Supports shipping to:
- Netherlands (no shipping required)
- UK (no shipping required)
- Germany
- Austria
- Norway (no shipping required)
- Finland (no shipping required)
- Belgium
- Romania (no shipping required)
Non EU:
- US (hawaii too)
- Australia,
- Puerto rico
Here’s their promise to never use forced labour for their cocoa.
There’s also the Tony’s open chain: a pledge by many companies (not just eu, also us) to use only ethically sourced cocoa. The companies are: here
I love Tony’s, but they’re also reportedly higher in lead content than other brands.
https://www.consumerreports.org/health/food-safety/lead-and-cadmium-in-dark-chocolate-a8480295550/
Valrhona is a solid non-American brand pick from the list of safer chocolate and they’re B-Corp certified. I believe their parents company is French.
When it comes to chocolate you’re often forced to pick your poison, so to speak.
Yes, that is because cocoa plants absorb heavy metals from the soil. Tony probably has a higher lead content because they simply use more cocoa. That’s something you can also see if you compare dark chocolate with milk chocolate - dark chocolate will have more lead because more cocoa is used.
The amount of lead is also not a biggie - you’d have to eat such an insane amount of chocolate that you’d die of the sugar intake WAY earlier than from the lead exposure.
I doubt anyone is getting lead poisoning exclusively from eating chocolate, but it’s accumulative in the human body and worth being aware of.
I mean, their 70% cocoa clocks in at 134% the mentiomed safe limit while the 80% cocoa from mast is at 14% (both reportedly for 1 oz of chocolate) according to the previously linked data. If the main determinant was the amount of cocoa, than I would have expected 80% to be higher.
Of course a company could be lying about the cocoa %, or using some type of filler, etc. But it seems plausible that there might be other causes. For example, perhaps some cocoa plantation locations have more lead in their soil, etc.
Tony’s did actually respond to CR, claiming these are not food safety standards. They did not appear to mention why their chocolate had any different levels of lead than other companies, just that leaf is absorbed from the soil.
1: It’s thought to be contamination from the manufacturing and shipping process, as far as I know.
2: There is no safe level of lead intake, and it’s not about lethal dosage. The numbers used are California’s extra-paranoid metrics however. That doesn’t make them wrong, just be aware that you’re being poisoned in so many other ways as well you might as well have some chocolate now and again, it probably won’t be the thing that gives you Alzheimer’s. But it might! You’ll never know! Or remember…
3: Tony’s is still better because all the others are just as bad but with slavery.
Lead and cadmium come from cocoa plants. Tony’s might have more because it has a higher cocoa percentage
It’s most likely from the surrounding environment, and pollution from cars. Countries with shitty regulations are cheap to hire from and their crops are cheaper. The downside? You get lead in your food.
What’s b corp certified?
In the UK, B labs certifies companies they meet their requirements for social responsibility, environmental stuff etc. I don’t know the details but the companies I’ve seen that have B corp status seem to care about doing nice stuff, so I consider it a plus.
This is for dark chocolate only, and the article has them listed as one of the lowest lead brands. Crazy that they’re all so high though, WTF!
A fair point! Didn’t even occur to me since I only bother with the dark stuff lol
They’re the lowest listed of the “high lead content” category. So kind of the best of the worst for it, I suppose.
TIL chocolate can have lead…jfc
Everything has lead.