Frugal Manufacturers Pushing FDA for New "Definition" for Chocolate
DGJ
sacrosanct. When I read recently about the Food and Drug
Administration considering the "re-definition" of chocolate, I just
about fell over. Yes, that's right--your government is considering
messing with what can be labeled as chocolate. What's next, allowing
red wine to be made without grapes?
Currently, companies are able to produce chocolate products without
milk and cocoa butter and call them "chocolate flavored." With this
new proposal, these products will soon be labeled as the real deal,
which is a scary proposition for those who believe in the purity of
real foods. My belief is that even frugal people want to eat REAL
chocolate.
While I am certainly not a chocoholic, I enjoy a good piece of
chocolate from time to time and have written about the various health
benefits of small amounts of high-quality chocolate on a daily basis.
(High-cocoa dark chocolate has blood-pressure reducing qualities, as
just one benefit.)
The proposal to change the formulation was announced earlier this year
by the FDA following petitioning from the Grocery Manufacturers
Association (GMA) and Chocolate Manufacturers Association (CMA) along
with other industry bodies. These people are calling for more
flexibility in the current regulations to reflect "changing consumer
attitudes and advances in manufacturing technology and ingredient
supplies." What a crock of cocoa that is.
Amendments to the current standard of identity could lead to chocolate
containing vegetable oils instead of cocoa butter and milk substitutes
in place of milk. Personally, I'll stick with imported, quality
European brands if this occurs and avoid anything made by CMA-
affiliated companies. I hope you will do the same.
Dave
Full text article above extracted from http://shamvswham.blogspot.com/
clams casino
>Yes, I love frugal living.
>
>Full text article above extracted from http://scam.blogspot.com/
>
>
>
You need to understand that most blogspots are fabricated and that
shamvswham is one of the worst - frequently spammed in a desperate
attempt to get viewers.
DGJ
wrote:
> DGJ wrote:
> >Yes, I love frugal living.
>
>
> You need to understand that most blogspots are fabricated and that
> shamvswham is one of the worst - frequently spammed in a desperate
> attempt to get viewers.
What a sleaze bucket you are, Clams. YOU'VE BEEN CAUGHT manipulating
other people's posts on this and other forums, and then using your
muliple identities to cover your tracks. That's just plain nasty.
Spammers use fake names and identities, isn't that what you are doing?
I post with my real name - one post, on a topic of interest to anyone
who eats chocolate (frugal or not). That's not spam you idiot. That's
a topic for discussion.
Dave
clams casino
>On Sep 19, 12:15 pm, clams casino <PeterGrif...@drunkin-clam.com>
>wrote:
>
>
>>DGJ wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Yes, I love frugal living.
>>>
>>>
>>>Full text article above extracted fromhttp://scam.blogspot.com/
>>>
>>>
>>You need to understand that most blogspots are fabricated and that
>>shamvswham is one of the worst - frequently spammed in a desperate
>>attempt to get viewers.
>>
>>
>
>What a sleaze bucket you are, Clams. YOU'VE BEEN CAUGHT manipulating
>other people's posts on this and other forums, and then using your
>muliple identities to cover your tracks.
>
Huh?
>That's just plain nasty.
>Spammers use fake names and identities, isn't that what you are doing?
>
>
Yes, I use a fake name address. Years ago, I used my real address &
eventually saw 50-100 spams / day. About four years ago, I started a
new e-mail address for email, using another address for newsgroups
(switching to clams perhaps a year ago). I've since averaged only
about an average of perhaps one spam / week.
>I post with my real name
>
Dumber than I thought.
>- one post, on a topic of interest to anyone
>who eats chocolate (frugal or not). That's not spam you idiot.
>
It is when you continually spam your own blog - idiot.
> That's
>a topic for discussion.
>
>
No need for discussion - you are a confirmed spammer.