Resistance Against Inferior Chocolate Is Never Futile

The troubling rise of mediocre cacao, and what you can do about it.

<p><a href="http://www.istockphoto.com/photo/pieces-of-chocolate-on-a-white-background-gm183781936-15758646?st=_p_chocolate" target="_blank">Avalon_Studio</a>/iStock</p>

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.

Here’s something I’m going to require a lot of over the next four years: chocolate. Until quite recently, I haven’t been fussy about my politically motivated chocolate binges. I didn’t really care whether my fix came in the form of a bar, a brownie, or, you know, an IV drip, and I certainly didn’t think much about where the chocolate came from.

But this week’s guest on Bite, the Mother Jones food politics podcast, opened my eyes to a fascinating chocolate backstory. In her new book, Bread, Wine, Chocolate: The Slow Loss of Foods We Love, food journalist Simran Sethi chronicles her trip to Ecuador, home of some of the world’s best cacao. Sethi discovers that Ecuadorian cacao beans are incredibly diverse; they come in all sorts of varieties, each with its own distinct characteristics. “It’s this tapestry of flavors that makes the country one of the top global producers of specialty cacao,” she says.

But as Sethi found out, that diversity is in danger. Cacao, she explains, is especially susceptible to disease. “Black pod rot, witches’ broom, frosty pod rot—they are some of the sinister-sounding fungi that, along with mirids, moths, and other insects, destroy up to 40 percent of the world’s cacao crop annually, with losses estimated at $2 to $3 billion,” Sethi writes. 

In the first half of the last century, Ecuador’s farmers were sick of losing most of their cacao crop to fungi, so they did what any sensible farmers would do: They bred a variety that wasn’t susceptible to the most common diseases. In 1965, Homero Castro, a cacao agronomist in Naranjal, Ecuador, developed a hybrid pod that he called CCN-51 (short for Collección Castro Naranjal, on his 51st attempt to create a disease-resistant pod).

Chocolate is in danger from sinister-sounding fungi like “black pod rot, witches’ broom, frosty pod rot.”

But Before Castro could patent CCN-51, Sethi writes, he was killed in a car accident, and the variety was accidentally released into the wild. Today, according to the USDA, more than a third of Ecuador’s chocolate comes from CCN-51 pods, and the variety has also spread to many other chocolate-producing parts of the world. It’s not hard to see why: In addition to resisting fungus, CCN-51 pods were also large, fatty, and easy to grow.

The problem, says Sethi, is that unlike some truly exceptional-tasting Ecuadorian cacao (she describes one as “a burst of violets: green stems, fragrant flowers”), chocolate made from CCN-51 is just okay. Sethi’s sample “tasted like chocolate, nothing more or less.” An Ecuadorian chocolate producer agreed, assessing CCN-51 as “not bad, but it’s not interesting.” For commercial-scale farmers, he said, that’s fine because they “don’t need something special for a Hershey’s bar.”

Which, of course, puts farmers in a bind. As another producer put it to Sethi, “On one side, you have a high-yield variety that gives you lots of chocolate with good chocolate flavor. On the other, you have a low-yield traditional crop: one that gives a cocoa with an incredible taste, the kind of thing craft chocolate makers dream about. The problem is, most times, farmers get the same price for both.” Another adds, “Farmers know CCN-51 is a productive variety” so they “wonder if they should risk their money on something that may or may not work.”

Chocolate experts caution that CCN-51 is poised to spread even farther; it’s not inconceivable that someday this just-okay variety may be the only chocolate that we know. But it doesn’t have to be that way, says Sethi. Want to save the diversity of chocolate? Sethi shares a few of her top tips in this week’s Bite episode.

Bite is Mother Jones‘ podcast for people who think hard about their food. Listen to all our episodes here, or subscribe in iTunes or Stitcher or via RSS.

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