The Race to Save the World’s Chocolate

A shortage of the beloved confection will soon be upon us, analysts say. Counteracting it could involve brand-new strains of cacao.

<a href="http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-1323253p1.html">tanjichica</a>/Shutterstock


This story originally appeared in the Atlantic and is republished here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration.

Blame climate change. Or pestilence. Or China’s Westernizing taste in candy. Blame, perhaps, Ebola.

Regardless, the world is running out of chocolate. In 2013, the world consumed about 70,000 metric tons more cocoa than it produced. And now, Mars, Inc. and Barry Callebaut—two of the world’s biggest manufacturers of chocolate goods—are warning that by 2020, that consumption-over-production number could increase to 1 million metric tons (a fourteen-fold bump). “Chocolate deficits, whereby farmers produce less cocoa than the world eats, are becoming the norm,” The Washington Post reported. We are in the midst of what may be “the longest streak of consecutive chocolate deficits in more than 50 years” and analysts say it’s only going to get worse.

What will that mean for the average chocoholic? Chocolate could not only become more expensive; confectioners could also start extending their chocolate supplies by combining cacao with other ingredients like vegetable fat and flavor chemicals.

And then there’s the other obvious way to preserve cacao supplies while keeping prices steady: Reducing the sizes of chocolate treats. (Already, Bloomberg notes, the British company Cadbury has reduced its iconic Dairy Milk bar by 10 percent.) We’ll also likely see more chocolate bars featuring nuts and nougat and other fillers.

So why can’t the world’s chocolate supply keep up with its chocolate demand? Part of the problem—besides the combination of drought and disease mentioned above—involves the cacao plants themselves. Chocolate trees take an exceptionally long time to yield fruit. That doesn’t just make for slow production; it also means that genetically selecting for high-performance plants can be a challenge. “A corn breeder,” Bloomberg points out, “can raise three new generations of corn in a single year—three opportunities to select for desirable traits. A new cacao seedling, by comparison, won’t produce fruit for two years at the earliest, and it takes 10 years to reveal traits worth perpetuating.”

Those traits include resistance to threatening organisms—in the past, cacao crops have been blighted by fungi with names like “witches’ broom” and “frosty pod rot”—and, of course, a flavor that is pleasing to the human palate.

As a response to the chocolate shortage, farmers are investing in new strains of cacao. One of these is a breed called CCN51, renowned both because it produces nearly seven times more beans than its traditional Ecuadorian counterpart and because it is resistant to witches’ broom. Scientists, however, still have more work to do when it comes to cultivating CCN51: Its flavors on the human palate, according to one profiler, include “weak basal cocoa with thin fruit overlay; lead and wood shavings; astringent and acidic pulp.” The bean overall is, as those references would suggest, “quite bitter.” (Or, as one chocolate consultant says, CCN51 tastes like “acidic dirt.”)

There’s another strain that holds promise, too, though. This high-performing cacao was developed by a Central American agricultural research organization called Centro Agronomico Tropical de Investigacion y Ensenanza, or CATIE. It is, like CCN51, resistant to fungi like frosty pod. It is also, like CCN51, exceptionally fecund, meaning a higher ratio of fruits to trees as compared to current strains. (One grower, in Costa Rica, anticipates a yield of 1,500 kilograms per hectare—which is more than seven times the country’s average.)

These cacao strains, called R-1, R-4, and R-6, have one significant improvement over CCN51: They taste really good. In 2009, beans of two of the strains, R-4 and R-6, were entered into the International Cocoa Awards at the Salon du Chocolat in Paris. Both won prizes—R-4 for its “sweet, floral, and fruity notes,” and R-6 for its “nutty and woody notes, with undertones of brown fruit.”

So chocolate-producers in Central and South America may have found a few ways out of the world’s chocolate shortage. The question is whether other regions will follow suit, and, of course if the beans taste less like “acidic dirt” and more like, well, chocolate.

More Mother Jones reporting on Climate Desk

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate