Talk:Chocolate

There have been several Joseph Frys associated with chocolate, so it's easy to see how one could get mixed up. To the best of my knowledge Joseph Storrs Fry invented Fry's Cocoa, the famous brand of hot chocolate (though the drink had been around before that). It was his grandson, just "Joseph Fry", who invented bar chocolate.

The younger Fry was on my list of people to write up, so let me advance him in the schedule and start some research. -- Paul Drye

In the Spanish missionary quote, "Chocolaté" is spelled with an accent on the final "e". It's not spelled this way in modern Spanish, and a simple Spanish rendering of the Indian word would certainly not have it. Is that exact from the source? --Lee Daniel Crocker A date on this source might be a good addition to the article also --rmhermen

I got the quote from the source listed at the bottom of the page. Sorry, I have no further information. The source says he lived in Peru in the last half of the 15th century, but how knows if he said that at age 98 back in Spain or something.

Well, I can help you out a little there -- Jose de Acosta started living in Mexico in 1585, and died in 1600. Even better, assuming the quote is from the books he wrote, is that his books were all published between 1588 and 1590. -- Paul Drye

Hmmmm. And the Exploratorium says he lived in Peru. What is your source? And did he die in the Americas or return to Europe? --Dmerrill

Never mind. The Catholic Encyclopeda http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01108b.htm has the full story. --Dmerrill

"The first recorded shipment of chocolate to the new world for commercial purposes was in a shipment from Veracruz? to Seville? in 1585." To the new world?

What's the source on this? Seville makes sense, it was a center of trade with the new world, and the early Spanish writers on chocolate (Hernandez, Barrios) were Sevillianos, but I'm having trouble finding accurate sources on when trade began.

I'm not sure I agree with Larry that the word "chocolate" usually refers to candy in English. All of the dictionaries I checked define the word as the ground paste, "...usually mixed with sugar..." or some words to that effect. Even if most of us mean that bar stuff when we use the word, terms like "unsweetened chococlate" or "baker's chocolate" and "milk chocolate" imply that the word itself does not imply that particular form, even in the minds of English speakers. I've also heard the unadorned term used to refer to the beverage many times, but to be honest, that may be a California thing (since we have a lot of Mexican culture here, and the word there almost always refers to the drink). --LDC

Well, I'm talking about English, not dictionaries of English. Dictionaries often list the original uses of a term first, just for clarity; but why does that mean we should list the relatively obscure origin of the term first? Why not save that for later? --LMS

I agree, the first-listed sense of a term in a dictionary is not always the popular one; but several of the dictionaries I looked at don't list "candy" as a sense at all, first or otherwise. They say that chocolate is often sweetened to make candy, but they don't recognize that as a sense of the word. Most of them list the beverage as a sense, many of them list the color, many of them mention the specifically filled candies, and they all mention the ground bean paste. WWWebster is typical; it lists 4 senses: (1) the beverage, (2) "a food prepared from ground roasted cacao beans", (3) candies made with a filling and chocolate coating, and (4) the color.

Now sense (3) is not the definition you are offering--it specifically refers to the things one gets in a box of "chocolates". What you are suggesting is that the edible sweetened stuff that coats them, and that is often sold as a candy by itself, is the primary sense. Maybe its an American/British thing, but that's not my impression, and that's not what the dictionaries I looked at imply. Yes, Americans do call that rectangular thing from Hershey's a "chocolate bar", but to my ears that's using "chocolate" as an adjective (which is another sense many dictionaries list) meaning "containing chocolate" (and sugar, and milk, ...).

However it does seem very odd to talk about chocolate as being candy. Candy is almost pure sugar and slowly dissolves in your mouth whereas chocolate is mostly fat and quickly melts in your mouth. They are very different products -- Derek Ross

In Canadian and, I believe, British English, the unsweetened powder is "cocoa". Chocolate -- as a noun -- is the edible solid stuff. Some confusion arises because "Chocolate" is also used as an adjective, in which case it takes on wider meanings. -- Paul Drye

As a Briton, I'd agree with Paul on that -- Derek Ross

OK, I can see how chocolate might not be regarded as a candy, but it certainly is a kind of sweet. Anyway, in Russia, Germany, and the United States (the three countries where I've bought chocolate bars), my impression was certainly that "chocolate" (or the cognates) primarily referred to the sweet that goes into making a chocolate bar. --LMS

Since this is a topic near and dear to my heart and since it's immediately after Christmas and I am just home from the office, I have numerous examples at hand for which I can examine the ingredients lists and descriptions.

