Not to be outdone, Trump had the following announcement from the White House:
“Today, the USA introduced its new chocolate bar, priced at over $10. Made of 0% cocoa, hydrogenated corn syrup, and trans fats. No natural ingredients, no milk, no vanilla. It’s bigly on flavor and very, very, tasty. We are taking pre-orders now at USAChocolate.gov.”
Oh yeah thanks for reminding me this is just another way the Government is taking money for the Lopez family
The lady doing the presentation said that it has 35% of cane sugar.
Also behind her you see “hecho con azúcar de caña” which means “made with cane sugar”.
Cane sugar is generally at least a bit refined merely to purify it (so unlike High-Frutose Corn Syrup it’s not made by chemically transforming something else).
That said, it’s unclear if they use unrefined sugar cane, though that stuff is a complete total pita to work with hence I doubt it’s not in the least bit refined.
Mind you I looked around and the info on this is all over the place: like for example saying “no added sugars” but then a bit further it turns out it has “cane sugar”, which does mean that sugars were added (as the cocoa plant doesn’t produce cane sugar, that would be the sugarcane plant).
Mind you, by all indications this beats almost all North American chocolates, but that hardly a tall barrier to overcome. It’s pretty common to find similar stuff in European supermarkets.
Why’d they ruin it with powdered milk? 😣
Probably to make milk chocolate? They’ll probably make dark chocolate too if they aren’t already.
Milk chocolate is ruined chocolate.
Edit: I’ll elaborate. The primary health benefit of chocolate is the high antioxidant levels. So if a chocolate producer wants their product to lean on the health-promoting side, the last thing they want to do is include an ingredient that eliminates the primary benefit that a thing is known for. Dairy literally acts as an antinutrient in this sense, blocking the absorption of antioxidants in chocolate. It’s been shown to do this to coffee, tea, and berries as well.
Soy milk would be a relatively better choice, but then again, like dairy, soy is one of the most common allergens. So I would argue oat milk would be the best choice for “milk” chocolate.
I prefer my chocolate bars in liquid form!
if chocolate goes extinct I dont think im gonna make it, man
For reference, this is the legal definition in France (which still allows for some shitty chocolate BTW) :
Chocolat :
a) Désigne le produit obtenu à partir de produits de cacao et de sucres contenant, sous réserve du point b, pas moins de 35 % de matière sèche totale de cacao, dont pas moins de 18 % de beurre de cacao et pas moins de 14 % de cacao sec dégraissé.
Rough translation:
Chocolate is the product obtained from cocoa and sugars which shall contain no less (although see point b) than 35% of dry cocoa solids including 18% cocoa butter and 14% dry degreased cocoa.Point b covers specialty chocolates, such as guanduja, etc.
Full text here(fr)
Edit: better formatting
Hershey chocolate bar is rejected as chocolate because it doesn’t have enough cocoa and is contaminated with lead.
Hershey’s milk chocolate contains around 11% cocoa solids, meaning it doesn’t meet the European standard according to some sources. Therefore, in some European countries, Hershey’s is labeled as “chocolate-flavored” or “chocolate-flavored candy bar” rather than simply “chocolate”.
contaminated with lead.
All dark chocolate is
Makes me think of “American Cheese Product,” “cheese” that is closer to plastic but tastes and feels like cheese.
tastes and feels like cheese.
X
Glad the quality chocolate and also coffee isn’t wasted on the US.
Would be pearls before swines.
They don’t know better anyway.This is just bigotry. Just because a shitty megacorp makes shitty products that doesn’t good chocolate or coffee don’t exist here. You sound like the type of person who bases their views entirely on stereotypes.
Oh no bigotry!
It’s not about 1 shitty company. OC in a large country there will be some individuals who get good coffee or chocolate.
But the vast majority consume garbage quality.
And it’s OK bcs they are tasteless peasants.
Drown it in sugar, or better their beloved corn syrup and they’ll happily swallow it by the buckets.
My view is based on all US products I had the misfortune to taste.
Besides stereotypes are often true.Sounds like you chose the shitty chocolates. I almost never buy chocolate, but when I do, there is always a healthy selection of 85-90% cacao goodness available.
Fuck Americans.
You catching or pitching?
What is the objective behind selling the chocolate bars? I will have to delve deeper into the topic.
I would presume it’s because they’re low in sugar. Due to exploding diabetes rates, Mexico has been making a concerted effort in the last few years to stem the consumption of sugary foods, drinks and snacks, particularly amongst kids. You can’t have a cartoon mascot on a box of cereal, for example. They put big stickers over Tony the Tiger before changing the packaging completely. And the cost of snack foods has skyrocketed, making it largely unaffordable for lots of Mexican families. A bag of chips there costs more than it does in North America.
