logo
Why was Jersey Milk cut from Canada and could other chocolate makers follow?

Why was Jersey Milk cut from Canada and could other chocolate makers follow?

Yahoo2 days ago
By Shayan Alvi
Jersey Milk chocolate, familiar to generations of Canadians as part of Halloween treat bags and campfire s'mores, will join the Canadian brands that have disappeared off shelves. Mondelez Canada confirmed on July 7 that it has stopped making the 100-year-old Neilson Jersey Milk chocolate bar. The Financial Post breaks down what led to the candy's demise and what else it might mean for Canadian chocolate lovers.
The Jersey Milk bar was launched in 1924 by Toronto dairy firm William Neilson Ltd. and was marketed as a creamier and home grown alternative to European chocolate bars.
One of the oldest chocolate bars native to Canada, the candy had a 100-year-old legacy that spanned generations.
In 1996, Cadbury, owned by Kraft Foods Inc., bought out Neilson's chocolate manufacturing line, including the Jersey Milk bar. In 2012, Kraft divided its grocery and confectionery product lines into two different entities: Kraft Foods Group owned and manufactured all grocery products while a new company, Mondelez International Inc., was responsible for handling confectionery brands such as Cadbury, Trident and Oreo.
As of 2012, the Jersey Milk bar was produced by Mondelez Canada under the Neilson banner.
Mondelez said a change in consumer preferences is the primary reason for discontinuing the bar.
'The company's decision to cut the product came after a portfolio review showed consumers have shifted to buying other pure milk chocolate bars like Cadbury Dairy Milk,' spokesperson Pierina De Carolis told The Canadian Press.
Retail analyst Bruce Winder said cost efficiency and convenience likely played a role in brand consolidation with a shift into Cadbury products, which have global recognition. 'This has been a trend we've seen, that large consumer packaged goods companies might get rid of a brand (such as Jersey Milk) and just consolidate the sales of the Cadbury,' he said.
Rising cocoa prices have been plaguing chocolatemakers. Cocoa prices have surged due to supply shortages driven by weather crises, crop diseases and chronic underinvestment in cocoa farms in West Africa, which supplies up to 80 per cent of global cocoa, JPMorgan Chase & Co. said in a December report.
Winder said rising cocoa prices have put manufacturers in a tough spot. Higher cocoa prices have 'made manufacturers and marketers make some tough choices,' and by simplifying inventory and consolidating brands 'they can get the savings to help offset some of those local price increases,' he said.
Cocoa prices reached historic highs in 2024, peaking at more than US$12,000 per ton in December 2024, up from US$2,000 to US $4,000 per ton historically, according to data analysis firm Trading Economics.
'The higher price of cocoa has definitely made manufacturers revisit their assortments and their pricing,' Winder said.
There is a global shift toward consumers seeking healthier food options. A 2025 Euromonitor survey found that 54 per cent of global consumers now seek out healthier products, such as those with reduced sugar, sodium or saturated fat. That shift has benefited snacks perceived as 'better for you.' This includes dark chocolate, which contains less sugar and more antioxidants, and which 25 per cent of consumers in a 2022 Cargill Inc. ChocoLogic survey sought out because they believe it is healthier.
Protein-fortified snacks and what is termed functional snacks, with added substances considered healthy, such as fibre or supplements, are also growing segments, according to the Euromonitor study. Jersey Milk, with its traditional full-fat, full-sugar recipe, does not fit this trend.
The chocolate aisle has also become more adventurous. Consumers increasingly seek novelty, and limited-edition releases. A market analysis by research firm Technavio last year forecast US$9.3 billion in global growth for seasonal chocolates by 2028, fuelled by consumer demand for limited-edition products. Brands such as Lindt, Hershey, and Cadbury have all expanded their offerings to include flavour mashups and seasonal variations, leaving some legacy bars looking outdated.
With consistent price hikes and inflation in recent years, even loyal chocolate buyers are scaling back. Faced with rising grocery bills, many consumers are trading down and opting for private-label chocolate or smaller sizes, according to EY's 15th Future Consumer Index. While premium brands can justify higher prices with unusual flavours or ethical sourcing, value-conscious shoppers are more likely to turn to private label products, the EY report says.
' Customers may have an affinity to the brand so it's hard to let go, but at the end of the day, every brand has to stand on its own, has to make enough sales and profit to exist,' said Winder.
Jersey Milk is just one casualty in a broader industry malaise. Major producers such as The Hershey Co. have warned of shrinking margins as cocoa prices hit record highs. Hershey reported first quarter adjusted operating profit decreased 29.4 per cent versus the first quarter of 2024. The company attributed this to rising cocoa prices.
Swiss-Belgian cocoa processor Barry Callebaut AG also reported a 22.6 per cent drop in sales volume of in the third quarter, as clients scaled back orders. The company attributed this to the soaring cocoa prices.
Tariff war big boost for Canadian jean maker Duer
Competition Bureau to probe whether Amazon's rules are unfair to sellers and consumers
Across the board, chocolate makers are raising prices, tweaking recipes, and reducing pack sizes to cope. Even premium brands with strong customer loyalty are feeling the squeeze.
The decision to retire slower-selling bars such as Jersey Milk reflects a larger trend: in a high-cost, low-margin environment, legacy products that no longer justify shelf space are increasingly vulnerable.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Opinion: How the Trump tax cut law will hurt the working class
Opinion: How the Trump tax cut law will hurt the working class