A Toblerone is described on the package as "Swiss Milk Chocolate with Honey and Almond Nougat". Take away the honey and nougat and you're left with the solid edible, and they're calling it "chocolate".

Real chocolate ice cream topping from the local purveyor of fine foods; ingredients reads "sugar, cream, cocoa, etc." with nary a breath of "chocolate". I presume the cocoa refers to the unsweetened powder, as a tin of Fry's Cocoa *is* the dried poweder and lists only two ingredients: "cocoa, sodium bicarbonate". So it's not "chocolate" by their definition.

There's also the interesting boundary case of the white chocolate buttons in my baking cupboard. While sorely lacking in cocoa, they're still called "chocolate" (though the ingredients listing feels in necessary to apologetically list what goes into the stuff in more detail). Solid and edible again (though only marginally the latter in my opinion).

This is all intended more as evidence for further discussion than argument.-- Paul Drye

Daniel C. Boyer: Regarding chocolate coulage, please stop adding it to this page. The only net references to "chocolate coulage" all point to you. I don't think you can be objective about it. It is, at the very least, self-aggrandizing and indirect advertizing of your own artistic works. Daniel Quinlan 21:53 28 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Does this addition by Daniel C. Boyer really belong on this page? Searching for "heraldry chocolate" on Google only found a lot of novelty edible candy items and the Wikipedia heraldry page does not list every last color used in heraldry,

You really misunderstand heraldry, or at least you misunderstand what I am saying. "Chocolate" is not a heraldic colour; the shade in which a colour is depicted in heraldry is immaterial and just an artistic matter. "Chocolate" is the dark shade of gules in which heraldic artists usually painted gules in a particular period. --Daniel C. Boyer 14:52, 6 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Because I didn't use precise terminology does not mean I really misunderstand heraldry. Fine, I should have said "shade of color" rather than "color". That only further indicates that this really belongs on the heraldry page. In addition to what I said before, I think the distinction between whether or not chocolate is a shade of gules or a color in its own right is confusing, especially as this isn't even explained on the heraldry page. Place it there. Daniel Quinlan 18:26, Aug 6, 2003 (UTC)

just the major ones. I see no reason why it should be in this article. If anything, it should be on the heraldry page or a history of heraldry page.

Chocolate is a particular shade in which gules is painted in heraldry; it was fashionable to depict gules in coats-of-arms in this shade in the 17th century. It should be noted that in the science of armory it is not important in what particular shade a given colour or metal is painted.

Daniel Quinlan 22:00, Aug 3, 2003 (UTC)

Contents

1 European rules

2 Interesting article

9 Contradiction regarding cocoa powder?

10 Significant chocolate makers

11 Vegetarians & Chocolate

12 Images

13 Pimento

European rules

The "European rules" seem to be incorrect. It must be 35% (25%) cocoa liquor or perhaps even just cocoa--I don't know which is right, and coudn't google out the regulations. I believe it cannot be "cocoa solids" (as it is now), because a 60%-cocoa dark chocolate would have much less solids than that (cocoa = solids+cocoa butter = 60%). --Glimz 05:00, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)

Interesting article

Someone might have some use for this... : http://www.physorg.com/news1208.html This is some sort of scientific analysis of chocolate, but it's a bit beyond me.. Rhymeless 01:18, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The picture

(William M. Connolley 19:02, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)) Someone else may know better, but I don't think the piccy is a sculpture. Its a "fountain".

Tempering

The melting point of cocoa butter lies at about 33 degrees C. So, IMHO it cannot be correct that they reheat the melting to 37 degrees C in tempering process.