My guess is that this is part of that effort.
Mexico is in North America
She said it has 35% cane sugar, which pretty much means 35% of hydrocarbons just from that (if the sugar is refined, down to 32% if it’s totally unrefined) plus about 8% of the powered milk is also hydrocarbons, so let’s say it’s 40g hydrocarbons per 100g of product which is very bad for diabetics.
And this is without going into the total caloric level, which must high, not only from all that sugar but also because cocoa butter is pretty caloric.
There’s 100%-cocoa chocolate (or even the 90% one) and that stuff is very sour, so totally different.
This is fine for kids, because it avoids artificial ingredients, but it’s not for diabetics.
Kind of ironic. Chocolate is naturally high in saturated fats, which hypothetically might contribute more toward diabetes than the sugar. On the other hand, high fat plus high sugar will certainly do a lot more damage than just one or the other.
But has healthy food become cheaper?
Man, I hope so.
When I worked in one of the poorest places in the US, those people literally couldn’t afford to get quality food.
They had no refrigeration so they’d walk to the dollar general and get microwave tv dinners super cheap and heat them up at my store.
You take that cheap shit away and don’t provide alternatives and those people literally starve.
I’ve heard people say, “those people just need to get a job.” When I was in my 20s I tried very hard to employ them. (My uncle owned a chain of gas stations and, despite his issues, he cares about people and tries to help where he can in his way).
One story that stands out in my mind. Dude shows up with the application, gives a great interview. Apparently social services were going to cut him off if he didn’t get a job. He worked for less than a week, then drank a half a gallon chocolate milk to cause issues with his diabetes so he could leave without confrontation via ambulance.
When I got his paperwork, he could not read or write and was scribbling random gibberish. There’s no telling how much just went out the door because he didn’t know how to handle it.
I was so angry at the person who trained him because she didn’t say anything about this. She just coldly said, “he’s an idiot. He isn’t going to last.”
The world shits on people like him. He was denied his disability over and over again.
Not objecting, but what is the motivation of the Mexican government to do this? Have they done similar things before?
I don’t think they’ve done something exactly like this, but they have aggressively tackled obesity in recent years, going as far as labeling all foods with excess fats, salt, and sugar. It’s very visible on the package and it does influence what I buy.
But this is the way I found out we’re doing this now. 😅
they have aggressively tackled obesity in recent years
Actually doing something? Good on them!
But also I think because all the existing cocoa producers are evil enslavers. This will help something like 1800 Mexican farmers.
Nestle is notoriously evil - I’m hoping Mexico can compete
The only thing that EU has yet to stiff-arm on.
Government should probably provide the cheapest food and set the standard.
However ideology like this leads to issues in reality.
If a competitor gets lower prices would hint at some questionability. Government correction becomes suppression. Suppression leads to . . .?
However ideology like this leads to issues in reality.
Issues for who? The consumer? Or the capitalists?
If a competitor gets lower prices would hint at some questionability.
It would hint that it’s a shitty product, presuming no foul play by the government and the product is not overpriced (doesn’t appear to be).
Government correction becomes suppression. Suppression leads to . . .?
Government correction how? From suppression I think you mean lowering their price? The scenario you’re laying out doesn’t make sense.
The point of this kind of product is to be the baseline, no capitalist should be able to afford to offer the same product for less, because the government already has the lowest possible margin.
You start by making a better product, and you can charge whatever people decide the improved product is worth. It’s a good thing that an asshole capitalist can’t market a $7 bar of chocolate when a very good quality one is $1. At that price difference, your chocolate better be amazing.
Don’t bother trying to correct them. They are convinced its a bad idea because its what they would do if they were in power.
So focused on hate and want you only see the consumer and capitalist, but not the worker’s back. However, all three shall crumble under such a fumble.
The lower price would mean lower quality traditionally yes, but also implies cost cutting measures beyond that. Then creating regulation as a governance is expected the lowest prices. Did they circumvent regulations, taxes, etc.
Government correction can overextend their force with control of the fields and markets. Just look at the farming or fiahing history in most nations who had regulated government contracts.
The point of this kind of product is to be the baseline, no capitalist should be able to afford to offer the same product for less, because the government already has the lowest possible margin.
HENCE, how could a capitalist compete, leaving only inferior or circumvention of regulations. Needing recitifying. Over extension of power leads to suppression of the workers, field owners, and consumers. With capitalism winning.