Yahoo

time27 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Opinion: How the Trump tax cut law will hurt the working class

Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska said it was 'agonizing' to vote for the tax cut bill President Trump signed on July 4. As details of the legislation come into focus, it's obvious why it might cause heartburn even for Republicans who passed it, with no Democratic votes. The One Big Beautiful Bill Act, as the law is clumsily known, will literally make the rich better off and the poor worse off. Some conservatives who want to pare the 'welfare state' may not care. But imposing austerity on millions of working-class voters is a stunning political risk for a party that is supposedly following President Trump's populist instincts. The law has two main elements. The first is a sweeping series of tax cuts and tax cut extensions that will generally benefit everybody but add trillions of dollars to the national debt. The second is a set of benefit cuts that are meant to reduce the overall cost of the bill. Those will hit working-class Americans and make the net effect of the bill punishing to them. The biggest part of the OBBBA is an extension of the tax cuts Trump signed into law in 2017. Those were due to expire at the end of this year. The OBBBA makes the current individual income tax rates permanent. Those are not 'tax cuts' per se, since tax rates will be the same in future years as they are in 2025. But the law does prevent what would have been a de facto tax hike if the 2017 rates expired and the higher 2016 rates went back into effect. The law also includes some new tax breaks, such as the elimination of tax on income from tips and overtime pay, up to certain limits. There's also a new tax break for some seniors and a much higher cap for deducting state and local taxes, which will mostly benefit wealthy homeowners who itemize deductions on their tax returns. The tax provisions generally benefit everybody, but the wealthy will gain the most. The average savings for all taxpayers will be about $2,900, compared with what the tax bill would have been if current rates expired, according to the Tax Policy Center. Those with incomes above $1 million would save nearly $60,000 on average. But the savings for workers with incomes below $30,000 would be less than $200 per year. Those provisions, at least, do no harm to most taxpayers. But the harm arrives when factoring in cuts to Medicaid, subsidies for people to buy health insurance through the Affordable Care Act, and food aid known as SNAP. The healthcare cutbacks will leave an additional 16 million people without coverage by 2034, according to the Congressional Budget Office. Cutbacks to the SNAP program could reduce or eliminate food aid going to 22 million families, according to the Urban Institute. Those changes will leave millions of Americans worse off. When accounting for the tax changes and benefit cuts combined, people in the lowest income quintile, with incomes below $13,500, will lose an average of $600 per year, according to the Yale Budget Lab. The next quintile will lose $65 per year. The healthcare and food aid cuts will have little impact on top earners, for obvious reasons. The top quintile will gain $6,500 in after-tax savings from all of the law's provisions, while the top 1% will net more than $30,000. This is what economists call a 'regressive' policy change because the economic burden falls more heavily on those with lower incomes. 'The bill has four overriding characteristics,' Howard Gleckman of the Tax Policy Center wrote recently. 'It is regressive, expensive, complicated, and it treats people who make roughly the same amount of money in very different ways.'Tax cut defenders often point out that the wealthy typically get the biggest tax cuts because they pay the most taxes in the first place. That's generally true. But the wealthy are a distinct minority, which means a regressive law such as the OBBBA dis-serves millions of voters, and possibly a majority of them. The bottom two income quintiles, for instance, include roughly 92 million taxpaying units, whether singles, married couples, or other designations. There are only 26 million taxpaying units in the top quintile. Maybe that's what Murkowski found so agonizing. 'Do I like this bill? No,' she told a reporter on July 2. 'I know in many parts of the country there are Americans that are not going to be advantaged by this bill.' Trump can point to working-class provisions such as the elimination of taxes on tip income and overtime pay, with limitations based on the type of work and the amount of income. Some workers will in fact benefit from those carve-outs. But tax analysts argue that favoring certain types of work in that manner violates the principle of 'horizontal equity,' the idea that similar incomes should be taxed in similar ways. To use the example of a restaurant, a waiter earning tip income would get a tax break that a cook paid hourly would not. That distorts the tax code, creates incentives to cheat, and generates legitimate grievances among the unlucky workers not gifted a tax break. The OBBBA is already unpopular, with 64% of Americans disapproving and just 35% approving, in one poll. The real vote will come in the 2026 midterm elections, when Americans will express whether they feel better off or worse off under unified Republican control of government. Getting Americans to like this law might be a more agonizing ideal than passing it. Rick Newman is a senior columnist for Yahoo Finance. Follow him on Bluesky and X: @rickjnewman. Click here for political news related to business and money policies that will shape tomorrow's stock prices.

