Unwrapping The Chocolate Wars

chocolate.pngIt’s hard to underestimate the confusion that afflicts journalists when their journeys take them to any place where wealth intersects with politics. Even otherwise sharp writers can find themselves befuddled. A typical response is to retreat into a storied morality tale in which the “workers” or some small business—typically, a business that makes things the smart-set likes—fights against bigger businesses attempts to warp the political machinery in their favor.

A great demonstration of this befuddlement and retreat to orthodoxy can be seen in the latest issue of Portfolio. And don't worry, we're not going to write another three-thousand word dissection of the entire magazine. We've decided that even Portfolio deserves a chance to grow into its potential. So we'll wait at least until the next issue before doing that again. (Probably.)

In “Chocolate Wars,” writer Alexandra Wolfe—the daughter of author Tom Wolfe—tells the tale of a struggle between the mass producers of chocolate—think Hershey or Nestle—and boutique makers of higher-quality chocolate. It’s a fine enough story, certainly worth telling. In fact, it was the first thing we read when the new issue came out. And Wolfe is a more than capable writer, drawing the lines of battle and the reasons for it quite well. But it’s also quite obvious that she never gets beyond the orthodox morality tale to see what’s really happening.

[Things get messy after the jump.]

The recent troubles began when the cost of making chocolate began to grow. Wolfe tells this part of the story very well.

For as long as chocolate has been made, it’s been smoothed out with the elixir called cocoa butter, an emulsified form of cacao that gives the finished product its silky texture. In the United States, the F.D.A. mandates that a product can’t legally be labeled as chocolate unless cocoa butter is part of the formula. But because of a drought and political violence in Ivory Coast, a major source for cacao beans, the price of cocoa butter has skyrocketed. This has prompted some of the major chocolate makers, Hershey among them, to lobby the F.D.A. by way of a trade-group petition for a change that would let them substitute such cheaper ingredients as vegetable oil and dried milk for cocoa butter and still call their products chocolate.

It’s a bit obvious from this that Wolfe is suspicious of the chocolate revolutionaries at Hershey and other members of the Big Chocolate cabal. Elsewhere she writes that the dustup is “over whether the traditional standards for making chocolate in the United States ought to be changed.” But it’s a bit mysterious why anyone would oppose innovations that might help keep chocolate cheap. It’s hard to imagine anyone would oppose ethanol-imbued fuel on similar traditional grounds—describing the fight over fuel-components as “a dustup over whether the traditional standards for making auto-fuel in the United States ought to be changed.”

So who opposes cheap, innovative chocolate making techniques? Warren Buffett, that’s who. Berkshire Hathaway has been in the chocolate business since 1972, when it bought San Francisco Area chocolate maker See’s. To be fair, Wolfe admits that Buffet’s interest in the chocolate war is “pecuniary” but she doesn’t seem to grasp why cheaper chocolate manufacturing is such a threat to makers of higher-end chocolate.

In fact, Wolfe seems to subscribe entirely for the line smaller chocolate makers line. “But many of the smaller chocolate makers see the effort to replace cocoa butter as a ploy that would allow the major companies to cut costs without risking their reputation—or sales. And that, the smaller companies argue, would not only mislead consumers but also give mass chocolate makers an unfair advantage,” she writes.

She seems blind to the paternalism of the smaller chocolate makers. Surely everyone already knows the ingredients are right there on the label, so that chocolate made with something other than cocoa butter will be disclosed immediately to consumers. What’s more, if the non-cocoa butter chocolate is really such a disastrous alternative , surely consumers would notice this too. In short, if the alternative recipe chocolate that Hershey wants to make is really so bad, shouldn’t this help the smaller makers who stick to their guns?

What the smaller chocolate makers really fear is that chocolate consumers won’t care enough to pay a premium for cocoa butter chocolate. When the price of making cocoa-butter chocolate increases, it decreases the price differential between the smaller makers and the big players. What the smaller makers are doing is trying to preserve the competitive advantage higher cocoa butter prices combined with the FDA requirements give them.

To put it another way, what’s really motivating the smaller chocolate makers is not an adherence to some Platonic ideal of chocolate. And that’s certainly not what’s got Warren Buffett fretting. What they fear is that the new recipe will be too good, and that chocolate consumers will flee the higher-priced cocoa chocolate for the lower priced, but still yummy, stuff that Big Chocolate wants to churn out.

