Flash in the Pan

When you're a big chocolate company like Mars, you think about cocoa, without which you cannot make a thing. You think about diseases and changing climate and other factors that could cut production and raise your costs - and the 6.5 million or so cocoa growers in the world, most of which work on small family farms, have as much attention on a "luxury." According to the New York Times, Mars is working with IBM to map the cocoa genome - not to create genetically modified plans (at least supposedly), but to be smarter and more efficient in how cross-breeding and plant development in the greenhouse work:

Computational biologists and supercomputers can drastically accelerate the pace at which promising new strains of cocoa trees come out of the greenhouse, from the traditional length of five to seven years down to 18 months or so, Dr. Shapiro said.

That is a huge time and money savings. It's easy to forget that it takes significant time to grow a tree, and that to avoid GM methods, you have to bring plants to maturity and work through a line of generations to get the eventual results that you want. If mapping the genome helps them move through the process more effectively, it takes some of the pressure off switching to more artificial and potentially risky approaches, like swapping genes around.

Labels: chocolate, genome, GM, science

Get ready for your chocolate fix to be a little more dear. Cocoa prices have hit a 28-year high. According to a story in the Financial Times, the reason is concern "over the size and quality of this year’s crop from Ivory Coast, the world’s largest producer." This basic component of chocolate has climbed 52.3 percent this year alone:

The International Cocoa Organisation is forecasting a small supply surplus of 71,000 tonnes in 2008/09, but a poor crop in Ivory Coast could push the market into a supply deficit for a third year in a row.

Similarly, Brazil has reported that its sugal crop will be delayed and smaller because of rain, so sugar prices rose by 3.2 percent. Now here's the real interesting part, I think: prices for October sugar are 12.83 cents a pound. How much do you pay for a pound of sugar? Who gets the rest of that money, and what value do they add to justify their cuts?

In the meantime, in another Financial Times story, food prices are hitting hard enough in Mexico that the "center-right goverment" - which I take to mean on the conservative side - has put price controls into place on 150 basic items, including beans, cooking oil, canned tuna, and fruit juice. Prices will remain frozen from now until the end of the year. But given the hefty jumps we've been seeing in the underlying goods, what happens to the merchants and wholesellers? I understand that people with no money are hurting, but this seems to be a short-sighted approach of addressing a problem. The government shifts the burden onto businesses, which might end up losing money in the long run and possible start cutting jobs, because it wants to appear as though it's active toward the problem. But the dynamics don't change, and the effect is to sweep the pain under a carpet and out of site. The eventual price for this approach may be higher and longer-lasting, but, hey, maybe that will be for someone else to deal with.

Labels: chocolate, government, news, prices, sugar

I must confess to some frustration since my wife has started a one household campaign against high fructose corn syrup. She's read some pretty hard health criticism of the substance and so has decided to eliminate what she sees as one potential threat to our family members - and put that way, I can hardly disagree. However, it is amazing how many products have HFCS (the acronym she has started to use). As we started to scrub our incoming goods, I realized that Hershey's chocolate syrup was also now on the forbidden list. This was tough, because I use it both in making iced mochas as well as for egg creams. (Yes, I know about U-Bet, but this is generally easier to get.) And then she rescued my sweet tooth by finding Trader Joe's Organic Midnight Moo.

Not only does it lack HFCS, and not only does it have organic ingredients, but it has great taste. I'm finding that both mochas and egg creams are much better than with Hershey's, and, I'm starting to think, even better than with U-Bet. Yes, it's a bit pricey, but then, so is a liver transplant. I can happily recommend what I thought was going to substitute but instead supplanted my former choice.

Labels: chocolate, coffee, opinion, product, review

Sometimes a name says nothing. In the case of Hershey's Bliss, I tried the dark, milk, and milk with "meltaway" center. Disclosure up front: milk chocolate is, in general, an abomination. Now that I've got that out of the way, here's the PR claim:

Hershey's Bliss Chocolate is specially crafted to ensure that every detail contributes to the overall chocolate experience. The slight domed shape of the individual square fits the mouth perfectly allowing the chocolate to melt evenly cascading rich, creamy chocolate notes across the tongue. The finish is satisfying and sophisticated, a lasting reward.