At kitchen you always have some already hardened chocolate. You need not temper the melting if you just drop some hard pieces of chocolate into the melting whilst cooling down to somewhat below the melting point (32 degrees C) Then fish out the rests of the hard pieces and your melt will cristallize fastly and perfectly at room temperature. --62.253.148.52 01:41, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Cadbury

I hope this doesn't sound too snobbish of me, but is it appropriate to refer to Cadbury candy as "chocolate"? One can't honestly call it real chocolate. It's like classifying McDonald's as food. It's simply not true. :) - Gilgamesh 13:23, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Candy is a US term only. Its chocolate everywhere else. Leave it as it is - they are the largest maker of chocolate in the UK and Ireland. Kiand 16:11, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

They may be the largest buyer of cacao materials in the U.K. and Ireland, but that doesn't necessarily mean what they sell can be called "chocolate". :) The cocoa content is so low. It's more like lightly-cocoa-seasoned vegetable oil and chemicals. Maybe Cadbury, Hershey's, etc. can be called "pseudo-chocolate", perhaps? To call them simply "chocolate" is an incredible misstatement of what they actually are. No one in Germany, Belgium, France, Spain, etc. would tolerate such a definition. The continued dilution of cocoa content in American and British supposedly-"chocolate" confectionary is difficult to understand, as well as difficult to stomach. Cadbury doesn't seem anything like chocolate at all. And has anyone ever noticed how remarkably sour and indigestible Hershey's is? - Gilgamesh 14:28, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Blasphemous as actually calling it chocolate it may be, I wouldn't try asking for "pseudo-chocolate" at my Cadbury-selling local servo. Make a note about the poor quality (or rather quantity?) of the relevant ingredients in such mass-market brands, perhaps, but since this is the English Wikipedia and most of the buyers in English-speaking countries (well known for their impeccable good taste, of course) seem happy to think of it as chocolate, we're stuck using that term. J.K. [[]] 14:10, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Caffeine

The article states that there is caffeine in chocolate (though in very small amounts). But this site (http://www.xocoatl.org/caffeine.htm) (which we link to in the theobromine article) states that caffeine does not occur naturally in chocolate. Which is it? Most sites state there is little caffeine in chocolate, but the site above claims its a myth. Which is it? Anyone know? — Frecklefoot | Talk 18:51, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)

I don't think there is caffeine at all. If there is, it is the same amount as most vegetables, e.g. negligible. Much like how all nightshade plants contain nicotine, but only a few such as tobacco contain significant amounts of it. But I am not entirely sure... Either way, it does not make me worry about caffeine when eating chocolate where I know that caffeine has not been added by the manufacturer. - Gilgamesh 03:59, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, Gilgamesh. The reason I asked is because the article states that it does have caffeine in it (except where it is added by the manufacturer). If it doesn't contain it naturally, we should take that info out of the article. Linking to the site above might also help. Actually, is the guy in the site above just nuts or is the "rumor" of caffeine in chocolate really untrue? Numerous sites say that chocolate does have caffeine, but the all seem to be parroting one another. Comments? — Frecklefoot | Talk 17:45, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)

I think some websites should be disregarded simply as a penalty for using certain color schemes. "Full results are on the Science Page." + "Cacao does not naturally contain any caffeine. See the Caffeine section." And he complains about circular references? In one place it's explained that "theobromide" is incorrect, in another place the term is mixed with "theobromine" in the same paragraph. The whole reasoning seems to center around that caffeine was not detected by The Biochemist, (Apr/May 1993, p 15). Other references that do list caffeine are circular or wrong. — Really, I don't think there should be changed anything in the article until there are a few other independent sources that say the same. Femto 20:29, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thomas et al.* shed some light on the issue. Apparently, it is difficult to accurately determine the precise quantities of different xanthines when several of them are present. Still, the National Institute of Standards and Technology has published caffeine, theobromine and theophylline contents of a reference material (baking chocolate) based on interlaboratory comparison exercises (how's that for a big word?). It indicates that, while the amount of caffeine is small, it is certainly not negligible: 1.06 g/kg, compared to 11.6 g/kg for theobromine. I will edit the article accordingly.

Thomas JB et al. Determination of Caffeine, Theobromine, and Theophylline in Standard Reference Material 2384, Baking Chocolate, Using Reversed-Phase Liquid Chromatography. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2004, 52, 3259-3263.

