While the federal government has often struggled to control drug usage, including drugs ingested via snorting like cocaine, it’s not often that officials have to make a call on snorting chocolate powder. But since Legal Lean, an Orlando-based business, recently created a product called Coco Loko, that’s exactly what the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) may need to do.

The name Coco Loko is actually a play on Four Loko, an energy drink and alcohol mix that was banned in 2010 and deemed a public health concern. Coco Loko shares plenty of similarities with its namesake, including the energy drink aspect. The fine, brown cacao powder contains taurine and guarana, which were both identified as dangerous substances in Four Loko. The energy-boosting benefits are another commonality between the two products, Legal Lean founder Nick Anderson said.

Anderson said that snorting the powder creates “almost like an energy-drink feeling, like you’re euphoric but also motivated to get things done.” The effects normally last between 30 minutes and one hour, Anderson told the Washington Post. The product, which hit shelves in June, is being marketed as a drug-free, non-addictive way to get a buzz and an energy boost.

An important distinction for the curious is that cacao powder is the purest, least processed form of chocolate while cocoa powder is the refined powder commonly found in American stores, according to One Green Planet.

Legal Lean and Anderson first became interested in developing the product after learning of the trend that was beginning in Europe. The mixture was popular in European nightclubs, culinary institutions, and even among cyclists, according to Daily Mail. Anderson said that while he was skeptical at first, he tried snorting powder and thought “this is the future right here.”

Soon after, Anderson invested $10,000 to create his own version and spent the next 10 months searching and testing for the right recipe. By June, Anderson had the right mixture and Coco Loko was on the shelves even without approval from the FDA up to this point. One tin of powder, which contains 10 servings, sells for $24.99, according to the Washington Post.

One issue that the FDA faces is that this is uncharted territory; no one really knows the risks of snorting cacao powder, Dr. Andrew Lane, director of the Johns Hopkins Sinus Center told the Washington Post. Lane expanded:

There are a few obvious concerns. First, it’s not clear how much of each ingredient would be absorbed into the nasal mucus membranes. And, well, putting solid material into your nose — you could imagine it getting stuck in there, or the chocolate mixing with your mucus to create a paste that could block your sinuses.

A spokesman for the FDA said the agency would need to “evaluate the product labeling, marketing information, and/or any other information pertaining to the product’s intended use” before making a decision. So, for now, the product can be sold even without FDA approval.

Concerns also circulated that snorting the powder could lead customers to try other drugs, but Lane said he isn’t particularly worried about that. The FDA has not decided if, or how, it will regulate consumption. Since the product is comprised of mostly chocolate, obviously a legal food, the powder may be challenging to federally regulate, according to U.S. News and World Report. 

Sales have increased in recent months according to Alex P. of Exclusive Distributors, which helps spread the product nationwide. “It’s not flying off the shelves or anything, but people are definitely curious,” Alex, who did not release his last name, told the Washington Post. Anderson’s brother, a rapper who goes by Bezz Believe, claims to have helped popularize the product by his own usage and its appearance in his music videos.

For now, snorting the cacao powder is more of a silly niche than the fad that swept Europe over the past year. Its popularity remains minimal, but interest has grown in Houston and Atlanta, according to the New York Post. Now that an American-based product has been introduced into the market, popularity could increase. As popularity increases, more attention will be paid to how (and if) the FDA opts to regulate the product.

Josh Schmidt

Josh Schmidt is an editorial intern and is a native of the Washington D.C Metropolitan area. He is working towards a degree in multi-platform journalism with a minor in history at nearby University of Maryland. Contact Josh at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Will Snorting Cacao Powder Become Popular? The FDA May Need to Decide appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Trump to Announce Changes to Cuba Policy

Today, President Donald Trump is in Miami to unveil some policy changes regarding Cuba. He is expected to roll back the changes President Barack Obama initiated when he opened up diplomatic relations with the country in 2014. That softening came after decades of ice-cold relations between the U.S. and Cuba. Trump’s new endeavors will mean a crackdown on commercial relations and tourism.

