the “food standards of identity” won’t require makers to remove some or all of the cocoa butter, it would just allow them to. But really, why else would they ask?

  My opinion, of course, is that they’re asking so they can (a) split the market into high- and low-end offerings and thus charge more for the stuff they’re currently making, or (b) just cheapen overall production like the soft-drink makers did when they switched from sugar to corn syrup, giving themselves a little sliver more margin by foisting an inferior product on the consumer.

• But I digress. Last item of interest: Cybele has devoted an entire category of her blog to following this issue, so to keep up on all the latest, go here.

And don’t forget to register your comment with the FDA!