Prepare yourselves – a chocolate apocalypse could be in our not-so-distant future, folks!

Bloomberg News is reporting that “the gap between how much cocoa the world wants to consume and how much it can produce will swell to 1 million metric tons” by 2020. Those depressing numbers are according to the world’s largest chocolate maker, Mars Inc. and Barry Callebaut.

The reason for the possible chocolate shortage may have to do with the fact that we just can’t get enough of the sweet cocoa dessert. That, and “disease, drought, rapacious new markets and the displacement of cacao by more-productive crops,” notes the article. Due to all of these factors, demand could exceed supply by “one million tons every decade for the foreseeable future.” According to our graph (below), last year’s cacao bean processing exceeded the number of cacao beans that were even produced.

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but there you have it.

According to the article, the U.S. isn’t the only country who will feel the pain. “Hersey Co. predicts China will be its second-largest market … by 2017” and it looks as though India’s chocolate consumption has dramatically escalated in the past few years “from 25,000 tons in 2010 to 40,000 this year.” With cocoa consumption increasing throughout the world, this impending crisis could affect chocolate addicts everywhere.

So, what will the world do without chocolate? The article predicts that manufacturers will be forced to add other ingredients, such as vanilla and flavor chemicals, to stretch supply. Essentially, chocolate will contain more fillers – and probably less nutrition, at that. The article also predicts that more emphasis will be put on “so-called agricultural improvement,” or improving cacao production with newly introduced strains of cacao beans. This, however, could result in less tasty chocolate.

It sounds like we better start praying for a chocolate miracle, people. For more information on the world’s looming chocolate crisis, read the full Bloomberg article here.

Editor’s Note: An earlier version of this story incorrectly attributed the original reporting to The Chicago Tribune. The original report came from Bloomberg.