Perhaps most importantly, the changes will also affect normal people who benefit from increased tourism. Human rights groups have even called for the White House to keep the current policies because fewer travelers to the island nation will only hurt the local population. “It’s true the repressive system in Cuba has not changed, but the fact that two years of a different policy didn’t change things isn’t a reason to go back to one that was a clear failure for decades,” said Daniel Wilkinson, managing director of Human Rights Watch’s America division.

Headed to Miami to announce new U.S. policy on Cuba. We are going to empower the Cuban people and hold the regime accountable!

— President Trump (@POTUS) June 16, 2017

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: June 16, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

Chocoholics in Britain are going crazy over the changed shape of the Toblerone chocolate bars. There used to be a tiny gap between the triangles–now it seems to have doubled!

What the what?!?! @Toblerone … when did you create a dual carriage way through the mountains?!?! pic.twitter.com/xfHPF5W5bq

— nathalie pownall (@Nathaliepownall) October 28, 2016

This is a travesty for fans of the iconic Swiss chocolate bar. But the shape has only changed in Britain. According to Mondelez International, the company that owns the brand, the rising prices of ingredients have made it more expensive to produce the mountain shaped chocolate. So the company decided to add more space in between the triangles to save a little cash. They could keep the same packaging, length, and even price, but buyers will get about 10 percent less chocolate per bar. But this was obviously not okay with chocolate consumers.

Why don’t they should just change the name to NO-blerone and be done with it? #Toblerone #TobleroneGate #TobleroneTuesday pic.twitter.com/dpMKDqwMIO

— Claire Murrihy (@ClaireMurrihy) November 8, 2016

Many people have pointed out that this change comes after the Brexit vote. The British will no longer be a part of the European Union, and no longer have the same access to delicious Swiss chocolate as other Europeans.

#toblerone #brexit I told you that leaving the EU would have serious consequences. Now I’ m really upset. pic.twitter.com/w81cWYpNl4

— Mark Greenwood (@markcjgreenwood) November 8, 2016

Since the British opted out of the EU, the value of the British pound has fallen significantly, making commodities like cacao way more expensive than before. This is yet another reason for division between the voters who voted for or against Brexit. However, last Thursday did see a rise in the pound, after the High Court in Britain ruled that Parliament has to vote before an actual Brexit can take place.

Here’s another conspiracy theory for you all: some people believe the chocolate brand chose to reshape the bars right now because no one would notice due to all the U.S. election hysteria.

I bet @Toblerone thought they could sneak their new smaller bar out today and hope #ElectionDay would cover up the news #TobleroneGate

— seanieb1983 (@seanieb1983) November 8, 2016

Financially this is a tactic that more and more companies are using to avoid raising prices, and it could hit more types of candy in the coming months. “The new gappy-teeth Toblerone is yet another example of shrinkflation, where shrinking pack contents allows for a backdoor price rise,” said retailing expert Ratula Chakraborty.

But most of us feel like this:

All this talk about #TobleroneGate is making me want #Toblerone right now.

— Busy Working Mummy (@busyworkingmum1) November 8, 2016

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Chocolate Fans Outraged Over the Changed Shape of Toblerone: Is Brexit to Blame? appeared first on Law Street.

Ferrero, the chocolate company that manufactures international favorites such as Nutella and Ferrero Rocher, is on track to reach over $10 billion in profits this year, making it the world’s third largest chocolate producer. This growth is especially impressive considering that in 2006, Ferrero’s turnover stood at only 5.6 billion. But in light of this news, there is a problem that Ferrero is still working on addressing: child slavery on cocoa farms.