We suppose that Wolfe is entitled to take the side of fancy, more expensive chocolate made in a traditional way. But by ignoring—or, worse, not noticing—at least half of the underlying real economic and politics dynamics behind the chocolate wars, she renders her article far less useful to readers. And since ignoring that part of the war makes her article read like just another version of the orthodox morality tale, she also makes her article a lot more boring.

But what she not entitled to do is take cheap shots at Hershey by expressing amazement that they regard her as unsympathetic. She ends her article by complaining that Hershey’s press office cancelled an invitation to tour a chocolate plant they own. But when you’re taking the official line of the traditionalists, you can’t really complain that revolutionaries don’t want to invite you over.

Chocolate Wars [Portfolio]

Comments

Posted by girl, Oct 24, 2007 4:48PM

Carney,

The entire time i was reading this i thought of the restrictions on naming sparkling wine Champagne unless it hails from the Champagne region of France. There is, in fact, a long history attached to the art of being a chocolatier similar to that of being a winemaker- and yes, it is tied in tradition, respect for a more pure product and in some cases the elitism of it all. When we lose the value of artisanal products we lose the culture attached to them. Though the substitutes Hershey suggests are not harmful, this would open the door to other substitutes that perhaps are.

On a wider note, is it really necessary to keep the cost of chocolate low in this country? Perhaps we'd benefit from raising the cost and seeing the pounds melt off of our increasingly obese population. I know I'd rather enjoy it.

Posted by Who cares?, Oct 24, 2007 4:52PM

waaaaaaaaahhhhh!

Posted by , Oct 24, 2007 4:59PM

Agree with girl. There are all kinds of regulatory restrictions of this nature, especially in Europe. There are laws against false advertising and for good reason.

Posted by chris, Oct 24, 2007 5:15PM

I agree with Carney - there should be no government mandated definitions. All consumers should be required to read the ingredients and decide for themselves whether they think the product is what it says it is. Likewise for nutritional information - why should the government mandate how the information is presented or if should be presented at all. This isn't North Korea. If everyone took a few chemistry and nutrition classes and brought references books and a caclulator when they shopped, this Big Brother regulation wouldn't be needed. After all, Who is John Galt? Vote for Mrs. Paul!! Back to the gold standard (but check the ingredients to make sure they're haven't substitured iron pyrtie).

Posted by , Oct 24, 2007 5:16PM

Agree with girl.

Posted by , Oct 24, 2007 5:20PM

"there should be no government mandated definitions"

Um ... there would be no government if the government didn't have the ability to legally define things ...

Posted by John Carney, Oct 24, 2007 5:22PM

Although I'm a fan of many artisanal products myself, and, actually, of tradition and elitism in general, I'm unpersuaded that having the government tell us what counts as chocolate is the key to preserving those products.

Posted by TheUnrepentantGunner, Oct 24, 2007 5:26PM

girl is on fire today.

as an aside, we might as well have a fat tax in general. we could take the revenues raised to cut taxes elsewhere, or you know, pay off some of our absurd deficit. and if fat tax reduced consumption ala the nicotine tax, only good things could result.

Posted by db, Oct 24, 2007 5:26PM

carney, i had to stop reading halfway through bc of typos (bout?). my disappointment is your own doing as most posts are lyrical gold. anyhow, back to this genius' analysis of the chocolate market.

Posted by John Carney, Oct 24, 2007 5:29PM

Agreed, girl. We badly need a copy editor. If only you people would drink more Mike's Hard Lemonade then maybe...

Posted by chris, Oct 24, 2007 5:29PM

"there would be no government if the government didn't have the ability to legally define things". Poppycock - you only mean no government as you know it. Power flows from the barrel of a gun, not a dictionary.

Posted by Nominate me, Oct 24, 2007 5:30PM

TheUnrepentantGunner is on to something I have been heralding for years, though my idea was eloquently called the "Fat Fuck Tax."

An additional 10% tax for anybody with a BMI over 25 on things such as airline and stadium seating. Because nothing is worse than seeing the fat fuck next to you spilling into your seat.