For the effective translation, yes, they are small pieces and, yes, they are square with a rounded top. But the chocolate is pretty boring - not bad enough to deserve blistering, but falling far short of bliss. The dark didn't have the bite and depth you might expect for a fine chocolate, and even the milk was dull. Even though the company is "targeting female chocolate lovers," I doubt that a sudden gender change by human hand or divine intervention would change my impression. Although they're holding some promotion that involves a claimed 10,000 home chocolate parties the weekend of April 25, I'd suggest staying in your own home with a good bar of chocolate, instead. You could even cut it up into smaller pieces.

Labels: chocolate, opinion, product, review

Ghirardelli has come out with a new line of "filled premium chocolate bars," so I asked them to send some samples to test. And as it's still Valentine's Day, I figured it was an appropriate time to mention them. Reactions here were mixed. My wife snarfed the solid dark chocolate and managed to finish it off while forgetting to give me a taste. Uh huh. But she thought it was good, some depth of flavor, and fruity. I trust her taste, even if I obviously can't trust her with chocolate.

I actually found that I liked the fillings more than the chocolate itself. The flavors inside over powered those of the coating. I particularly liked the raspberry and even the mint, which is unusual, as I'm generally not a big mint fan. (After a taste, I passed it on to my daughter, who snapped it up so fast that it was a good thing my hand was open. Do you detect a pattern in my family?) The caramel was also good.

Suggested retail price of the bars is $2.29, which isn't bad compared to the price of many higher end chocolate bars.

Labels: chocolate, opinion, product, review

This is hardly the news you want to hear going into any prime period for entertaining and cooking. As the New York Times reports, both Canadian and US authorities are investigating pricing practices among large chocolate companies. The Canadian investigation started last month, including the Canadian divisions of Hershey, Cadbury Schweppes, Mars, and Nestle. Now those south of the border are starting investigations. Both Mars and Nestle have admitted being contacted by the US Department of Justice; Hershey declined to comment, as did the DOJ. If true, this could be a serious situation:<

American consumers buy about $13 billion worth of chocolate a year, said Susan S. Smith, spokeswoman for the National Confectioners Association.

The Wall Street Journal's report suggests that chocolate makers might have been trying to offset higher dairy prices. (Sorry, but I think the link needs a subscription.):

On a conference call with analysts on Oct. 10, Cadbury CEO Todd Stitzer said the company expected ingredients to cost 5% to 6% more in 2008 because of rising commodity prices, particularly for milk. "We are in the process of implementing price increases in most of our markets to offset these increases," he said.

The Journal also underscores the potential seriousness of any charge:

It isn't clear precisely what the Justice Department is looking into or whether the preliminary inquiry will become a formal criminal investigation. Price fixing can be a serious offense, leading to heavy fines and, in some cases, jail terms for executives. While antitrust enforcement has eased generally in recent years, the Bush administration has aggressively prosecuted price fixing in many industries and global markets, from airline cargo to semiconductors.

In other chocolate news, Campbell is selling Godiva Chocolatier to Yildiz Holding of Turkey for $850 million. Not that I have any fodness for Godiva - given the prices they charge, I think their chocolates are at best second rate. But it does leave me wondering whether Campbell is just disappointed that no one stormed their doors, demanding a chocolate soup. I was surprised to learn that Campbell had owned the chocolate company since the late 1960s.

Labels: business, chocolate

I had missed this, but according to Slashfood, Mars has pledged that it will not change the formulation of its chocolate to use vegetable fat instead of cocoa butter. Here's an AP story on the topic. According to the story, as recently as 2000, Mars backed allowing up to 5 percent of fat in chocolate to be the vegetable variety. European companies are already allowed to do this, which has to be a first - the US leads the way in respect for ingredients.

Labels: chocolate, FDA, Mars

While visiting friends this last weekend, my wife and I had occasion to try an apparently new product from Trader Joe's: Celebration chocolate cake. It was dark cocolate with a fudgy/ganache-like frosting. Garnishing the top edge were bits of white chocolate tinted in various colors, like so much confetti, keeping with the theme.