Your last paragraph is ludicrous, start by making a better product. Reflecting in cost and raising the value of the product reaching the end user. Antithetical to your previous point.
You have so little experience with the pain of the world that you can only dream your comforts.
So what does suppression of the people lead to?
So focused on hate
Cope better. There was no hate.
The lower price would mean lower quality traditionally yes
No no no, it’s not lower quality, it’s just not luxury. It’s better than the $5 Hershey bars available to you in the US. This is not a law of economics, it’s a capitalist assumption. Lower prices can mean lower quality in for-profit contexts because companies cut costs to maximize profit. But in a nonprofit, state-run model, the goal is different: providing a high-quality public good at an accessible price. This is a de-commodification of a necessity or cultural staple. Chocolate in Mexico has deep indigenous and historical roots.
Then creating regulation as a governance is expected the lowest prices. Did they circumvent regulations, taxes, etc.
I don’t know, did they?
The insinuation here is that the government is cheating the system. But if the government is the one setting or adapting the regulations, this is not circumvention, it’s governance. State-run enterprises often don’t need to chase profit margins because their revenue model isn’t extractive.
HENCE, how could a capitalist compete
Correct, that’s the point. The state provides a baseline to protect people from price-gouging and artificial scarcity. Capitalists can compete, but they must add value, not by suppressing wages or cutting quality, but by genuine innovation or diversification.
This is similar to how public healthcare in many countries sets a baseline: if private healthcare wants to exist, it must offer more, not extract more.
Over extension of power leads to suppression of the workers, field owners, and consumers. With capitalism winning.
This is incoherent nonsense. Capitalism “winning” through the suppression of workers is not a bug; it’s a feature. State efforts to offer goods affordably often arise precisely to counteract capitalist suppression.
The idea that public chocolate production suppresses workers more than Nestlé or Hershey’s, companies with notorious labor violations, is laughable.
You have so little experience with the pain of the world that you can only dream your comforts.
That’s just a rhetorical grenade, you’re not engaging with what I said, you’re trying to discredit me personally. And honestly, it’s frustrating. You’re implying that lived suffering and collective solutions can’t go hand in hand, but that’s just not true. Some of the fiercest, most committed advocates for public goods come from deep struggle, especially across the Global South.
This meaningless, conceited ramble could have been more effective simply by pointing out that state industry can force an unfair competition simply by subsidizing its products with tax revenue, hiding the actual costs and potentially forcing any rivals out of business even easier than private industry can.
Uhh what?
It’s called competition. Having a competitor in the market who’s goal is to keep people fed instead of making money hand over fist would both bring prices down and bring quality up on higher priced items.
If we have to do capitalism, let’s get some not-for-profit competition happening.
In an ideal world, yes that would be the competition. However, in reality if the governance sets the standard, they can have almost always the cheapest prices. Wide reach, built transportation systems and probably incentivized contracts. Essentially everything that fucked up India with the British during ww2.
Well if another company can go lower, it inherently implies they are skimping somewhere so quality is lost or regulations circumvented. Any government correction can overstep.
Go start your not-for-profit competition. Farm for yourself, grow crops at home, reduce your footprint. Find community in your neighborhood.
However, in reality if the governance sets the standard, they can have almost always the cheapest prices. Wide reach, built transportation systems and probably incentivized contracts.
Yes, and yes, but why are either of these a bad thing? Cheap, good quality food seems like a good thing to me.
Essentially everything that fucked up India with the British during ww2.
If the British provided cheap food, they could actually have avoided the Bengal famine. (Unless you mean some other fuckup I’m not aware of.)
Less profits for shareholders? And that is unacceptable!
/s
Reducing obesity.
With a chocolate bar? I see it has less refined sugar, but it could still have the same amount of sugar.
When reducing unhealthy food in your diet, having less-bad alternatives to the unhealthy thing you’re craving can be a big help as your metabolism adjusts to the new diet.
For a personal example I’ve been greatly reducing sugar in my diet and sometimes I just crave something sweet. I’ve found ice cream to be the least sugary option, and I consume less sugar by having a bowl of ice cream than I would by having a few chocolates. My wife has a significant soda drinking habit and when she really craves a soda she’s been turning to the Poppi and Olipop sodas as less-bad alternatives
Yikes, ice cream is one of the worst things you could be eating, super high calorie density and extremely high fat content. Here is a far better ice cream alternative that can be made at home.
refined sugars are processed by the digestive system faster and are turned to fat.
