i am out with lanterns

gaza soup kitchen

the sameer project

salam charity

Food Empowerment Project maintains an updated list of chocolate brands they recommend based on the following standards:

transparency about the country of origin for cocoa

if sourced from Western Africa, the workers must own the companies/be in charge of the profits from their labor (this standard is because child labor and slavery have been widely documented for decades in this area)

if sourced from Brazil, the workers must own the company and/or be in charge of the profits from their labor, or the company must be going above and beyond to support the workers and their families (this standard is because "child labor and slavery only recently have been documented in cocoa in Brazil" and they are "giving Brazilian companies that are trying to address the issue by supporting the workers and their families the benefit of the doubt.")

[Source: "Understanding Our Chocolate List" from their website]

So, Tony’s allied with Barry Callebut to get its cocoa. Barry Callebut is one of the biggest chocolate companies in the world, and it is unethical, obviously. This led to Tony’s revealing in February 2022 that 1701 child laborers were in their supply chain. Barry Callebut had over 21K at the time. Both of those numbers have risen, and Tony’s has outright admitted they don’t give a fuck about child labor laws when asked about it, content to let children to continue farming their cocoa instead of actually doing the activism they claim to do. (business-humanrights.org, feb 6 2022)

About a week ago, Tony’s joined Barry, Nestle and Ferrero in pushing against the reinstatement of important EUDR deforestation legislations. Under that regulation that they pushed against, they would’ve had to be more transparent about their supply chains for their more key ingredients - So Tony’s is lobbying against the exact thing they claim to stand for. (confectioneryproduction.com, mar 18, 2026)

Won’t restate @closet-keys’s addition, of course. That’d just be redundant and maybe annoying since, yknow, it’s already been said.

If you wanna find a better chocolate brand it’s really damn easy. There’s lists on slavefreechocolate.org of both the ethical and unethical companies. Both lists can be found here:

this behavior is nothing new. the global south and everything in it - the people, the culture, our heritage - is seen as nothing more than a decoration or commodity to colonizers. i don't even need to bring up the koh i noor or the entire british museum; these examples are recent and egregious enough on their own.

When asked whether they had experienced any physical attacks in the year prior to completing the 2022 survey, between 5.0% (among AFAB nonbinary adults) and 5.9% (among transgender women) of respondents reported experiencing at least one attack. As shown in Figure 4, experiences did not differ significantly by gender identity.

We found no significant differences in the prevalence of physical attacks between non-Hispanic Black (4.7%) transgender adults and non-Hispanic white (4.7%) transgender adults. Hispanic or Latine (6.4%) transgender adults were significantly more likely than white, non-Hispanic adults to have experienced one or more physical attacks over the year, and transgender adults who identify as multiracial or another race (8.6%) reported the highest prevalence of physical attacks over the year. As shown in Figure 7, patterns in violence by race and ethnicity across different gender identity groups mirror the aggregate results shown in Figure 6. Across all genders, except transgender men, multiracial adults or those identifying as another race reported a higher prevalence of violence than white, non-Hispanic adults, who consistently have the lowest likelihood of having been physically attacked in the prior year.

Transgender respondents who resided in suburban communities (4.3%) were the least likely to have experienced physical attacks over one year, compared with 6.7% of transgender adults in urban communities and 5.6% of transgender adults in rural communities. Patterns of geographic context varied across gender identities are shown in Figure 11. Among transgender men, prevalences of experiencing physical attacks were similar for those living in urban (6.8%) and rural (6.5%) areas, compared to those in suburban areas (3.6%). In contrast, transgender women residing in urban centers reported significantly higher prevalence of having experienced physical attacks (8.2%) compared to those living in suburban (4.7%) or rural (4.8%) areas. Nonbinary people—both AFAB and AMAB—were more similar in their experiences of past year physical attacks across different community types.

As shown in Figure 14, respondents across all gender identities who believed they were perceived as transgender almost all or most of the time were significantly more likely to have experienced a physical attack in the prior year than those who believed others rarely or never perceived them as transgender. Between 7.5% and 9.1% of transgender adults who believed they were perceived as transgender most or all of the time experienced an attack, compared to 3.8% to 4.9% among those rarely or never perceived as transgender.

Race and ethnicity are related to experiences of physical attacks. There were no differences between Black and white non-Hispanic people, but Hispanic or Latine respondents had 35% higher odds, and transgender adults who identified as another race or multiracial had 86% higher odds, of experiencing a physical attack compared to non-Hispanic white respondents. Lower educational attainment and lower income significantly increased the odds of experiencing a physical attack. Respondents without a high school diploma or GED or with no income had substantially higher odds of experiencing a physical attack relative to their more educated and higher-income counterparts. Respondents residing in suburban areas had the lowest odds of experiencing violence. In comparison, those living in urban areas had 56% higher odds, and those in rural areas had 27% higher odds of experiencing a physical attack. In terms of gender identity, transgender women faced the highest risk, while transgender men and AFAB nonbinary respondents had 22% and 25% lower odds, respectively, of experiencing a physical attack than transgender women. The odds were slightly lower among AMAB nonbinary individuals than among transgender women; however, the difference was not statistically significant. Visibility played a pronounced role: respondents who believed they were always or most of the time perceived as transgender had 72% higher odds of experiencing a physical attack than those who were never perceived as transgender. Those who believed they were sometimes perceived as transgender had 29% higher odds than those never perceived as transgender.

from "Physical Attacks Against Transgender Adults in the United States: Findings from the 2022 US Trans Survey" by UCLA's Williams Institute

Updated this post with a more complete representation of the results. Essentially, this study using the 2022 USTS data (n=83,368) found that when isolating gender as a factor, trans women had the highest risk, and also that other factors (in particular: socioeconomic status, education, race, type of community (urban/suburban/rural), trans visibility) had a stronger influence over odds of being physically attacked than gender alone. Being highly visible as transgender increased the odds of being attacked notably more than being a trans man or nonbinary assigned female, to the extent of nonbinary people assigned female who are highly visible as trans, being equally as likely to be physically attacked as trans women who are highly visible as trans, controlling for other factors. And nonbinary people assigned male who are highly visible had higher odds of being attacked than any other gender group.