There are several great online stores for buying chocolate bars in the United States. Here are my five favorite places to shop (now, six, with the addition from Lowe's comment). These are the best online stores for buying chocolate that I've found. All of them have large selections of many excellent chocolate bars:
Caputo's has good prices and flat-rate USPS priority mail shipping of $7.99 regardless of order size. Click on See all brands link at the left to find chocolate bars by brand. Accepts MasterCard, Visa, American Express, Discover, and PayPal. Ships from Utah.
Chocolopolis has good prices and good shipping rates. Use the Shop By Brand drop-down at the top-left to find chocolate bars by brand. Accepts MasterCard, Visa, and American Express. Ships from Washington State.
Chocosphere has big selection and tends to have the lowest prices with slightly higher shipping rates, but includes warm weather packaging for free when they feel it is needed. Accepts MasterCard, Visa, American Express, and Discover. Ships from Oregon.
Cocova has a huge selection, but typically higher prices and slightly higher shipping rates. Accepts MasterCard, Visa, American Express, and Discover. Ships from Washington, D.C.
The Meadow has slightly higher prices and good shipping rates. Use Chocolate By Manufacturer to find chocolate bars by brand. Acccepts credit cards and PayPal. Ships from Oregon.
World Wide Chocolate has big selection and tends to higher prices and shipping rates, but also has sales every week, so there are opportunities for getting good deals. Accepts MasterCard, Visa, American Express, Discover, Optima, Diner's Club, and PayPal. Ships from New Hampshire.
If ordering during warm weather, be sure to add warm weather packaging to your order to make sure your chocolate arrives safely. Typical cost is around $7. Another consideration is the location from where your chocolate is being shipped because a longer time in transit increases the risk of damage.
In our individual bar reviews, we put a link to the least expensive price that we can find online at the time of the review (not including shipping charges). Because prices change, it's worth checking all five of the sites above if you're looking for a specific brand or bar.
Of course, a local chocolate store can be even better, as that may give you an opportunity to try a chocolate before buying! Plus, no damage in transit and no shipping charges to pay -- just your own transportation to the store. For example, here in Seattle, Chocolopolis has weekly happy hours during which they provide several chocolates to sample.
If you have a favorite online or local chocolate bar store, please add a comment to tell us about it (preferably with a link to their website). We'd love to learn about such stores in other countries, too!
Showing posts with label reference. Show all posts
Showing posts with label reference. Show all posts
Friday, April 5, 2013
Sunday, January 13, 2013
Chocolate Consumption Statistics By Country
The ICCO (International Cocoa Organization) released their bi-annual World Cocoa Economy report for 2012 and included in it are some great statistics about chocolate consumption in various countries around the world.
For a little historical perspective, here is our posting about consumption statistics from the 2010 report.
This first table lists per-capita consumption of chocolate confections by country, and includes products made with white chocolate. It is based on data from CAOBISCO (European Union Association of the Chocolate, Biscuit and Confectionery Industries) and the ICA (International Confectionery Association).
The following tables are potentially more interesting. The next table contains estimates of per-capita consumption of cocoa by country. Unfortunately, I didn't find a clear definition by ICCO to identify the line between cocoa and chocolate confection, but here's the data they provided. If you find their definition, please email us or add it in a comment!
This last table averages per-capita consumption of cocoa by region. Of particular note is the World excluding China, India, and Indonesia. Because of the large populations of those countries with limited access to cocoa products, they otherwise skew the overall World average.
For a little historical perspective, here is our posting about consumption statistics from the 2010 report.
This first table lists per-capita consumption of chocolate confections by country, and includes products made with white chocolate. It is based on data from CAOBISCO (European Union Association of the Chocolate, Biscuit and Confectionery Industries) and the ICA (International Confectionery Association).
