I grew up in a health-obsessed household; my mother used to ruin perfectly good fro-yo with wheat germ (I swear, I am not kidding...it's like "it's already FRO-YO!!!"). So on the few occasions that I could actually raid the pantry, I was stuck eating baking chocolate. Literally. Which is probably why I developed a taste for the darker, more bitter chocolates (although, who am I kidding, I would pretty much scarf anything down that wasn't wheat germ). I'm not a chocolate snob, per se (I love Cadbury cream eggs and other assorted drugstore chocolates), but I do like the richer, darker blends. Well, get this. A group of food lobbyists (get these titles: the Chocolate Manufacturers Association, the Grocery Manufacturers Association, the Snack Food Association and weirdly, the National Cattlemen's Beef Association— maybe they just eat a lot of chocolate?) are trying to get the FDA to expand the definition of chocolate, mainly to include substitutes that use vegetable fats and oils instead of delicious, nutritious, and skin-softening, cocoa butter. (Wouldn't it be funny if they expanded it to include broccoli?) This, of course, has chocolate lovers and makers up in arms... how dare they call that waxy stuff chocolate? In the words of a French chocolatier from the book, "Chocolate: A Bittersweet Saga of Dark and Light:" 'Tout ca, c'est ne pas du chocolat. C'est de la confiserie.— All that isn't chocolate. It's candy.'