It’s important to note that Ferrero is not alone in this issue. In 2001, leading companies of the chocolate world made a collective promise to eliminate child labor from their supply chain by 2005 but the year came and went without an end to abusive labor practices. The deadline was pushed back to 2008, then to 2010. Ferrero appears to be the only one of those companies that set a secondary deadline for the project. In 2012, Ferrero pledged to end slavery on the farms where it harvests cocoa by 2020. Other leaders in the industry followed this pledge, but chose to amend their commitment to reducing child labor in Ivory Coast and Ghana by 70 percent by 2020 (rather than eliminating it entirely). Ferrero made a bold commitment in 2012–but is it one that the company can feasibly deliver on? Read on for a look at the company and the controversy over eliminating child labor in the chocolate industry.

What is Ferrero?

History

In 1946, Pietro Ferrero invented a cream of hazelnuts and cocoa. Hazelnuts were a creative addition to confectionery during wartime rationing, which limited the use of chocolate. Together with his brother, he launched a company to sell the product, which was eventually taken over by his son, Michele. Michele re-branded the spread as “Nutella,” opening production and sales offices worldwide in the wake of World War II.

Nutella became integral to Italian life, even sponsoring the national soccer team for three years beginning in 1988. Nutella was central to the “Made in Italy” brand but Ferrero also operated the Ferrero Rocher line of pralines, Kinder chocolate bars, and Pocket Coffee chocolates. By the time of his death, Michele Ferrero had unseated Silvio Berlusconi as the richest man in Italy–he had a net worth of an estimated $23.4 billion. In 1997, Michele’s sons Pietro and Giovanni took over the company and ran the brand successfully, but after Pietro’s death in 2011, sole responsibility fell to Giovanni.

A Media Shy Chocolate Megalith 

The family was, and still is, private to the extreme. Michele Ferrero did not hold press conferences or engage at all with the media, even going so far as to block tours of the company’s factories.  Ferrero has cultivated an almost mystical brand reinforced by the control the Ferrero family holds directly over the recipe, the production, and the marketing of their products. Although the company is headquartered in Italy and operates largely from its base in Alba, it is still reliant on West Africa for cocoa. Nutella, interestingly enough, also relies on sugar from Brazil and palm oil from Malaysia, which means West Africa may not be the only place where brutal labor practices have been a concern.

Child Labor and Slavery in the Chocolate Industry

The world’s largest chocolate producers rely on West Africa–especially the Ivory Coast and Ghana–for cocoa. The combined GDP for both countries is just a fraction of the billions of dollars in sales that international chocolate companies like Nestle pull down annually. Cocoa is generally produced by farmers living in extreme poverty, and child labor is common on the majority of cocoa farms. Children are often sold into slavery by their parents or kidnapped. The average work week can last from 80 to 100 hours and while working on the farms, these children receive no salary or education. The living conditions are brutal, as children are often beaten and rarely well fed.

Tulane University conducted a study in the 2013-2014 growing season that revealed approximately 2.1 million children were involved in objectionable labor practices on cocoa farms in both the Ivory Coast and Ghana. In 2015, three California activists filed a lawsuit against Hershey, Mars, and Nestle for not advertising that their products were made using child labor but the likelihood of that civil action suit coming to fruition is slim. This past September, Nestle commissioned a report from the Fair Labor Association (FLA) which presented the following results:

Researchers visit 260 farms used by the company in Ivory Coast from September to December 2014. The researchers found 56 workers under the age of 18, of which 27 were under 15…Researchers from the FLA, which was commissioned by Nestlé to investigate workers rights on its west African farms in 2013 amid international pressure, found child workers at 7% of the farms visited. Nestlé’s code of conduct prohibits the use of child labour in its supply chain.Though researchers found Nestlé had made substantial efforts to inform farmers about its code of conduct, awareness of the code was low among farmers, with farmers sometimes unable to attend training sessions due to either “lack of interest or time”. The FLA also found that farms lacked any kind of age verification system for workers.

Ferrero has not commissioned a similar report but because almost all of the major chocolate providers rely on the same farms within Ivory Coast and Ghana, concerns from critics allege that conditions are similar on its farms. Ferrero has called out for an end to child slavery and forced labor, but if farmers are ignoring that call to action, like those interviewed for the FLA report, then the company may not be on track to meet its 2020 goal.

