Jump to content

  • Quick Navigation
Photo

Chocolate - legal requirements


Best Answer , 05 February 2022 - 09:57 AM

Chocolate isn't really my area of expertise, but from a very quick look at the regs I think there are several potential issues with this being called "chocolate":

 

1) You'd need to know the % cocoa solids and the % dry milk solids to determine what type of chocolate (within the list of reserved descriptions) this would be, if any.

 

2) The addition of flour appears to be prohibited in accordance with the footnote 1(1) to the Schedule 1 of this regulation.

 

3) The natural milk flavour may also cause an issue as footnote 1(2) of Schedule 1 only permits the use of flavourings "which do not mimic the taste of chocolate or of milk fat". A "natural milk flavouring" is a product in which 95% or more of the flavouring components (flavouring substances and/or natural flavouring preparations) are derived from milk, and that also has an identifiable taste of milk. I suspect this would therefore fall foul of the regs.

 

4) You may also need to check the authorised vegetable fats listed in Schedule 2 of the regs - Soy and Sunflower don't seem to be included in this.


  • You cannot start a new topic
  • Please log in to reply
5 replies to this topic

ukOTLuk

    Grade - Active

  • IFSQN Associate
  • 16 posts
  • 0 thanks
0
Neutral

  • Earth
    Earth
  • Gender:Male

Posted 05 February 2022 - 08:54 AM

Looking for confirming that a product with the following breakdown does NOT comply with The Cocoa and Chocolate Products (England) Regulations 2003, due to the egg protein content and milk flavour? (cocoa mass and cocoa butter % currently unknown)

 

(sugar, palm oil, soy oil, sunflower oil,cream, cacao mass, cacao butter, egg protein, defatted milk, milk fat, E322(Soy) ,E473,E472b, natural milk flavor)



pHruit

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Fellow
  • 1,940 posts
  • 777 thanks
478
Excellent

  • United Kingdom
    United Kingdom
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Composing/listening to classical music, electronics, mountain biking, science, sarcasm

Posted 05 February 2022 - 09:57 AM   Best Answer

Chocolate isn't really my area of expertise, but from a very quick look at the regs I think there are several potential issues with this being called "chocolate":

 

1) You'd need to know the % cocoa solids and the % dry milk solids to determine what type of chocolate (within the list of reserved descriptions) this would be, if any.

 

2) The addition of flour appears to be prohibited in accordance with the footnote 1(1) to the Schedule 1 of this regulation.

 

3) The natural milk flavour may also cause an issue as footnote 1(2) of Schedule 1 only permits the use of flavourings "which do not mimic the taste of chocolate or of milk fat". A "natural milk flavouring" is a product in which 95% or more of the flavouring components (flavouring substances and/or natural flavouring preparations) are derived from milk, and that also has an identifiable taste of milk. I suspect this would therefore fall foul of the regs.

 

4) You may also need to check the authorised vegetable fats listed in Schedule 2 of the regs - Soy and Sunflower don't seem to be included in this.



Thanked by 1 Member:

ukOTLuk

    Grade - Active

  • IFSQN Associate
  • 16 posts
  • 0 thanks
0
Neutral

  • Earth
    Earth
  • Gender:Male

Posted 05 February 2022 - 10:07 AM

Thank you!  They were exactly the points I had flagged after reading the regs too



ukOTLuk

    Grade - Active

  • IFSQN Associate
  • 16 posts
  • 0 thanks
0
Neutral

  • Earth
    Earth
  • Gender:Male

Posted 06 February 2022 - 06:25 PM

Wondering if we can call this "chocolate" "Japanese Chocolate" - I know this has been done with Jam in the past where a company called a "jam" with colouring "Japanese Jam" - it feels wrong though so keen to hear thoughts on this....



pHruit

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Fellow
  • 1,940 posts
  • 777 thanks
478
Excellent

  • United Kingdom
    United Kingdom
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Composing/listening to classical music, electronics, mountain biking, science, sarcasm

Posted 07 February 2022 - 03:59 PM

I wonder if the "Japanese Jam" was a fairly small-volume product that may have escaped the attention of trading standards? Such circumstances aren't all that unusual for smaller brands / low volume imports...
Without seeing the full label, it's difficult to envisage how such a product would comply with part 4 (Reserved Descriptions) of the Jam and Similar Products Regulations 2003.

 

I suspect you'd have the same challenge with part 5 of the Cocoa and Chocolate Products Regulations 2003 - if you're unable to verify that the product is any of the types of "actual" chocolate according to the definitions in that regulation, then your options for using the word "chocolate" are limited to cases where chocolate is an ingredient of the food, or where the context clearly indicates that the product itself isn't chocolate.

 

I'm don't work for a regulatory body so my thoughts don't count for a great deal, but to me the term "Japanese chocolate" could easily be read as implying that the product is chocolate of Japanese origin, rather than that it is a different type of cocoa-based product that doesn't meet the UK requirements for chocolate.



Scampi

    Fellow

  • IFSQN Fellow
  • 4,331 posts
  • 1188 thanks
914
Excellent

  • Canada
    Canada
  • Gender:Not Telling

Posted 07 February 2022 - 05:46 PM

Going by the description, it really sounds like a confection, definitely not chocolate (Canada has similar requirements re: chocolate) as chocolate contains neither egg or "milk flavouring" (eww)

 

Do not call it Japanese anything, unless you're prepared to use the phrase "made in the style of" or similar ----never forget that Parma ham can only come from Parma Italy, and champagne only comes from the champagne region of France and so on and so forth

 

https://www.business...lling-of-sweets

 

https://www.food.gov...g-and-labelling


Please stop referring to me as Sir/sirs





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users