New Regulations from The EU Claim The Chocolate You Eat Is Fake!

    This is the simulation of the EU Chocolate debate by the CIEE Brussels Belgium World Government Program participants. This debate actually occurred in the EU for the economic implications, and the program teachers and leaders decided it was a good debate to do because of the chocolate museum tour two days prior. 

    This debate was one of the first academic activities that we did. In this honor, the Council Presidents, Galen, Penelope, and I, declared a business formal dress code. If the other representatives did not follow the dress code, their speaking privileges were revoked; of course, this was a joke—mostly. 

    This was my first experience in a debate-like activity, and it was quite interesting. I was sharing the role of a Council President, which mediated the conversations between the representatives of the country. It was a good part for me to be considering my lack of experience because I was able to observe and participate simultaneously. However, I also felt like it was easy to pick up and I could have had good input to add to the debate after getting the hang of it. This coming week, our teacher is [hopefully] adjusting the academic plan to include another simulation that is similar to this one; however, it would be on the topic of immigration. This would be an even more intense and valuable experience.

    I can say, without a doubt, that, even with a debate that seemed silly at first, a very large majority of the class thoroughly enjoyed it. I can also say, without a doubt, that everyone got very involved in their position during the role play. During the recesses, all of the representatives, Parliament, and Commission interacted with each other to discuss how/where to compromise and come to a conclusion. It was very—dare I say “cool” for the lack of better term at the moment— cool to see everyone working together and talking about the subject so intensely. It was a hands-on, not too serious or offensive topic and debate that allowed us to share our perspective and views in politics. After the activity, I was able to better understand everyone’s train of thought more accurately and on a deeper level. We all enjoyed the activity so much that we requested other similar activities to be worked into the schedule. 

    Another aspect that I enjoyed during this activity was seeing everybody in their business formal attire. It was a great way to create an environment that was as similar to the real event as possible. It was also a great way to “see into the future”; it may be likely that we will have a “rendez-vous” in the future because of our political/diplomatic interests. We might all work together one day, who knows? It was like a glimpse to the future; that was the best part. 

Attention EU Country Members:

    The year is 2000 and the biggest current issue within European Union member countries is chocolate. More specifically, what defines “chocolate.” Today, the European Union (EU) is holding a summit to define the requirements to gain the “chocolate” label. This is everything you need to know about the debate for the chocolate that you are putting in your body. 

    The chocolate debate is significant enough to be a summit at the EU primary for the economic impact it will cause. Currently, the only chocolate that is allowed to be sold in the EU with the label “chocolate” is made without vegetable oil substitution. However, as the EU moves closer to a common market and requires standard regulations/definitions, the United Kingdom (UK) is pushing to allow the definition to be altered to include their vegetable oil based chocolate. 

    Here is the initial proposal from the Commission:

“Cocoa and cocoa butter may be replaced with (vegetable) oil snd must be sold in all European Union member countries.”

    Here are the members’ responses to establish their stance:

• Belgium— opposes the proposal for the following reasons:

  • “chocolate purists” from the history/culture of their chocolate making
  • “pure chocolate” is a major industry that would be disrupted from the additional competition from the UK’s “fake chocolate”
  • the disruption in the economy will change the working class’s ability to provide for themselves since the big cooperation of the vegetable chocolate are now in  competition with the smaller local chocolate artisans 

• France— opposes the proposal for the following reasons:

  • the introduction of the oil chocolate with pure chocolate will disrupt the smaller business in the chocolate economy
  • adding oil chocolate as competition will reduce the amount of pure chocolate bought because of the new competition and France is a big exporter of pure chocolate

• Germany—opposes the proposal for the following reason:

  • Switzerland receives the majority of the exports from Germany, which would be harmed from allowing vegetable oil chocolate to compete with pure chocolate

• Ireland— supports the proposal for the following reasons:

  • some recent research has shown that the vegetable oil can provide health benefits
  • recent research shows that there is no health disadvantage by using vegetable oil as a substitute
  • the customers and tourists who will be purchasing these products do not put a lot of focus on the ingredients in the chocolate that they will eat; the ingredients and composition of the chocolate does not matter to buyers as long as it still tastes good to them

• Italy— supports the proposal for the following reason:

  • the chocolate industry will be able to expand and move forward to grow

• Netherlands— opposes the proposal for the following reason:

  • there is an alliance/close relationship between Netherlands and Belgium; thus, Netherlands must support its ally to maintain the relationship

• Spain— opposes the proposal for the following reasons:

  • Spain is a country that holds traditional values very high, and integrating oil based chocolate runs in opposition to these traditional values
  • if the oil based chocolate is integrated, there should be a label to differentiate between the two types

• United Kingdom— supports the proposal for the following reasons:

  • the UK is a primary exporter of the oil based chocolate
  • it still contains cocoa
  • expanding the UK's market to include all of the countries in the EU would allow great economic growth for the UK

    This draft was rejected.

    By the end of the summit, a conclusion had been reached: the bill was accepted by the country criteria, but was rejected on the base of population criteria: “Chocolate is defined by any candy that is 51% or more of cocoa and cocoa butter that was made with whole milk and has 3% or less of an oil substance. All other variations must have a clear readable label on the front of the package that states it is an oil based chocolate and must not contain the word ‘chocolate’ in all EU member countries” In more simple terms, if the bill passed, chocolate must be 51% or more from the cocoa plant, made with whole milk, and is less than 3% oil or it cannot be labeled as “chocolate”. Surprisingly, two countries who were initially in favor of the bill opposed the revisions, while those who were originally opposed, except for Germany, voted in favor to pass the bill. 

    But how did the bill get accepted by the countries, but not get passed? During the voting process, the bill must be voted majority in favor for both the country and the population. There must be a 55% majority by the number of countries and a 65% majority for the population in the countries. This requires bills to have the majority of countries, no matter the size, to support the bill, as well as requires the bill to be supported by large enough states that the population of the states constitutes a majority of 65% or above. In this case the number of countries that voted in favor was the majority; however, the population of these countries did not total the majority. Therefore, the bill did not get passed.

    When asked about the voting results, Ireland’s representatives chose to comment: Ireland’s stance for opposing the bill it originally was in favor for was because it would have been a requirement in all countries for the EU. This meant that the producers of the “fake chocolate” could not label their own candy as chocolate in their own country. Ireland believed that if it was up to each country’s discretion to label which candies are chocolate or not, and the UK agrees; however, this preference directly contrasts with the EU’s goal of creating an open/common market with universal regulations/requirements. It can be assumed that the current definition of "chocolate," which excludes the oil based chocolate, will be maintained until the next chocolate summit.