 Conclusion

Ferrero has officially displaced Nestle to become the third largest chocolate producer in the world, which means that the company will be centered in the international spotlight like never before. The Ferrero family may have historically been secretive about their business to protect it from corporate espionage but that does not mean they should be allowed to be anything less than transparent when it comes to their labor practices. There are dozens of smaller chocolate companies that have successfully eliminated child and slave labor from cocoa production on their farms, and particular light is being shed on Ferrero (and other leading chocolate companies’) practices. The moment may have come for Ferrero’s leadership to divert attention and resources to reforming the cocoa farms behind their famous chocolate.

Resources

The Local: Italian Chocolate Giant Ferrero to Eclipse €10bn Turnover

Reuters: Michele Ferrero, Owner of Nutella Empire, dies at 89

CNN: Ferrero Sets Date to End Cocoa Slavery

BBC: News; How the World Went Nuts for a Hazelnut Spread

New York Times: Michele Ferrero, Tycoon Who Gave the World Nutella, Dies at 89

Fortune: Was Your Easter Chocolate Made with Child Labor?

Fortune: Inside Big Chocolate 

The Daily Beast: Lawsuit: Your Candy Bar Was Made By Child Slaves

The Guardian: Child Labour on Nestlé Farms: Chocolate Giant’s Problems Continue

The Huffington Post: Chocolate and Child Slavery: Say No to Human Trafficking this Holiday Season

Jillian Sequeira

Jillian Sequeira was a member of the College of William and Mary Class of 2016, with a double major in Government and Italian. When she’s not blogging, she’s photographing graffiti around the world and worshiping at the altar of Elon Musk and all things Tesla. Contact Jillian at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post Chocolate Company’s Growth Puts a Spotlight on Child Labor in West Africa appeared first on Law Street.

Remember last year when we told you that the Hershey’s Company was plotting to make all British-chocolate-loving Americans’ lives harder by making it virtually impossible to buy “authentic” Cadbury chocolate in the U.S.?

Well the conspiracy doesn’t stop there!

In a special Easter web exclusive of “Last Week Tonight,” comedian John Oliver paid homage to his favorite type of online video by creating his own mind-blowing YouTube conspiracy theory video that ties Cadbury Creme Eggs to the Illuminati.

Yes the Illuminati!

Oliver claims he can link the illuminati to the fondant filled chocolate egg that he says “tastes like mermaid placenta covered in candle wax,” by just following the money.

With the help of a few graphics and a bit of ingenuity, Oliver followed a trail of conspiracy breadcrumbs that linked the movie “Miracle on 34th street” to Germany, Bono, and a plot to take over the world.

In the end Oliver declares that, “Cadbury Creme Eggs appear in our stores for the financial benefits of illuminati elites such as Jay Z, Beyonce and Al Sharpton.”

Even though Oliver admits that most of his theory is probably “completely false,” it’s still pretty amazing and creepily kinda makes sense.

But don’t take my word for it. Watch the full video below, and judge for yourself.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post John Oliver Confirms Our Suspicions That There is a Cadbury Conspiracy appeared first on Law Street.

Everyone knows the shape of a KitKat bar–but can Nestle (KitKat’s parent company) legally keep people from replicating it? According to a British judge, the KitKat shape can’t be trademarked–the decision was just handed down earlier this week.

Apparently this has been a long legal saga in Europe, with Nestle bringing attempts to trademark the KitKat shape to both the British High Court and the European Court of Justice. Nestle first tried to trademark the shape back in 2010, in an attempt to keep competitors, particularly Cadbury, from making chocolate bars in similar shapes.

