
Chocolate love has its price on Valentine's Day as cocoa costs make hearts shudder, not flutter
With the price of cocoa beans setting unprecedented records on the commodities market, it will certainly turn the gift of love into a bigger financial commitment than it once was. Turns out that if love is reputed to be eternal, a low price for cocoa, the essential ingredient in chocolate, is not.
No beans, no Valentine's chocolate
'The price increase of cocoa is absolutely spectacular, now for 2, 2½ years,' said Philippe de Sellier, the head of both Leonidas and Belgian chocolate federation Choprabisco. When it stood at less than $2,000 a ton in the summer of 2022, it really took over early last year and peaked at well over $12,000 during the Christmas season and has been hovering around the $10,000 mark since.
'We are seeing unprecedented prices. They haven't been this high for the last 50 years,' said Bart Van Besien, policy adviser of the Oxfam fair trade group. And the impact can be felt deep in chocolate gourmet country Belgium, where some of its 280 chocolate companies are left with a bleeding heart during Valentine's week.
Dominque Persoone, owner of the famed Chocolate Line brand, still has plenty of beans to grind in his workshop in Bruges, but considers himself lucky, partly because he also has his own cocoa plantation in Mexico.
'I have a lot of colleagues who are really in trouble, because the price is too high,' he said. 'If you don't have good contacts, they just don't deliver anymore.'
Some just close for Valentine, he said, turning one of the few financial bonanzas of the year into a forced vacation, hoping that Easter, with its eggs and bunnies, will bring better tidings. Many chocolatiers can't go for the usual profit margins and turn all the extra costs of the cocoa prices over to their customers. Persoone said that his chocolates increased in price by 20% over the last year alone while de Selliers said that it depends very much from producer to producer.
The perfect chocolate storm
The shock of cocoa prices pretty much is a metaphorical perfect storm, mixing climate, disease, commodity speculation, the plight of farmers and social ascendency around the world into one heady mix.
'The drop that has happened now in production was directly linked to climate change,' said Van Besien, blaming changes in annual rain and drought patterns in western Africa that weakened the sensitive trees in key production areas. Persoone also said that the temperature differences between night and day increased in the small strip of land around the equator where the trees can thrive. Compounded by disease, it made sure too many harvests failed.
At the same time across the world, populations lifted themselves out of poverty, middle classes expanded in places like China and the craving for the delicacy increased.
And making matters worse, the years of slumping prices for the beans simply drove farmers off the land to look for a better future in the cities and pushed production further down. De Selliers said that '60 % of cocoa comes from Ivory Coast and Ghana and these farmers have to make a better living. It is extremely important.'
Persoone concurred: 'We didn't pay enough to have an honest price for the farmers.'
So, strangely enough, low prices then, help cause high prices now.
'The big irony in the cocoa industry is that farmers are now getting a fair price at the moment they are abandoning cocoa farming,' Van Besien said. 'With the price they are getting right now, they could have invested in sustainable practices. They could have sent their children to school.'
Chocolate love within reach
Does it mean a premier box of chocolates is a guilty pleasure on Valentine's Day?
'Yeah, the guilt question …. It's one that always works,' said Van Besien, the fair trade expert. 'We could not survive if we would be thinking about these things all the time,' arguing that legislation should trump consumer emotions.
'We should have laws that make buying cocoa below the cost of the production something illegal. And it should not be up to the consumer to make this decision,' he said. Both de Selliers and Persoone hope that if the prices drop down again, they stay around the $5,000 or $6,000 mark.
'I really, really hope the money goes to the farmers,' Persoone said.
So in the meantime, despite the price hikes, the chocolate shouldn't leave too bitter a taste.
'It's a small luxury that most people still can afford,' Persoone said. 'I hope it stays like this.'
