Currently browsing posts about: Chocolate

The USDA has announced its implementation of President Trump’s Whole Milk for Health Kids Act.

This act (see Federal Register notice):

• Removes requirements that school milk be fat-free or low fat, flavored or not.
• Permits schools to also offer whole and reduced-fat milks, flavored or not.
• Excludes the saturated fat in milk from counting toward limits.

Bottom line: This act of Congress allows schools to offer full-fat chocolate milk.

As you might guess, the International Dairy Foods Association is thrilled:

 IDFA applauds USDA for moving quickly to put the law into effect and provide school nutrition directors and school milk processors the certainty they need to offer students the nutritious milk options that best meet their nutrition needs. For too long, federal regulations limited schools’ ability to offer the milk options students prefer and are more likely to drink.

Should we care?

Here is a quick comparison of one-cup portions (from USDA Data Central).

• Nonfat plain milk:  84 calories, 0.1 grams saturated fat, 12 grams sugars
• Nonfat chocolate milk: 160 calories, 1.5 grams saturated fat, 25 grams sugars
• Full-fat chocolate milk: 208 calories, 5 grams saturated fat, 24 grams sugars

Thus, it has taken an act of Congress to allow schools to offer milk with more saturated fat and more calories.

Why?  Because the dairy industry thinks it can sell more milk to school kids if that milk is higher in fat and sugar-sweetened.

Selling more chocolate milk in schools is a long-standing goal of the dairy industry.

As I wrote on this very topic in 2009,

• Schools represent sales of 460 million gallons of milk – more than 7% of total milk sales
• More than half (54%) of flavored milk is sold in schools
• Chocolate milk is a key growth area for milk processors

So this act has little to do with the health of America’s children, and everything to do with compensating for failing sales of milk.

How serious a problem is this?  In the greater scheme of problems affecting school meals in the U.S—lack of adequate funding, no kitchens, poor equipment, supply chains that don’t work, inedible USDA commodities—I can’t get too upset about adding a few grams of saturated fat to kids’ diets, much as I would prefer that they were getting their calories from fruits, vegetables, A that this is the kind of thing our current Congress is concerned about—the health of the dairy industry, not of kids.

A CORRECTION OF SORTS

A reader reminds me that the new school food rules that go into effect by 2025-2026 (at the earliest) call for no more than 10 grams of added sugars per 8 ounces of flavored milk.  This standard will apply to whole as well as reduced or no fat milks.

I am not usually a fan of techno foods, but I have to admit: this one might have possibilities.

World’s first cell-based chocolate bar developed with Mondelēz: The first-ever milk chocolate bars made with cell-cultivated cocoa butter have been produced… Read more

Here’s how this works:

Celleste Bio uses cell suspension culture technology to produce cocoa butter in the lab, generating enough chocolate‑grade ingredient from a single cocoa bean to make chocolate bars.  To produce cell‑based cocoa butter, Celleste Bio takes a cocoa bean, opens it and places it in a Petri dish. Once cells begin to grow, they are extracted and fermented with water, sugar and vitamins, allowing biomass to develop. This biomass is then harvested and processed to create cocoa butter.

But if the taste and texture are good enough, this could address the problems currently faced by the chocolate industry in production, supply, human rights, labor, deforestation, and climate-change issues.

But alas, this intriguing technology is still in development.  It can produce a few prototype chocolate bars but is nowhere near scaling up to commercialize.

If it works, I might have to change my mind about techno foods.

This story starts here with this post.

Really? When I go to the Hershey’s site, I get this:

Milk Chocolate (Sugar, Cocoa Butter, Chocolate, Skim Milk, Milk Fat, Lactose, Lecithin, PGPR); Peanuts; Sugar; Dextrose; Salt; TBHQ & Citric Acid (TO MAINTAIN FRESHNESS)

Four kinds of sugar and ultra-processed; it’s hard to believe it could get worse.

Even so, the Reese family doesn’t like what is happening to its iconic brand.

