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 god why did I read that as trump fats 🤮
Are you sure they would use TRANS fats?
Since the traitors actually cut funding for transgenic scientific study because they don’t know what trans means, this is in the realm of realistic. That’s where we’re at.
They mean the rendered fat of the trans people they’re planning to kill on an individual scale. Only half of that statement was a joke btw.
It must be packaged in a gold wrapper.
If we’re using the hersey model, it would be 50% castor oil, and 50% butyric acid.
Oh, and it’s gold. Not the wrapper, I mean, that is too, but the chocolate is a solid metallic gold color, like you are literally biting into a gold bar. It tastes nothing like chocolate.
The MAGA candy bar on a stick in a gold wrapper $49.99. On a stick because it is for suckers.
on a stick because it is for suckers
Excellent.
HAHAHA and they say having healthcare makes you feel freedom
bites into injection molded PFAS chocolate bar
They have NO idea what freedom tastes like.
spits out chewed candy bar
The best part is if you get the app subscription you can refill the taste for the next time you chew on it!
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.
What would sweeten it if it didn’t have added sugars? I’m not sure I fully understand what you’re saying.
He’s saying its likely got cane sugar, which is basically “less” refined sugar. It seems unlikely it has no added sugars and likely what they are trying to say is: it has no high processed sugars/artificial sweeteners.
She also said it contains soy lecithin (just a little!) and salt
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”.
The cadmium is actually part of a new marketing push: “Try Hershey’s, they’re Cadmiummy”
That actually made me want it a little, thank you
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
mmm I want “American Plastic Product”
it is closer to cheese but tastes and feels like plastic
You know cheez whiz is grey before they add the orange coloring
contaminated with lead.
All dark chocolate is
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.You should rather pity them. It’s like Platon’s Shadow Cave, they’ve been fed lies, their entire lives, the few of them that actually get out of the USA will know the difference… The sad thing is that if you try to convince the ones that have never left the country, they will die rather than admit defeat.
I have moved beyond pitying.
Maybe in 1930 where some people could be misled bcs of lack of information and really believed they did some good by putting on a nazi uniform is somewhat understandable.
These days everyone has internet and can find out anything if they want to.
Despite the vast propaganda and media control in the US it is no longer an excuse.
They are willfully ignorant.
Even when they get confronted online with unpleasant facts they get back in their trenches as you mentioned.
So no sympathy here, they can stay in their cave and rot.
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.
Bend over
You catching or pitching?
¿Porque no los dos?
Oh yeah thanks for reminding me this is just another way the Government is taking money for the Lopez family
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
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.
Makes sense. I recall watching a documentary showcasing how children were drinking from 2L soft drink bottles.
Mexico is in North America
But has healthy food become cheaper?
Is there anything cheaper than rice or oats?
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.
WV? In the 90s, I remember my uncle still didn’t have a septic tank or sewage; the family still used an outhouse. For breakfast, they’d often make biscuits and gravy with this weird, and I assume cheap, canned-gravy I’ve never seen anywhere else (was good, but likely very unhealthy). Most of my family from there are dead now (drugs, shit-life-syndrome).
Also, I didn’t have a septic tank either as a kid. I remember using outhouses at relatives houses and our shit (at my house) just went from a pipe to the creek.
It’s hard to imagine living like that nowadays, but I did once upon a time.
You know it. I’m a West (by God) Virginian.
Crazy how I can just talk about the place and my fellow West Virginians know it without me saying it.
You and I have the same story haha.
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.
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.
A high quality chocolate bar, at that.
Well, depends on if the advertising matches the product.
I mean, they list the ingredients and percentages.
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 snorting 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?
Must be easy to get confused when you can only have one thought in your head at a time, and barely even that.
I’m sure that sounded better in your head than it read.
It’s okay, you still have worth!
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
Political stuff aside… I’d love to visit Mexico, it looks like an absolutely beautiful place!
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?
By whether they’re making verifiable and objective claims? They aren’t, really, and they certainly didn’t source theirs, but it’s a lot more convincing to say that instead of making your own unsourced accusations.
I think the issue is that you’ve not provided evidence that the other user supports Israel’s genocide in Gaza.
At the end of the day it’s just an internet argument and not worth it, but if you want to make your point, I’d start by getting that evidence.
I do agree in principle that I would think twice before agreeing with any position a genocide supporter takes, though that doesn’t necessarily mean I will disagree on any particular point after giving it due thought. If they said throwing puppies from a roof was bad, I’d agree, for example.
Have you been to Mexico? How about you take a little vacation to Sinaloa to prove me wrong?
Sinaloa has some great towns
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.
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”.
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. 😅
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.
they have aggressively tackled obesity in recent years
Actually doing something? Good on them!
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.
The hate was you focusing on the profiteers, and want was you focused on consumers. However the product must go from a to b. Then b to c. Etc. Workers are a key aspect of this process and most people ignore this.