Processed or not, sugar is only turned to fat in the body if it is 1) fructose, or 2) more than what you need. Every cell in our bodies can store sugar in the form of glycogen. If our glycogen stores are low, any consumed sources of sugar will be enzymatically broken down, the fructose converted in our liver, and the glucose converted to glycogen and circulated in our blood to replenish the rest of our stores. Then after this process the excess will be converted to fat.
As for fatty acids themselves, they generally go to our muscles first if needed, and then the rest fills our fat cells.
They sneak in just a little of that fentanyl. It’s to die for.
Americans have such a shitty life that they’re addicted to drugs and can’t stop buying them, but sure, it’s Mexicans sneaking it in.
We have government cheese! Why not.
Lol I don’t know whether that’s cool or uncool. “Government cheese” does sound epic though.
It’s very good.
I’ve had it, its good…lardy, but good.
Thats why every fast food place has some kind of cheese stuffed cheesy cheese topped cheese (thats right we put cheese in it) cheezy meal
American government: Builds concentration camps
Mexican government: Develops brand new chocolate bars
I’m happy to see there are still some governments out there who rule in the interest of the people.
The MEXICAN government ruling in the interests of the people? This is absolutely delusional. Mexico is one of the most corrupt, dangerous, and unstable places in the world. The country is quickly turning into a warzone because of the cartels, and both the current and previous presidents and their government aren’t doing anything about it because they’re bought.
A government making a chocolate bar to distract from the crippling poverty and crime is not good governance, it’s the opposite.
Mexico’s murder rate per 100 000 is 24.9, meaning you’re on average safer in Mexico than in Newark, Memphis, Cleveland, Kansas City, Baton Rouge, New Orleans, Detroit, Baltimore or St. Louis.
Never mind that murders in Mexico are generally committed using American firearms, and for American money over drugs that are to be sold in America. Mexico’s problem is America. So while we wait for America to selfdestruct, I guess they might as well get to work on public health issues.
Obviously not saying that cartels are not a huge fucking problem. It’s hard to get good politicians when they murder anyone who resists them. But the cartels are in large part a product of America’s failures. Europeans are not innocent either - fuck every coke snoking upper class brat who is having their pathetic highs at the expense of a whole fucking continent.
/rant
Wait I’m confused, so Mexico is safer than the USA, but they murder any politician who goes against the cartel?
Doesn’t sound so safe to me?
but the stats said it is safer!!! /s
Tell me you haven’t been to Mexico without telling me you haven’t been to Mexico.
I live in here in Mexico and they did not lie at all
This guy is a zionist. Don’t waste your time with him
Seems a little off topic and unsourced?
If someone justify a genocide how can you him in anything?
Have you been to Mexico? How about you take a little vacation to Sinaloa to prove me wrong?
I was there a year ago. It was nice enough, not nearly as worrisome as I thought it would be. Yes, I stayed in the tourist areas, no I didn’t wander into the rural areas, no I didn’t try to start shit in clubs, yes I saw armed military on patrol. There were a lot of people trying to live their lives despite the serious crime in the region.
There are absolutely terrible things happening there and I would love for them to get better. I can say the same thing about the US. At least Mexico isn’t waging war on my country, trade or otherwise.
A high quality chocolate bar, at that.
Well, depends on if the advertising matches the product.
You say that like most governments are acting like the US, which is just so dumb. Your comment reeks of “I only know about the US government and nothing else”.
I’d love to have a taste.
Too bad I live in Northern Europe…probably not worth buying via the Internet even if it was possible…
If you haven’t had chocolate with vanilla in it, consider trying it. It’s my favorite chocolate additive. You need to purge ideas about vanilla being sweet or creamy. It’s a tobaccoy rich flavor that adds some depth even to dark chocolate.
Just about all spirits that are aged in a wooden barrel gets a hint of vanilla flavor, hence i consider it a wood flavor.
Fun fact - Nilla Wafers stopped using real vanilla decades ago to cut costs, and the replacement vanilla-like flavoring is a wood derivative.
As a kid we’d make our own milkshakes at home and the best ones we came up with were vanilla ice cream with chocolate syrup.
Woah woah there Mr Radical. None can withstand such bold flavors combined. Vanilla AND chocolate?
Preposterous
Throw some malt in there!!!
Since I discovered dark chocolate ice cream, I’ve been dying for someone to make a dark chocolate and vanilla twist soft serve.
American slop producers in shambles
Not the news I was expecting but kind of a cool way to address a variety of issues, like obesity, imports from US, generating revenue, subsidizing a national crop, etc.
Don’t hold your breath, the Mexican government makes the American government under Republican rule seem competent. Just like how the American government is bought and paid for by corporations, the Mexican government is bought and paid for by the cartels.