The short take is that the cake was surprisingly good. The people assembled - particularly my wife and one of our family's friends, were discriminating and also accomplished in baking. The overall rating was an 8 out of 10, even if compared with home-made. If you compared it with take-out cakes, you hit a 10 and the results were a good sight better than many you'll find in bakeries. Although the size seemed small - maybe 7-inches - it easily could serve 8 to 10 and possibly as many as 12. The cake does come frozen, and as a result has a shelf life in months. You do need to let it defrost at least four hours ahead of time, but, jeez, it's not as though you need do anything serious to have a pleasing dessert on hand. I can recommend it highly.

Labels: cake, celebration, chocolate, review, Trader Joe's

Back in April I mentioned how some large choclate manufacturers had petitioned the Food and Drug Administration to redefine the product so they could substitute vegetable fat for cocoa butter. I just came across this AP story that provides a summary but also adds some interesting information. First, the request was originally made in October and buried among a group of requests to change the production standards for almost 300 foods. Also, it seems that about 1,500 filed pubic comments are running heavily in favor of leaving things as they are:

Hundreds of people have filed comments with the FDA, with the overwhelming majority seeking to keep it that way, according to an Associated Press review of the file.

Finally, interestingly enough, since 2003, the EU has allowed European manufacturers to substitute 5 percent of the cocoa butter with vegetable fat. Time to stick with US chocolate - for now.

Labels: chocolate, cocoa butter, FDA, standards

A weekly round-up of food and drink oddities:

• Chocolate in Moderation A recent study suggests that daily dark chocolate reduces blood pressure. Unfortunately, the necessary ingestion is around 6 grams, with the restriction undoubtedly leading to depression. (AP)


• Penguins and Garlic Shanghai zoo keepers are feeding garlic to the penguins to ward off respiratory problems, sutffing a few cloves in each fish the birds eat. For some odd reason, there has also been a sharp drop in the number of people wanting to see the birds. (AP)


• Paris Hilton Goes to Dogs Someone supposedly poked through Paris Hilton's garbage, found a can from some organic dog food, and sold it on eBay for $305. Hopefully they will recycle it. (AP)


• Porn Pizza A western Canadian pizza joint has been putting a pornographic picture in the bottom of each box, under the pizza. The restaurant sold hundreds of pizzas in one week. Do delivery personnel ask if it was as good for the customer as it was for them? (AFP)


• Movie Munching There's a new documentary on speed eating. Get to the theater early - the snack stand lines will be fierce. (AP)


• Really Fresh Fish A chef in Taiwan got into trouble for serving a fish that wasn't quite dead. Boy, and ususally people complain because the fish isn't fresh enough. (AP)

Labels: blood pressure, chocolate, dog food, fish, fresh, garlic, Paris Hilton, penguins, pizza, porn, speed eating, Taiwan, weird

Clif Bars sent samples of their new Organic Fruit & Nut Bar line. Each one offers "2 full servings of fruit and nuts," which does leave some question of interpretation. Do you get two servings of each? Two servings combined? There's no wheat, soy, or dairy, for the vegan or ingredient-sensitive, no processed sugars or artificial sweeteners or trans fats for everyone, and 5 to 7 grams of fiber. A bar is 150 to 170 calories, still lower than eating a candy bar, though the price is $1.49, not so cheap for 1.6 ounces (or a suggested price of $14.90 a pound).

As for the taste ... eh. I preferred the cranberry, apricot, and almond to the dark chocolate raspberry because the latter's taste just didn't come up to the standard depth you can fine in a good piece of chocolate. However, it's certainly a better nutritional choice than candy, and not so expensive as to discourage a bit of experimentation.

Labels: bars, chocolate, Clif, fiber, fruit, nuts

I'm a great believer in skeptically treating the One True Way tone you get in so many recipes. What someone did once becomes the prescribed method for all, even if it's not the best approach. I was part of an online discussion on a writers' board and someone started a discussion for those who develop recipes. One of the tangents was how sometimes the "safe" way of doing something is for the birds. For example, I make hollandaise sauce directly on the range and not in a double boiler; if you're careful, the eggs won't curdle and you'll be done in about a fourth of the time or less.