Hershey blasted by Reese’s family over core ingredient changes: Reese family sends open letter to Hershey, challenging whether the confectionery giant is protecting the Reese’s legacy… Read more

Hershey facing criticism from Reese family

• Reese family member accuses Hershey of lowering core product quality
• Brad Reese claims formulations replaced milk chocolate and real peanut butter
• Open letter argues changes threaten brand heritage and consumer trust foundations
• Criticism pressures Hershey to address transparency concerns amid evolving brand strategy
• Debate highlights tension between cost efficiencies and protecting long-held product identity

Comment

As described in yesterday’s post, the chocolate industry is in trouble because of diminishing supplies, increased costs, and climate change.  Hershey’s must think its customers can’t tell the difference between simple real food ingredients and ultra-processed concoctions.

Real foods cost more.  That’s a problem for food companies.

The chocolate industry, it appears, is in crisis.  Here’s my collection of recent items on the topic.  

Trends

• The future of chocolate: An era of bold innovation and ultra indulgence: Chocolate is undergoing a dramatic transformation. From cutting‑edge cocoa‑free innovation to the rise of premium indulgence, discover how makers and brands are reinventing the world’s favourite treat… Read more
• 5 trends powering chocolate’s $245bn boom: Trends shaping the future of chocolate and the opportunities they create for the confectionery industry… Read more
• Mars, Mondelēz, Nestlé, Hershey, and Lindt team up to transform future of cocoa: The world’s biggest chocolate makers are working together to futureproof cocoa and support growers… Read more

Challenges

• Chocolate isn’t doomed, but it’s changing fast:  It may be the end of chocolate as we know it… Read more
• Cocoa prices collapse following record highs: Cocoa prices plunge to two‑year low as surpluses reshape the market… Read more
• Are falling cocoa prices giving an edge to small choc players?  Key players in chocolate already have the year’s cocoa supply locked in. But smaller players may not… Read more
• Nestlé strips ‘chocolate’ from iconic bars as cocoa costs soar:  Rising cocoa costs are forcing confectionery giants to rethink recipes and product labelling… Read more
• Cocoa, coffee, and wine won’t survive with climate cooling alone: Climate cooling isn’t enough to save cocoa, wine, and coffee – industry needs to do more to protect these crops for the future… Read more
• Is Hershey in trouble? Profits plummeting and ingredients under fire: Hershey’s rocky start to 2026 has raised questions about its long‑term direction… Read more

Addressing the crisis

• Alternative cocoa: Ways confectionery’s most under-threat ingredient is being replaced: Chocolate makers has been significantly impacted by the cocoa crisis. Ingredient innovation offers a solution… Read more
• The ‘untapped potential’ of functional chocolate: Functional chocolate is stepping into the spotlight. Discover the ingredients, trends and early innovators reshaping the future of indulgence… Read more
• Can Chocolate Help With Asthma? Hemorrhoids? Feminine Hygiene? December 16 is National Chocolate-Covered Anything Day, which is either a celebration of culinary creativity or an excuse to use juvenile humor. Either way, chocolate has a long history of being marketed as a cure for just about everything. Let’s see what it can actually do—and what it absolutely can’t.

As I pretty much demonstrate every Monday, industry-funded studies almost invariably produce results favoring the sponsor’s interests.

But here we have a rare exception to the rule:

• The study: Effect of cocoa extract supplementation on cognitive function: results from the clinic subcohort of the COSMOS trial.  The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition,Volume 119, Issue 1, January 2024, Pages 39-48.
• Objective: “To test whether daily supplementation with CE, compared with placebo, produces better cognitive change over 2 y.”
• Conclusions: “Among 573 older adults who underwent repeat in-person, detailed neuropsychological assessments over 2 y, daily CE supplementation, compared with placebo, showed no overall benefits for global or domain-specific cognitive function. Possible cognitive benefits of CE among those with poorer diet quality warrant further study.”
• Funding: The Cocoa Supplement and Multivitamin Outcomes Study (COSMOS) is supported by an investigator-initiated grant from Mars Edge, a segment of Mars dedicated to nutrition research and products, which included infrastructure support and the donation of study pills and packaging. Pfizer Consumer Healthcare (now Haleon) provided support through the partial provision of study pills and packaging.