| Per-capita Chocolate Confection Consumption | ||
| country | kg/year | lb/year |
| Germany | 11.6 | 25.4 |
| Switzerland | 10.5 | 23.1 |
| United Kingdom | 9.7 | 21.4 |
| Norway | 9.4 | 20.8 |
| Denmark | 8.5 | 18.7 |
| Austria | 8.2 | 18.0 |
| Finland | 7.3 | 16.0 |
| Sweden | 6.4 | 14.0 |
| France | 6.3 | 13.9 |
| Estonia | 6.2 | 13.7 |
| Belgium | 6.1 | 13.4 |
| Lithuania | 5.4 | 11.9 |
| United States | 5.3 | 11.6 |
| Australia | 4.5 | 9.9 |
| Italy | 3.7 | 8.2 |
| Poland | 3.6 | 7.9 |
| Spain | 3.6 | 7.9 |
| Greece | 3.5 | 7.7 |
| Hungary | 3.3 | 7.3 |
| Brazil | 2.9 | 6.4 |
| Portugal | 2.7 | 6.0 |
| Japan | 2.1 | 4.6 |
| Bulgaria | 1.3 | 2.8 |
The following tables are potentially more interesting. The next table contains estimates of per-capita consumption of cocoa by country. Unfortunately, I didn't find a clear definition by ICCO to identify the line between cocoa and chocolate confection, but here's the data they provided. If you find their definition, please email us or add it in a comment!
| Per-capita Cocoa Consumption | ||
| country | kg/year | lb/year |
| Switzerland | 5.88 | 12.94 |
| Belgium | 5.69 | 12.51 |
| Ireland | 4.02 | 8.84 |
| Norway | 4.02 | 8.83 |
| Germany | 3.96 | 8.72 |
| Austria | 3.80 | 8.36 |
| United Kingdom | 3.64 | 8.00 |
| France | 3.62 | 7.97 |
| Denmark | 3.29 | 7.23 |
| Slovenia | 3.07 | 6.75 |
| Finland | 3.02 | 6.65 |
| Israel | 2.96 | 6.52 |
| Australia | 2.87 | 6.33 |
| Greece | 2.60 | 5.72 |
| Canada | 2.55 | 5.61 |
| United States | 2.46 | 5.40 |
| Czech Republic | 2.44 | 5.37 |
| Sweden | 2.29 | 5.03 |
| Netherlands | 2.28 | 5.02 |
| Spain | 2.28 | 5.01 |
| Hungary | 1.79 | 3.94 |
| Portugal | 1.71 | 3.77 |
| Poland | 1.69 | 3.71 |
| Italy | 1.46 | 3.21 |
| Russian Federation | 1.39 | 3.06 |
| Kazakhstan | 1.23 | 2.70 |
| Japan | 1.22 | 2.67 |
| Colombia | 0.99 | 2.18 |
| Romania | 0.98 | 2.15 |
| Chile | 0.97 | 2.13 |
| Saudi Arabia | 0.97 | 2.12 |
| Brazil | 0.92 | 2.01 |
| Argentina | 0.79 | 1.73 |
| Malaysia | 0.60 | 1.31 |
| Algeria | 0.58 | 1.27 |
| Mexico | 0.55 | 1.21 |
| Ghana | 0.55 | 1.20 |
| Republic of Korea | 0.50 | 1.10 |
| Ukraine | 0.48 | 1.06 |
| Cote d'Ivoire | 0.44 | 0.98 |
| Venezuela | 0.41 | 0.90 |
| South Africa | 0.39 | 0.85 |
| Turkey | 0.34 | 0.74 |
| Philippines | 0.32 | 0.71 |
| Ecuador | 0.30 | 0.65 |
| Nigeria | 0.11 | 0.25 |
| Indonesia | 0.10 | 0.21 |
| China | 0.04 | 0.08 |
| India | 0.03 | 0.06 |
This last table averages per-capita consumption of cocoa by region. Of particular note is the World excluding China, India, and Indonesia. Because of the large populations of those countries with limited access to cocoa products, they otherwise skew the overall World average.
| Per-capita Cocoa Consumption | ||
| region | kg/year | lb/year |
| World | 0.61 | 1.35 |
| World excluding China, India, Indonesia | 1.09 | 2.40 |
| Europe | 2.18 | 4.80 |
| Americas | 1.37 | 3.01 |
| Africa | 0.20 | 0.44 |
| Asia & Oceania | 0.15 | 0.34 |
Sunday, September 16, 2012
List: Chocolate With No Exposure To Nuts
We received email from one reader asking about chocolate bars that have absolutely no exposure to peanuts (actually a legume, not a nut) and from another about any nuts at all.