Posted by girl, Oct 24, 2007 5:33PM

Carney, hire me for the position.

as an added plus my first gift to DB will be an indepth benefit-only analysis of the Fat Tax.

Posted by , Oct 24, 2007 5:35PM

We like taxes now?

Posted by Bulging Bracket, Oct 24, 2007 5:35PM

I see and like where Carney is going with this, but I unfortunatey have to side with the artisans on this one, sort of. The FDA shouldn't be saying what is and isn't chocolate, but the artisans shuld be able to sue Hershey, etc, for fraud for selling Chocolate that doesn't use cocoa butter. Big Chocolate should have to call their adulterated product something equivalent to "punch","-ade", or "drink" that everyone knows means "not really any sort of fruit involved, except maybe 5% that we'll splashg on the label like it's somethign to be proud of".

These kinds of disputes are best settled in civil court rather than furthering the expansion of the federal bureacracy.

Posted by yeah fat tax!, Oct 24, 2007 5:47PM

any tax that makes it harder for some fat ass to sit next to me on a plane is a good tax!
Obesity costs the economy more than smoking and alcoholism.
Don't we have high taxes on both those products?

Posted by Finn, Oct 24, 2007 5:50PM

This post shows a vivid ignorance about what constitutes chocolate. And making something called "chocolate" that in fact carries very little or no "chocolate" is precisely what the big players want to do. And if ethanol was headed to your mouth instead of your car's ass, and was called lobster intead of ethanol, it would in fact be an issue. (As if we did not call ethanol ethanol, but we do, so the comparison is stupid).

Posted by John Carney, Oct 24, 2007 6:00PM

Finn,

You miss the point of the analogy. We're changing the makeup of gas to include ethanol which is exactly like changing the ingredients of chocolate.

By the way, ethanol requirements are a big mistake but not because gas traditionally doesn't include ethanol.

Posted by Anal_yst, Oct 24, 2007 6:14PM

Good Idea:

1. Fat (FxCK) tax

2. Takin a girl down the Hershey Highway (how am I the only one who 'went there'??)

3. Chocolate (in some moderation)

4. Girl (aka mini ballerette, yes?)

Bad Idea:

1. Hiring a copy editor - I'd say a solid 10-20% of your posts, and a slightly lower % of page views/impressions come from spelling/grammer/etc nazis. Are you trying to increase costs while reducing revenue? If so, might I suggest you apply for a position of CEO of a major US financial conglomerate who may/may not have a vacant role in the near future...

2. Giving whiny 'boutique' manufacturers/producers any slack. In this industry and others alot of their profit is based on bullsh!t, prestige pricing, marketing, perceived trendiness etc, not on fundamentals at all. Kind of like alot of stocks out there, hmmm...

3. Darkness from 5pm-7am, BOOOOO!!!

Posted by Give-up Agreement, Oct 24, 2007 6:18PM

Carney, Finn's not missing the point. In fact, he draws an interesting distinction between products meant to be EATEN and products that don't go into our bodies.

Ethanol is used to fuel your car. Using the same amount of it as traditional gas won't (conceivably) affect your weight and certainly won't be noticeable to the discriminating palate. In general, I'm not a fan of regulation – but if regulations are going to further the production of well-crafted foods and beverages, so be it.

Posted by Powell, Oct 24, 2007 6:30PM

Whether its the government or civil courts, someone needs to be able to define what a product is in order to prevent false advertising. I recall an example where a woman sued Kraft for selling "guacamole" what was mainly corn syrup or something instead of crushed avocados. There is a difference between chocolate flavored stuff and actual chocolate. Whether the federal government or courts enforces it, someone should.

Posted by Assclown, Oct 24, 2007 6:39PM

You can enforce it yourself, read the label you lazy

Posted by , Oct 24, 2007 7:36PM

Disagree. Words have meaning, chocolate made without cocoa is something, but it isn't chocolate. To label it as such would be a fraud on the consumer Read the "tiny" label is a poor response.

Posted by Pender, Oct 24, 2007 7:36PM

Yeah, Carney's way off base here. The consumer doesn't know enough to research every label -- and for that matter he doesn't even know that "cacao butter" is the sine qua non of chocolate. It makes sense for the government to clarify things and protect the consumer from -- watch this -- the collective action problem that comes from same sort of rational apathy that justifies weak shareholder voting rights. (Wasn't that good?)