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
24 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Appeals court throws out massive civil fraud penalty against President Donald Trump
NEW YORK (AP) — A New York appeals court on Thursday threw out the massive financial penalty a state judge imposed on President Donald Trump, while narrowly upholding a finding he engaged in fraud by exaggerating his wealth for decades. The ruling spares Donald Trump from a potential half-billion-dollar fine but bans him and his two eldest sons from serving in corporate leadership for a few years. Trump, in a social media post, claimed 'total victory.' 'I greatly respect the fact that the Court had the Courage to throw out this unlawful and disgraceful Decision that was hurting Business all throughout New York State,' he wrote. The decision came seven months after the Republican returned to the White House. A sharply divided panel of five judges in New York's mid-level Appellate Division couldn't agree on many issues raised in Trump's appeal, but a majority said the monetary penalty was 'excessive.' After finding Trump flagrantly padded financial statements that went to lenders and insurers, Judge Arthur Engoron ordered him last year to pay $355 million in penalties. With interest, the sum has topped $515 million. Additional penalties levied on some other Trump Organization executives, including Trump's sons Eric and Donald Jr. — bring the total to $527 million, with interest. An 'excessive' fine 'While the injunctive relief ordered by the court is well crafted to curb defendants' business culture, the court's disgorgement order, which directs that defendants pay nearly half a billion dollars to the State of New York, is an excessive fine that violates the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution,' Judges Dianne T. Renwick and Peter H. Moulton wrote in one of three opinions shaping the appeals court's ruling. Engoron's other punishments, upheld by the appeals court, have been on pause during Trump's appeal, and the president was able to hold off collection of the money by posting a $175 million bond. The court, which split on the merits of the lawsuit and Engoron's fraud finding, dismissed the penalty in its entirety while also leaving a pathway for an appeal to the state's highest court, the Court of Appeals. Trump and his co-defendants, the judges wrote, can seek to extend the pause on any punishments taking effect. The panel was sharply divided, issuing 323 pages of concurring and dissenting opinions with no majority. Rather, some judges endorsed parts of their colleagues' findings while denouncing others, enabling the court to rule. Two judges wrote that they felt New York Attorney General Letitia James' lawsuit against Trump and his companies was justifiable and that she had proven her case but the penalty was too severe. One wrote that James exceeded her legal authority in bringing the suit, saying that if any of Trump's lenders felt cheated, they could have sued him themselves, and none did. One judge wrote that Engoron erred by ruling before the trial began that the attorney general had proved Trump engaged in fraud. In his portion of the ruling, Judge David Friedman, who was appointed to the court by Republican Gov. George Pataki, was scathing in his criticism of James for bringing the lawsuit. 'Plainly, her ultimate goal was not 'market hygiene' ... but political hygiene, ending with the derailment of President Trump's political career and the destruction of his real estate business," Friedman wrote. "The voters have obviously rendered a verdict on his political career. This bench today unanimously derails the effort to destroy his business.' In a statement, James focused on the part of the case that went her way, saying the court had 'affirmed the well-supported finding of the trial court: Donald Trump, his company, and two of his children are liable for fraud.' 'It should not be lost to history: yet another court has ruled that the president violated the law, and that our case has merit,' James said. The appeals court, the Appellate Division of the state's trial court, took an unusually long time to rule, weighing Trump's appeal for nearly 11 months after oral arguments last fall. Normally, appeals are decided in a matter of weeks or a few months. Claims of politics at play Trump and his co-defendants denied wrongdoing. At the conclusion of the civil trial in January 2024, Trump said he was 'an innocent man' and the case was a 'fraud on me.' The Republican has repeatedly maintained the case and the verdict were political moves by James and Engoron, both Democrats. Trump's Justice Department has subpoenaed James for records related to the lawsuit, among other documents, as part of an investigation into whether she violated the president's civil rights. James' personal attorney Abbe D. Lowell has said investigating the fraud case is 'the most blatant and desperate example of this administration carrying out the president's political retribution campaign.' Trump and his lawyers said his financial statements weren't deceptive, since they came with disclaimers noting they weren't audited. The defense also noted bankers and insurers independently evaluated the numbers, and the loans were repaid. Despite such discrepancies as tripling the size of his Trump Tower penthouse, he said the financial statements were, if anything, lowball estimates of his fortune. During an appellate court hearing last September, Trump's lawyers argued that many of the case's allegations were too old and that James had misused a consumer protection law to sue Trump over private business transactions that were satisfactory to those involved. State attorneys said that while Trump insists no one was harmed by the financial statements, his exaggerations led lenders to make riskier loans and that honest borrowers lose out when others game their net worth numbers. Legal obstacles The civil fraud case was just one of several legal obstacles for Trump as he campaigned, won and segued to a second term as president. On Jan. 10, he was sentenced in his criminal hush money case to what's known as an unconditional discharge, leaving his conviction on the books but sparing him jail, probation, a fine or other punishment. He is appealing the conviction. And in December, a federal appeals court upheld a jury's finding that Trump sexually abused writer E. Jean Carroll in the mid-1990s and later defamed her, affirming a $5 million judgment against him. The appeals court declined in June to reconsider. Trump still can try to get the Supreme Court to hear his appeal. Trump also is appealing a subsequent verdict that requires him to pay Carroll $83.3 million for additional defamation claims. ___ Follow the AP's coverage of President Donald Trump at

Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Freddie Mac says average rate on a 30-year mortgage held steady this week at 6.58%, matching lowest in nearly 10 months
NEW YORK (AP) — Freddie Mac says average rate on a 30-year mortgage held steady this week at 6.58%, matching lowest in nearly 10 months.


Politico
an hour ago
- Politico
New York appeals court tosses Trump's massive civil fraud judgment
The judges, however, declined to overturn the verdict in the case, leaving open the possibility Trump will appeal. A Manhattan trial judge found that Trump and other defendants — including his adult sons — fraudulently inflated his net worth. | Evan Vucci/AP By Erica Orden 08/21/2025 12:13 PM EDT NEW YORK — An appeals court on Thursday tossed a roughly $500 million civil fraud judgment against President Donald Trump and his family business, marking a significant victory for the president in a case that he repeatedly derided as a political stunt by state Attorney General Tish James. The court, however, declined to overturn the fraud case against Trump, leaving open the possibility that he will seek to appeal the verdict to New York's highest court. And the three separate opinions issued Thursday by the appeals court revealed disagreement within the five-judge panel that one judge described as 'profound.' 'While the injunctive relief ordered by the court is well crafted to curb defendants' business culture, the court's disgorgement order, which directs that defendants pay nearly half a billion dollars to the State of New York, is an excessive fine that violates the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution,' one of the judges, Peter Moulton, wrote.