Chocolate in mexico does have deep indigenous and historical roots. However this is not why it’s so big, it’s massive due to a bunch of exploitation of the region. It’s why Mexico has only sorta been at peace since the 1980s. I have studied greatly how white supremacists funded some of our state conflicts. Literally the KKK.
Anyways, you are too focused on the chocolate example when I never really talked about it. All I am saying is this is good, however I can also see it growing corrupt by forfeiting too much to the governance. Going back around from one capitalist structure to the next. State efforts to counteract start one way, I am saying they always end the same. Power corrupts.
Anyways, my point is the people will rise if they are suppressed. What goes up must come down, as above so below.
However, you have too much faith in governance, for yours has not taken from you humanity.
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.
Thank you for joining me in the conceited side for thinking your point is more correct.
They work in tandem, but no one who is good can agree on what is good. Only on what is bad.
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.)
I never said they are a bad thing. I am saying it is forfeiting a lot to the governance - seizing the means of production to them.
The bengali famine was a multifaceted issue, however primarily it was the contracts and forced control of the British. In which they withhold food availability for war time embargos along with a focus on textile farming. All the contractees then essentially focused on money rather than food, as that was the profit of a contract.
Less profits for shareholders? And that is unacceptable!
/s
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.
if chocolate goes extinct I dont think im gonna make it, man
American slop producers in shambles
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.
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
Funny, it didn’t taste as good with chocolate ice cream.
Throw some malt in there!!!
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.
Since I discovered dark chocolate ice cream, I’ve been dying for someone to make a dark chocolate and vanilla twist soft serve.
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
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.
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…
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’ve got all the people in the world who eat chocolate for its health benefits in the room with me right now, and they said, “”.
Milk chocolate is ruined chocolate.
What a stupid opinion to get blocked over
What an accurate username
What a stupid opinion to block someone over
I suppose that is true, but there’s already plenty of health based chocolate companies. This chocolate is just supposed to be candy, which means they want it to not be bitter. Incidentally, I know someone who is allergic to oat milk, someone’s always going to be allergic to something.
I dunno, I’ve yet to see a chocolate bar product that actually gets everything right. I think that it’s entirely possible to make a chocolate bar that is not only every bit as much candy as any other, but is completely health-promoting as well. The bar here is really just the status quo.
I’m not sure if that would be possible. Chocolate takes a lot of sugar to become sweet, which doesn’t exactly promote health. I’m sure they went with the status quo because it’s popular, and they want to appeal to the widest customer base anyways.
I think you’re right, it’s not possible without modifying the product so much that it can no longer be considered a true chocolate bar. I was going to post another comment in this thread about how I would make a chocolate bar. The sugar isn’t even the hard part - the thing that makes sugar harmful is when it’s 1) refined away from a whole-food source, 2) consumed in excess, and 3) part of a diet that is high in both sugar and fat, and low in other nutrients like fiber and phytonutrients. The first issue can be solved by using date sugar as the sweetener, which is just whole pulverized dates. Molasses (in small amounts) could also play a role.
The bigger problem is the cocoa butter itself. That stuff is really high in saturated fats, and chocolate cannot be considered chocolate without it’s inclusion. If I were to prioritize health over adhering to a standard, I would use either some kind of nut butter as a replacement (ideally one high in omega 3, like walnut butter), or a healthier oil like canola oil. Hmm, maybe avocado could be a good choice.
At this point I think it starts to run into stability issues, so an emulsifier of some sort would be desirable. I wouldn’t want to use industrial products like lecithins, so maybe something like chickpea flower. But then at this point we’re gone so far from chocolate bar that we’re probably talking about something that would be closer to a brownie texture.
Another thing I found in looking into this is that there are two main forms of cocoa powder/solids. The one used in chocolate bars uses a so-called “Dutch process” which leads to a product that is lower in flavanoid/polyphenol content. The other kind of cocoa, usually sold as “natural cocoa powder” has higher acidity, so a more sour taste. It requires either more sugar to taste good, is generally preferred more in baked goods, or in some cases will include an alkaline ingredient to neutralize the acidity.
So in pursuing health I end up removing literally every ingredient that makes a chocolate bar what it is. I guess I’m just finding out that I don’t like chocolate bars after all. XD
It’d be interesting to experiment with these lines of thought and see what comes out…
That certainly would be an interesting experiment. Date sugar sounds like it would be better in baked goods though, since it seems like it wouldn’t melt or dissolve like sugar crystals.
I’ve yet to see a chocolate bar product that actually gets everything right.
You’ve never had good chocolate? I don’t understand.
I’ve never seen a chocolate bar that can truly be called healthy. See this comment for details on why. While it is possible to make a healthy chocolate-flavored treat, It’s not possible to make a healthy true chocolate bar.
I prefer my chocolate bars in liquid form!
