Because of that piece I have actively been buying their chocolate over any other brand. Its more expensive and it means I get less chocolate over the course of the week, but knowing I'm at least not contributing to the exploitation does make me feel better.
Plus just the fact its adding diversity into the confectionery industry is great.
I have heard this repeatedly. But when I looked into it I only found that they "pay more for the ressources" which doesn't mean there is no slave labor. I also found an ethics report or something which wasn't done by any third party but by Tony's themselves (and read more like PR).
Look up the piece by pbs and by John Oliver. They also do a cocoa bean tracking system so they know where the beans are coming from. This is importa t to know that the beans are coming from the good farms and not from the bad ones. All that being said, they say they can't say slavery free due to how bad it is in that area. They can't guarantee that.
I think for me it's as simple as - do I go with the brand that seems to be doing something about it? Or go with the brand that misses it's own targets and is satisfied with the horrible status quo
I've eaten a lot of Tony's chocolate, and one day I was strolling around Amsterdam on Street View and noticed a whole shop devoted to it. Wow! And I thought, huh, in Holland they call it ChocoLONELY, not ChocoLONEY.
Fast forward and there I was, scouring UK grocery sites and discovering the horrible truth: it had always been lonely. Why? WHY, TONY? What are you trying to say?