However, Judge Arnold of Britain’s High Court ruled that the shape of KitKat hadn’t “acquired a distinctive character” to the point where it could be trademarked. The big legal question was whether or not someone could look at a KitKat bar and know what it was, even without any distinctive markings or packaging. Judge Arnold pointed out that Nestle had never promoted the shape when marketing the KitKat bar, and the bar’s wrapping obscures the shape. He stated in his ruling that while the shape may be distinctive, it isn’t the only thing that consumers use to identify the candy bar, stating:

In these circumstances it seems likely that consumers rely only on the word mark KitKat and the other word and the pictorial marks used in relation to the goods in order to identify the trade origin of the products. They associate the shape with KitKat (and therefore with Nestlé), but no more than that.

The idea of trademarked a candy bar shape isn’t totally crazy though; some cases have been successful in the past. For example, Toblerone, which does have a distinctive mountain-like look, has been able to trademark its shape.

This case also wasn’t the first time that European candy companies have gone head-to-head over seemingly arbitrary intellectual property claims. In 2013, Nestle and Cadbury tussled in court over Cadbury’s attempt to trademark the shade of purple it uses for its chocolate wrappers. Cadbury wasn’t successful at that attempt, either.

So for now, it seems like the case of the KitKat shape is decided (at least in European courts) but Nestle is promising to appeal the suit. At this point though…”Gimme a break.“

Update: An earlier version of this post used the term “copyright” instead of “trademark.” The language has been updated.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post British Judge Rules Nestle Can’t Trademark the KitKat Shape appeared first on Law Street.

Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Those are all principles on which the United States was founded. Now, in my book, there’s one thing that fits very firmly into the happiness category: chocolate. So when I learned that my ability to get certain types of chocolate–particularly chocolate imported from the United Kingdom–has been hampered, I got pretty upset. After all, it’s my liberty to stuff my face with lots of chocolatey goodness, and it affects my life if I cannot do so.

The main conveyer of food from the UK to the US is called Let’s Buy British Imports (LBB). LBB just made a settlement with the American Hershey’s Company to stop importing Cadbury products. Cadbury is a British chocolate manufacturer, and if you’ve never had anything Cadbury-made, you’re missing out, because it’s damn delicious. Its most recognizable product in the U.S. is probably the Cadbury egg, but there are plenty of different variations of Cadbury sold, especially at specialty shops.

The settlement came from a claim by Hershey’s that the packaging on the chocolate made by Cadbury looked too much like some of Hershey’s, and that selling them in the United States infringed on trademark and licensing issues. It won’t just be Cadbury that won’t be imported any more, British-made KitKats are also going to be left across the pond, as well as a few other choice British sweets.

While this won’t make it illegal to have Cadbury in the US, or anything of that magnitude, sellers of the delicious creations will have a very hard time being able to stock the candy. It’s possible to import chocolate yourself, but it is very difficult to do so, given all the Food and Drug Administration and custosm hoops that require jumping through.

Those of you who have never been blessed with the pure magic that is Cadbury are probably wondering: what’s the big deal? Isn’t it just chocolate? Can’t you just eat some Hershey’s and call it a day, you weird, sugar-addicted freak?

Cadbury really is better than American chocolate. There is a legitimate, scientifically proven difference in taste. It tends to be higher in fat than American chocolate and focuses more on using milk than sugar. As Tatiana Schlossberg of The New York Times realized after a rather informal taste test:

The British Dairy Milk was slightly fudgier, allowing for a creamier taste and texture. The American Dairy Milk bar left a less pleasing coating and somewhat of a stale aftertaste.

In addition, the Telegraph pointed out:

a Hershey bar contains only 11 percent cocoa, while a British-made Dairy Milk bar – hardly a gourmet product – contains almost twice as much cocoa, at 20 per cent.

So, it’s probably not just a packaging concern on Hershey’s part. Cadbury chocolate tastes better, and has a pretty devoted following.

Most upsettingly, we’ll still see “Cadbury” on our shelves. Unfortunately it will be knockoff version, as Hershey’s has a deal to produce Cadbury products with altered recipes. Talk about adding insult to injury.

—

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post No More Cadbury Chocolate For You appeared first on Law Street.