Here's another great analogy: the difference between cubic zirconium and diamond. Caveat emptor if the buyer doesn't read the fine print and see that it's really a cheaper diamond substitute! If the consumers don't like it, they will ignore the cubic zirconium products anyway, right? So no problem calling them diamonds.

Posted by Josh, Oct 24, 2007 8:10PM

Wow! Some big govt support on display today.

Who even KNOWs the exact definition of chocolate? If we get all snooty about definitions then we will need to shut down all chinese/mexican/italian/indian restaurants because what they serve is nothing like what the cuisine is like in the native country.

And pizza needs to be banned too coz I was in italy and the pizza there was nothing like what Domino's delivers!

Who the hell even cares? I have spent a lot on non-mass market chocolates on a girlfriend who had a special liking for their taste (or so she claimed). All the same, I dont eat a certain kind of chocolate because I freaking care about what bean it was made out of at what temperature. I eat it because I like it. It just so happens to be called 'chocolate'.

And who exactly is the government? If, as per someone's words, the 'masses' dont know enough to identify 'true' chocolate, then the govt - a representation of the masses - will also not know! Or are you suggesting that some 'elite' person like you should be put in charge of telling the proles what is and is not chocolate?

Also, if someone wants to be fat, its his choice. Obesity costs the economy because the economy wants it to cost. Dont give fat people any extra benefits by classifying obesity as a disease and giving them free healthcare. The cost is gone. Then let people who want to be fat be so at their own expense. But at the same time, if someone want to eat whatever he wants to and be fat at his own cost, why on earth is that worthy of a tax?

Posted by , Oct 24, 2007 8:11PM

Who the fuck is posting all the pro-protectionist comments here? Its a free market people, let the consumers decide.

I know people who read DB can't be this stupid -- hopefully the posters above were drawn over through some other site that caters to stupid fucks...

Posted by "stupid" DB reader, Oct 24, 2007 8:26PM

On what basis would consumers decide if products were blatantly mislabeled?

Also, you've clearly misunderstood the concept of protectionism...

Posted by Proponent of BIG Chocolate, Oct 24, 2007 8:48PM

There are many shades of protectionism, and the lobbying for artisan chocolate clearly falls into this realm. Romanticize it all you want, but this is exactly like the ridiculous argument that Champagne can only come from some tiny town in France. Agree with 8:10, if one were to extend this analogy into other foods it quickly becomes a ridiculous idea.

How on earth does someone argue that it isn't necessary to keep the cost of a good low? I can't believe there is even debate here.

Posted by wtf, Oct 24, 2007 8:49PM

"On what basis would consumers decide if products were blatantly mislabeled?"

And what is 'blatant mislabelling'?

If I sell apples and call them bananas - and you actually buy them thinking they are bananas - whos the douche there?

Are you sure you didn't mean 'subtly mislabelled'??

And if that is what you meant, then whate even the point?

Posted by , Oct 24, 2007 8:52PM

"If I sell apples and call them bananas - and you actually buy them thinking they are bananas - whos the douche there?"

And what if they taste and look exactly the same to 99% of people? Why would you even care what they're labled?

Posted by , Oct 24, 2007 10:32PM

It is ILLEGAL to sell apples and call them bananas, regardless of what ingredients are listed or not listed on the box. Similarly, it is ILLEGAL to sell ethanol and call it gasoline ... That is why we have terms like E85.

Posted by , Oct 24, 2007 10:44PM

Using Carney's logic, I should be able to sell imitation crab meat by labeling it as Alaskan King Crab. Most people will read the ingredients and never notice that "crab meat" is missing from the list. Soon my revolutionary Alaskan King "crab" will be on shelves and menus everywhere, and it will be much cheaper than the "traditional" alternative since it isn't crab meat to begin with. Who is to decide what words like "crab meat" mean? Why should the government try to tell us what is and is not "crab meat" ... that's just protectionism...The consumers are smart enough to realize that when the label says "Crab" but the ingredients say "Surimi" instead of "Crab" then it isn't crab! ... I wonder what old crab hands would think of all this....

Posted by Josh, Oct 24, 2007 10:56PM

"it is ILLEGAL to sell ethanol and call it gasoline "

Whats wrong with you guys? First diamonds and cubic zirconia and now gasoline and ethanol?

