What on earth do the Mast Brothers have planned next?
Posted in: Opinion
Upon reading the rule it appears that sales of more than 100,000 units per year triggers a requirement for the mandated labeling. A lawyer specializing in FDA regs could perhaps argue that each type of bar warrants an exemption as a different item, but personally I think knocking out several hundred thousand bars a year under the same brand name is probably the point at which you will need to start nutritional labeling.
{snip}
A "product" is a food or dietary supplement in any size package; which is manufactured by a single manufacturer or which bears the same brand name; which bears the same statement of identity, and which has similar preparation methods.
A "unit" is a package, or if unpackaged, the form in which the product is offered for sale to consumers.
A "firm" includes all domestic and international affiliates.
Mark -
The way the rules have been read to me is that a product can be equated to a recipe. a 70% Dominican is one product, a 70% PNG another, and an 85% Dominican a third.
With respect to units, a 200gr bar counts as 5, 40gr bars. So 100, 200gr bars counts as 500 units because of the 40gr unit's availability. With 25+ grinders in NYC alone making as much as 80MT of chocolate/year, that's over 2,000,000 units/year. Assuming fewer than 20 recipes/products, then many if not all of them should be sporting nutrition labels - from the NY factory alone. Add in London (as is required by law) then pretty much everything should be.
Any way you look at it, it seems obvious that the MB should no longer eligible for the small business exemption. And it seems likely that they should not have been eligible to apply for the exemption that expires in 2016, but did so, anyway.
To me, this seems to be a continuation of the same arrogant, "The rules don't apply to us. Because, Mast Brothers." attitude that led them to be less-than-forthcoming about melting Valrhona early on. There is no reason why they cannot (and should not) be in compliance with the labeling laws today because they clearly have the financial resources to do so; compliance would not unduly burden them. Whatever their attitude towards openness and transparency (right?) it does not appear to extend to proper labeling. They could lead by example - do the right thing just because it's the right thing to do. But they still choose not to.
One theory? The nutrition labels "ruin" the aesthetic.
What's up with that, anyway?