Another writer mentioned also being lazy and doing the same with melting chocolate, which I've also done. But I also mentioned a trick I learned from a book (I can't remember which one). Chop up the chocolate, put it into a microwaveable container, and microwave it on full power for about 60 seconds. Take it out and stir. The chunks that look solid will suddenly break apart and turn into nicely melted chocolate. If that time isn't enough, add more in 30 second blocks, doing the stir test at the end of each block. Eventually you get a nice pool of liquid chocolate with no danger of scorching or having the chocolate seize into a mass harder than a hockey puck.

Labels: chocolate, melting, microwave

According to Reuters, the Mars company, one of the world's biggest chocolate makers, apologized for a previous decision to start using rennet, an enzyme from calf stomaches, that the story says "is used in traditional cheese and chocolate making." Lots of vegetarians didn't like hearing this.

But forget about them for a moment. So far as I know, chocolate making is by definition supposed to involve cocoa solids, cocoa butter, milk or milk powder, and sugar. Since when do you add rennet as you do with cheese? Are they trying to create curds from the milk to reduce the amount of cocoa they need? Why are companies always trying to find ways to cut corners? How about doing something well, for heaven's sake? At least the company received 6,000 emails and phone calls after the initial announcement that it would make the change.

Labels: chocolate, Mars, rennet

My daughter loves frozen hot chocolate from an espresso bar in western Massachusetts called Mocha Maya's. So I started working on my own version:

• 2 TBS. cocoa


• 3 TBS. sugar


• 1 cup milk


• 1/2 cup crushed ice

Put all ingredients in a blender and blend until smooth. You can add more or less ice to make the drink more or less thick.

Labels: blender, chocolate, drink, iced

Apparently, in a quest for greater profits, major chocolate manufacturers in the U.S. are petitioning the FDA to redefine chocolate. Under the proposed change, manufacturers could use vegetable fat instead of cocoa butter and whey instead of whole milk or milk powder. According to Bloomberg, the Chocolate Manufacturers Association includes Hershey, Nestle, and Archer Daniels Midland, and you can bet that if any of these enormous companies objected, the chances that the proposal would have been sent in would be slim. Thanks to manufacturer Guittard for breaking ranks and publicly objecting to this farce and for enlisting companies like See's Candies (good chocolates and owned by Warren Buffet's Berkshire Hathaway). As someone from See's says (sorry, couldn't resist), "If the margarine manufacturers could call their product butter instead of being required to call it margarine, wouldn't it strike the consumer as being odd?'' That's effectively what's happening here. The Bloomberg report had this, as well:

Hershey, the largest U.S. candy maker, says that broader labeling is needed to keep up with changing consumer tastes. "The petition would modernize all food standards, increasing flexibility to accommodate changes in technology," Kirk Saville, spokesman for the Hershey, Pennsylvania-based company, said in an interview. "Changes, if adopted, would provide the flexibility to make changes based on consumer taste preference, ingredient costs and availability, and shelf life."

Or changes based on profits. Unfortunately, mass manufactured chocolate is so far below the good stuff in quality that many people may have lost the ability to tell whether it is getting even worse. Today is the last day for public comment - use this form.

Labels: ADM, Archer Daniels MIdland, Berkshire Hathaway, chocolate, cocoa butter, Guittard, Hershey, Nestle, See's Candies, Warren Buffet

Another stop we made in Manhattan was at a place called Max Brenner: Chocolate by the Bald Man. Great name, which was better I thought than the one test piece we picked up - an oversized truffle with filling dipped in a chocoalte shell and then in cocoa powder. My wife liked it but I didn't think that the chocolate was particularly noteworthy. There isn't a Max Brenner either. This is a high concept restaurant with chocolate as a theme. (Here's a New York Magazine review that is fuller than what I'll do.) If you want good chocolate and can be satisfied with a small amount (because it's so freakin' expensive), head to La Maison du Chocolat at 30 Rockefeller Place at 49th. Street. Founded by Robert Linxe, who founded the original location in Paris, the products are the result of a1 genius master. As good as the chocolate is, try the fruit jellies solidified with pectin and not gelatin. Or check here online.

Labels: chocolate, dessert, New York, restaurant, review