Comment: Why anyone would think that cocoa extract would have any efffect at all on cognitive function is beyond me, but I, in sharp contrast to Mars, am not trying to sell cocoa extract or convince anyone that M&Ms are a health food.  But, as seems invariably the case, the investigators did give Mars a small break in favorably finding “possible” cognitive benefits of cocoa extract for people eating terrible diets.  My prediction: further studies will not find benefits of cocoa extract—or M&Ms—on cognitive function even though eating M&Ms can be lots of fun.

I am suddenly deluged with items about chocolate, which seems to raise any number of food politics issues.

For today, let’s deal with three: content of toxic heavy metals, research conflicts of interest, and claims of sustainability,

I.  Heavy metals. I learned about this one from Food Safety News (FSN): Consumer Reports finds one-third of chocolate is high in heavy metals: CR today released test results that have it urging Hershey’s to get harmful lead and cadmium out of its chocolate products.

FSN conveniently provided a link to the full CR report, which says.

When we tested dark chocolate bars last year, we found lead or cadmium levels above CR’s thresholds in 23 of 28 bars, or 82 percent of them. Our results this time were similar. Of the seven bars we tested, five, or 71 percent, were above our levels for lead, cadmium, or both…Eating an ounce of four others would put you over our limit for lead.

Food Safety News also reports: Chocolate makers say they have heavy metals issue under control: The National Confectioners Association (NCA) : “Chocolate and cocoa are safe to eat and can be enjoyed as treats as they have been for centuries,” NCA says. “Food safety and product quality remain our highest priorities,… Continue Reading

ConsumerLab does its own testing for toxins in Dark Chocolate, Cocoa & Cacao Products.

Which dark chocolate and cocoa products are best?  Be careful! Several cocoa powders, cacao nibs, and some dark chocolates failed to pass our review due to contamination with high levels of cadmium, a toxic heavy metal (see What CL Found).

II.  Conflicts of interest. ConsumerLab also commented on cocoa flavanols.

Furthermore, levels of potentially beneficial cocoa flavanols ranged from just 1 mg to 374 mg in cocoa powders and mixes, 2 mg to 351 mg in dark chocolates, and 2 mg to 993 mg in supplements. Products also vary widely in calories per serving.

This took me right to an e-mail from a reader, Thijs van Rens, Professor of Economics, University of Warwick,.  He wanted me to see something he had read in The Conversation: “Flavanols are linked to better memory and heart health – here’s what foods you can eat to get these benefits.”

He pointed out that the author “…received research funding from Mars, Inc., a company engaged in flavanol research and flavanol-related commercial activities.”  He added:

I got suspicious about the funding when I read this:  “This is why flavanols extracted from cocoa are an ideal model, as they contain the two main types of flavanols.”

In fact, I was going to comment and complain about The Conversation publishing something like this, until I noticed the one-but-last paragraph:

“It’s also important to note that while the flavanols used in many studies were extracted from cocoa, unfortunately chocolate (even dark chocolate) is a very poor source of flavanols – despite what some headlines might claim. This is because these flavanols are lost during processing.”

Not sure what to make of the article. On the one hand, the author clearly states not to eat chocolate for this reason and the funding is clearly disclosed. On the other hand, how many readers will get to the one-but-last paragraph and check the disclosure statement. On balance, I could imagine Mars Inc. would be quite happy about this article.

Indeed yes.  That’s why they paid for it (but see clarification below)

III.  Sustainability.  This also came in a e-mail, this time a press release from Chocolate Scorecard, a group that rates chocolate companies on practices related to traceability, wages, child labor, deforestation, agroecology, etc.  Its key messages:

• Sustainability claims of chocolate companies cannot necessarily be trusted.
• Only 11% of chocolate companies can fully trace where their cocoa comes from – without knowing they cannot claim sustainability.
• Farmers need to be paid more for their cocoa to ensure a sustainable life.