You can define ethanol as C2-H5-OH. Similarly you can define diamond as a certain allotrope of carbon and zirconia by its characteristic crystal structure and chemical composition.

No please define me a pizza. Or a falafel. Maybe a brownie.

As you people must so insist that the mythical know-all 'government' must define all this so that poor scmucks like us dont get misled, why dont you take a shot at defining them the way you would want the govt to?

Or lets see. You would want the government to appoint a committee to define what a brownie is?

Posted by , Oct 24, 2007 11:46PM

Josh ... "Ethanol" is C2-H5-OH, "Diamond" is a specific allotrope of carbon, and "Chocolate" is a raw or processed food that is produced from the seed of the cacao tree. Notice how we did NOT have to define pizza or falafel in order to conclude that, say, ethanol is C2-H5-OH.

Posted by Pender, Oct 24, 2007 11:52PM

The only reason the consumer CAN check the ingredients list is because the government will bring down the hammer if the ingredients list is wrong. The trademark on the chocolate too -- why can only Hershey write Hershey on the label? More craaaazy liberal protectionism? Or regulations that, like the definition of chocolate, ensure the flow of reliable information necessary to a free market?

Posted by Donald, Oct 25, 2007 5:36AM

What a pathetic free market mousketeer this John Carney is. Of course no one should be able to market a product as chocolate if it isn't really chocolate. Let Hershey sell a lesser product made with vegetable oil instead of cocoa butter if they must, but there's no reason they should be allowed to pass if off as something it isn't.

The item description and name on the front is as important as the fine print on the back. How irresponsible and permissive of fraud is it to think that lying about a product's name is reasonable so long as the nutrition facts on the back are accurate? The free market doesn't guarantee the freedom of businesses to deceive consumers or otherwise do whatever the hell they want. Big business is even less trustworthy than the government, and they've proven time and again that they can't be relied upon to police themselves without going apeshit with corruption.

It's amazing the intellectual dishonesty the establishment's shills can muster for their weekly paycheck. How pleasant life must be to progress through it unencumbered by anything so burdensome as honesty and integrity.

The laissez-faire establishment pays its shills quite handsomely, so I'm sure Carney's paycheck justifies in his mind any degree of intellectual dishonesty. He sure serves up the chocolate-flavored bullshit with gusto.

People would peddle clumps of clay as chocolate if they could. John Carney would be the first to take a bite and say, "Mmmm, yummy. Tastes like the free market at work!"

Posted by Hal, Oct 25, 2007 8:19AM

So we'll end up paying more for a product called chocolate that isn't chocolate. When Hershey bought the north American rights to Cadbury chocolate they immediately changed the recipe, so now Cadbury chocolate tastes just like a Hershey bar. It's fraud, plain and simple, and shouldn't be allowed. At best it should be labeled "chocolate flavored" like those bags of baking morsels that are "kisses" of flavored hunks of sugar and wax.

A better analogy would be texturized soy protein sold as beef steak, or meat flavored soy protein sold as jerky. They're not the real thing and are clearly labeled.

What's wrong with requiring food companies to accurately label the ingredients of their product? Isn't the deception they want to legalize an example of why over 100 brands of dog and cat food were recalled for killing pets? Will you feel good when you open a can of creamed corn and find green beans? Accurate labeling is a necessity.

Posted by TheUnrepentantGunner, Oct 25, 2007 8:29AM

Josh: Obese people do have an impact on others. Maybe not in the same way that Nicotine does, but next time you're on a red-eye from Phoenix, tell me how you feel when the lady sitting next to you is well over a deuce.

And yes, the name needs to be upgraded to the Fat F*ck Tax. We have so many stupid taxes, how don't we have this obvious and worthy goldmine? As my old man once said, "Two asses? Pay for two seats."

Posted by just john, Oct 25, 2007 8:38AM

That's not the REAL Chocolate War, THIS is: http://just-john.com/outlaw_chocolate

Posted by girl, Oct 25, 2007 9:16AM

Now now, we mustn't forget the Eye-Sore Tax, which is a natural add on to the fat fuck tax in climates prone to fewer layers of clothing.

