There's two questions here, really:

Is it actually 'a new type of chocolate'?

That depends entirely on how you define 'chocolate'. If you're referring specifically to the bars (and their derivatives), then yes, it is: until the Ruby Chocolate project began 13 years ago, this stuff had never been made into chocolate bars.*

*Actually even this isn't strictly true. The Guardian reports that the beans are grown in Brazil, Ecuador, and Côte d'Ivoire - the latter being in Africa, meaning these trees have probably been in use in the chocolate industry for a while. But they weren't used exclusively, as it were.

But is that a fair use of the word? 'Chocolate' derives from the Nahuatl (Aztec/Maya) word xocolātl, and if you allow the native drink to be included as 'chocolate', then the first 'Ruby chocolate' probably pre-dates the European discovery of the Americas.

So, like so many things, the question ultimately comes down to semantics.

Does it matter?

Sadly, yes. There is a long, long history of white people Europeans more technologically-advanced/richer nations exploiting the product of poorer ones. Sometimes, those poorer nations/peoples were even deliberately constructed - the tobacco and cotton industries, for instance, were built on the backs of African slaves in North America and the Caribbean. Other times, they were just taken over, politically and economically.

Nor has the problem gone away. Vast swathes of Africa are short of food because farmers can make more money growing bananas for Europe and America than they can growing their own crops. They're not being forced to do it (any more)... but the economic structure the First World set up is meticulously designed to keep them doing it.

So, ultimately, the point your friend should have been making is: will this give any benefit to the Brazilians, Ecuadorians, and Ivorians who actually grow the stuff? Or will it just product more incentive for European and American corporations to keep them growing cash crops that leave their country in ruins?

One thing's for sure: there's no chance the people growing the cocoa trees will ever get to taste Ruby chocolate.

hS

(The third question, which doesn't need discussing but which might be worth thinking about, is 'why didn't you like that?'. Had to say it; consider it dropped. ~hS)

"Ruby chocolate: it's made from the Ruby cocoa bean. It's said to be neither milky, nor bitter - it's reportedly very light, fruity, and Angus Kennedy from confection outlet Kennedy's Confection even stated that it even acted as a palate cleanser, as it left the palate feeling "refreshed"."

AND

"Ruby chocolate has been tested and validated through extensive consumer research run by independent global research agencies Haystack and Ipsos in the UK, US, China and Japan.

As part of these studies, Ruby’s consumer appeal and purchase intent have been tested, indicating consumers would buy Ruby chocolate at different price points."

I showed this to a guy in my drama class and he stared at it for ages and then told me "it looks like soap".

Thanks, drama guy.