Levi Strauss Second Quarter 2025 Earnings: Beats Expectations
Levi Strauss Second Quarter 2025 Earnings: Beats Expectations

Yahoo

time42 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Levi Strauss Second Quarter 2025 Earnings: Beats Expectations

Revenue: US$1.45b (up 6.4% from 2Q 2024). Net income: US$79.6m (up 363% from 2Q 2024). Profit margin: 5.5% (up from 1.3% in 2Q 2024). EPS: US$0.20 (up from US$0.043 in 2Q 2024). This technology could replace computers: discover the 20 stocks are working to make quantum computing a reality. All figures shown in the chart above are for the trailing 12 month (TTM) period Revenue exceeded analyst estimates by 5.6%. Earnings per share (EPS) also surpassed analyst estimates by 26%. Looking ahead, revenue is forecast to grow 1.6% p.a. on average during the next 3 years, compared to a 5.7% growth forecast for the Luxury industry in the US. Performance of the American Luxury industry. The company's shares are up 15% from a week ago. It's still necessary to consider the ever-present spectre of investment risk. We've identified 2 warning signs with Levi Strauss, and understanding these should be part of your investment process. Have feedback on this article? Concerned about the content? Get in touch with us directly. Alternatively, email editorial-team (at) article by Simply Wall St is general in nature. We provide commentary based on historical data and analyst forecasts only using an unbiased methodology and our articles are not intended to be financial advice. It does not constitute a recommendation to buy or sell any stock, and does not take account of your objectives, or your financial situation. We aim to bring you long-term focused analysis driven by fundamental data. Note that our analysis may not factor in the latest price-sensitive company announcements or qualitative material. Simply Wall St has no position in any stocks mentioned. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store