“100% sustainably sourced cocoa,” says the sign on the stand promoting a well-known chocolate brand in the supermarket. The message is not one you can necessarily trust.

…A recent report by Oxfam claims that the “net income of farmers decreased by an estimated 16.38% between the 2019/20 and 2021/22 harvesting season.” When the price of cocoa increases everything else a farmer purchases increases in price, leaving worse off in reality. This is associated with increases in profits in chocolate companies.

The Chocolate Scorecard is a collective of 37 NGO’s and Universities. They are calling on chocolate companies to commit to a ‘living income’ for cocoa farmers.

And you thought you were just eating candy.

Additions

Readers wrote to remind me to add:

• John Oliver’s brilliant piece on low wages and child labor among chocolate workers.
• Food Empowerment Project’s Chocolate List (of chocolate companies not using child labor)

Clarification

The author of the flavanol article wrote to say that my comment could be interpreted as suggesting he was paid to write it, which he was not.  That was not my intention and I apologize for giving that impression.  I do see research or commentary paid for by food companies, but such instances are rare. The “funding effect,” as I discuss in my book Unsavory Truth, gives the appearance of conflicted interest no matter what its actual level of influence.

Chocolate for breakfast? Kellogg’s + Hershey’s collab takes cereal to new heights in IndiaThe breakfast cereal giant has joined forces with one of the largest chocolate manufacturers in the world to launch Kellogg’s Hershey’s Chocos on the Indian market…. Read more

When I saw this, I wondered what was new here.  We already have plenty of chocolate breakfast cereals, organic and not, most of them aimed at kids.

These, for example:

At best, these cereals have some cocoa in them, usually as the 5th ingredient or less.

I can’t find an ingredient list for the cereal aimed at India, but I did find one for similar products sold in other countries.

Chocolate is the first ingredient!

Candy for breakfast!

Yum!

In February, the USDA proposed rules for sugars in school meals.  These meant:

Flavored milks would be limited to no more than 10 grams of added sugars per 8 fluid ounces for milk served with school lunch or breakfast. For flavored milk sold outside of the meal (as a competitive beverage for middle and high school students), the limit would be 15 grams of added sugars per 12 fluid ounces.

The International Dairy Foods Association says it can and will do this as part of an effort “to preserve flavored milk options as part of the National School Lunch and Breakfast programs. USDA currently has proposed one option to provide only unflavored milk for school-aged children grades K-8.”

Among milk options available in schools, low-fat flavored milk is the most-consumed beverage for students regardless of grade, IDFA says. Flavored milk products such as chocolate milk offered in schools today contain an average of just 8.2 grams of added sugar per serving.

The Sugar Association, no surprise, supports continued use of sugary milk in schools—for its own particular reason.

As the ‘Healthy School Milk Commitment’ moves forward, it is important that alternative sweeteners are not encouraged or deployed as a frontline sugar reduction strategy for flavored milk served in schools.

The use of low- and no- calorie sweeteners in products intended primarily for both children and adults has increased by 300% in recent years, and their presence in food products is easily cloaked from consumers because of FDA’s arcane and outdated food labeling requirements.

As the health effects of sugar substitutes on children are not adequately studied, we should proceed cautiously when it comes to initiatives that incentivize the use of these ingredients.

We support flavored milk products, which provide important nutrients and are always a fan-favorite among school students in our nation’s schools, and caution against the use of sugar substitutes to meet sugar reduction commitments in the milk consumed by our nation’s school children.

That is a new argument (to me, at least).  Here are some old ones (with my comments):

• Chocolate milk has lots of nutrients (it also has lots of sugar).
• Kids won’t drink plain milk (they will, actually)
• Kids won’t get those nutrients if they don’t drink milk (they can get them from other foods).

But New York City has a handout on why plain milk is preferable.  It’s worth a look.