--Soundray 17:54, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thank you! This is the comprehensive answer I was looking for. Chocolate does contain caffeine as verified by scientific experiments. I was hoping for the opposite answer (it doesn't contain any), but really just wanted "the straight dope." Thanks again! — Frecklefoot | Talk 18:07, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)

redundant wording?

...; this is the definition of chocolate used in many dictionaries.

Do we need this? RJFJR 17:20, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)

Contradiction regarding cocoa powder?

The article claims first that "In baking use natural cocoa in recipes which call for baking soda (because it's an alkali)", but then later in the same paragraph claims "Dutch-process cocoa has been processed with alkali to neutralize its natural acidity..." These contradict. Is natural cocoa (non-dutch-processed) acidic or alkali? -- Kaszeta 19:36, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps it's just badly-worded; baking soda is the alkali referred to. -- Logotu 22:29, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I don't agree with you are not know everything

I think this should be a featured article, but sadly, I do not know how to nominate it. If anybody feels the same way, and knows how to nominate it, please do.

Significant chocolate makers

I removed several entries in this list. All of them are obscure and none have an article written about them. I don't think the list should include all local and insiginificant chocolate-makers: just significant ones (see the list title). So I trimmed the list to remove the obscure makers. The ones I removed are:

Amedei
Bernard Castelain
Chocolat Bonnat
Callebaut (large Belgian producer of couverture, used in many chocolate products)
Dolfin
Domori
El Rey
The Day Chocolate Company (Divine)
Green and Blacks (organic chocolate products with high percentage of cocoa solids) [1] (http://www.greenandblacks.com/)
Guittard
Leonidas
Leysieffer
Michel Cluizel
Poulain
Scharffen Berger
Traidcraft (First Fair Trade chocolate in UK)
Valrhona (French manufacturer, couverture used by many candy makers)

If I accidentally removed a significant maker, please add it back in (or discuss here first). FWIK, all the ones I removed are not noteworthy. — Frecklefoot | Talk 18:29, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

I'm not *that* much of a chocoholic myself, but I think of these, Dolfin, Leysieffer, Michel Cluizel and Valrhona at least are definitely noteworthy. -- Schnee (cheeks clone) 19:18, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The ones not taken out are all ones well-known in the United States. People in Europe or other parts of the world may have different ideas of which chocolate companies are significant or popular. -- Logotu 21:00, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Indeed - and for the record, I'm from Europe myself. -- Schnee (cheeks clone) 11:13, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hey, that's fine. Put them back in. I had never heard of them, and they didn't seem that noteworthy since they didn't even have articles on them. So, after you add them back in, at least write a stub on them so they at least look noteworthy. :-) — Frecklefoot | Talk 18:03, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

I have not heard of any of these either. Typical American I guess. Looks like one of them is significant enough to have an article about it, so leave that one in. The other ones I say leave off or confine them to a "List of chocolate manufacturers" page or something.--Freak of Nurture 08:48, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

Nevermind. The article Leonidas is merely a disambiguation page. The link for the choc. company article is red. Keep these all off the main list at Chocolate until somebody writes articles about them.--Freak of Nurture 08:51, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. I'll make stubs for some of the manufacturers that I know of, and I've started a "Chocolate Manufacturers" category to hold these. -- Kaszeta 14:23, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The List of chocolate manufacturers" page doesn't exist yet, but I think that's a great place for lesser noteworthy manufacaturers. We can link to it from this article after it's created. It'd be nice to just list the most noteworthy manufacturers in the article. — Frecklefoot | Talk 16:19, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

Vegetarians & Chocolate

Is the sugar used in chocolate-making refined, like other sugars, through animal char?

Images

This article doesn't have too many images, but the three at the top are problematic. They cause poor rendering with my (standard) resolution. Does anyone want to take a whack at spreading them about the article? — Frecklefoot | Talk 19:49, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

Pimento

Should this direct to the spice pimento better known as allspice or the sweet pepper pimento? Rmhermen 20:35, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://academickids.com:443/encyclopedia/index.php/Talk:Chocolate"