Anal_yst, I'll pretend I wasn't below hershey river on that list, but am honored nonetheless.

Posted by xxx, Oct 25, 2007 9:17AM

chocolate comes out of of my 2 hole.

Posted by Goaltender, Oct 25, 2007 10:43AM

Very simple...allow the substituted stuff Hershey and the rest of Big Chocolate make to be called "chocolate". But then, allow the artisan makers who use cocoa butter to call thier products "premium chocolate". They can charge up the wazoo for the "premium" stuff and leave the riff raff to buy regular "chocolate".

Sounds like a simple solution to me.

Posted by Christopher Pelham, Oct 25, 2007 11:34AM

Vegetable oil is rather unhealthy. And milk products certainly are. Organic dark cacao in moderation may be beneficial as it contains a number of anti-oxidents, but then it also contains a bit of caffeine, can contribute to acid reflux and GERD, and is I believe acidic.

I believe companies should be able to make and market unhealthy stuff if they want (but nobody should want to sell unhealthy stuff) but it should be well labelled and we the public should be well educated about the value, benefits, and adverse impacts of said products. Nutrition and the environment affect are lives in most instances much more significantly than say politically motivated violence.

Posted by fat guy, Oct 25, 2007 12:15PM

hey! i'm fat AND i smoke. stop trying to tax me you fucking assholes!

Posted by , Oct 25, 2007 12:34PM

If imitation crab meat tasted exactly like Alaskan King Crab (which it doesn't) and had similar nutritional value, why should I care what I'm being served? If I can get the same substantive product for a cheaper price I'm all for it.

Does any one else suspect all the posts screaming out for protecting small-time chocolate are coming from the same 1-2 people?

Posted by DDiA, Oct 25, 2007 12:56PM

"To put it another way, what’s really motivating the smaller chocolate makers is not an adherence to some Platonic ideal of chocolate. "

Hahhahaha..... I don't believe I've seen the words "Platonic", "ideal" and "chocolate" in the same sentence before.

Posted by JohnB, Oct 25, 2007 1:19PM

So, if Big Chocolate gets what they want which is the ability to mass produce a product that does not include the essential basic ingredient that makes chocolate chocolate (ie-the cacao bean), then they should have to change the wording on their packaging. Just like O'Doul's which clearly states under it's name that it is a non-Alcoholic beverage, then Hershey's or Nestle need to but a similar statement under their iconic names such as "Non-Chocolate" bar.

Posted by , Oct 25, 2007 1:59PM

Doesn't your O'Doul's comment miss the point if the two products are substantively the same (i.e., 99.9% of the people can't tell the difference)? Non-alcoholic beverages suck for obvious reasons - but if someone could make a beverage without alcohol that still got you just as drunk and tasted the same (AND wasn't harmful to you) -- why would you care where it got stocked in the store?

Posted by Tom, Oct 25, 2007 2:27PM

I think the better idea would be to eliminate the United States' price supports for Louisiana sugar beet farmers and tariffs on sugar imports. The U.S. has the highest sugar prices in the world, which not only raises the costs of production for confectionery companies, but leads to the widespread use of corn syrup in things like soda (which is far more unhealthy and doesn't taste as good as soda made with real sugar in other countries).

Hershey can't even make real milk chocolate because Milton Hershey never mastered the technique invented by Nestle for using dry powder milk (and thus not being left with curded, sour milk) and they've kept to those original recipes. As a result, American milk chocolate is slightly sour and quite inferior to that in Europe. And besides, milk chocolate is an inferior product to that made with higher cocao content anyway.

The fact is that some of us prefer higher-quality, unadulterated, natural products to some cheap crap that can be invented to cut a bit of cost out of the system. And we work our asses off on Wall Street so that we can afford to buy it, rather than the slop one finds at places like "Wal-Mart". It is important that labeling is required so that these products remain clearly distinct from one another.

I will enjoy my bread, cheese, champagne and chocolate. You can make do with Wonder(R) bleached flour product, Kraft Singles(R) pasteurized food slices, California sparkling wine and Hershey(R) cocao-flavored desserts if you would like.

Posted by , Oct 25, 2007 4:15PM

I hate it when I try to buy expensive cheese and end up with Kraft Singles. It would be really nice if I wasn't a total fucking retard.

Post Your Comment