People with severe food allergies need to avoid products not only that contain them as ingredients, but even that are manufactured on equipment with environmental exposure to them. For some, even trace amounts can be dangerous.
The following chocolate makers either indicate nut-free or at least have no warning on their wrappers about any potential presence of nuts. I tried to contact and confirm the complete absence of nuts with each of them, and discovered some additional info about potential tree nut exposure. I didn't hear back from Bonnat.
In addition to the list below, Potomac has one grinder that was formerly used with peanut butter. The grinder has since been thoroughly cleaned many times and is now used only occasionally for small batches. Due to that potential exposure, though, I excluded them from the list.
Remember to always carefully review all labeling before purchasing any chocolate, as previously safe chocolate may no longer be so.
Makers With Chocolate Bars Not Exposed To Nuts
Please see our permanent Chocolate Lists page (link at upper right) for current information.
People with severe food allergies need to avoid products not only that contain them as ingredients, but even that are manufactured on equipment with environmental exposure to them. For some, even trace amounts can be dangerous.
The following chocolate makers either indicate nut-free or at least have no warning on their wrappers about any potential presence of nuts. I tried to contact and confirm the complete absence of nuts with each of them, and discovered some additional info about potential tree nut exposure. I didn't hear back from Bonnat.
In addition to the list below, Potomac has one grinder that was formerly used with peanut butter. The grinder has since been thoroughly cleaned many times and is now used only occasionally for small batches. Due to that potential exposure, though, I excluded them from the list.
Remember to always carefully review all labeling before purchasing any chocolate, as previously safe chocolate may no longer be so.
Makers With Chocolate Bars Not Exposed To Nuts
- Bonnat -- no confirmation
( Apotequil, Puerto Cabello, Ceylan, Chuao, Côte d'Ivoire, Cuba, Cacao Cusco, Équateur, Jamaïque, Juliana, Libânio, Madagascar, Marfil de Blanco, Porcelana, Real del Xoxonuzco, Hacienda El Rosario, Trinité, 100% Cacao ) - Dandelion
( Colombia, Mantuano Venezuela, Elvesia Dominican Republic, Rio Caribe Venezuela, Sambirano Madagascar, Upala Costa Rica ) - Fresco
( 210 Jamaica, 211 Ghana, 212 Dominican Republic, 213 Dominican Republic, 214 Madagascar, 215 Madagascar, 216 Madagascar, 217 Chuao, 218 Chuao, 219 Papua New Guinea, 220 Papua New Guinea, 221 Papua New Guinea, 222 Papua New Guinea ) - Grenada
( 100%, 82%, 71%, 60% ) - Guittard -- potential almond exposure
( Ambanja, Chucuri, Nocturne, Quetzalcoatl, Quevedo, Sur del Lago, Tsaratana ) - Rogue
( Hispaniola, Piura, Rio Caribe, Sambirano, Silvestre ) - Stirs the Soul -- potential coconut exposure
( Blissful Dark, Dark, Honey Dark, Origins Ecuador, Origins Madagascar )
Please see our permanent Chocolate Lists page (link at upper right) for current information.
Friday, September 7, 2012
List: Chocolate Makers Not Using Lecithin
This is the second posting answering e-mail from our readers trying to find chocolate that meets certain criteria: in this case, chocolate that does not contain any lecithin.
Remember to always check the ingredients before purchasing, as chocolate makers occasionally change them: a chocolate bar without lecithin today may have it in future. For example, Lindt recently changed the recipe for Excellence 70% and it now includes lecithin.
Chocolate Makers Not Using Lecithin
Please see our permanent Chocolate Lists page (link at upper right) for current information.
Remember to always check the ingredients before purchasing, as chocolate makers occasionally change them: a chocolate bar without lecithin today may have it in future. For example, Lindt recently changed the recipe for Excellence 70% and it now includes lecithin.
Chocolate Makers Not Using Lecithin
- Alter Eco
- Amano
- Amedei
- Askinosie
- Bonnat
- Chocolate Conspiracy
- Michel Cluizel
- Coppeneur
- Dandelion
- Domori
- Escazú
- Fearless
- Fine & Raw
- Fresco
- Gnosis
- Hägeland
- Indahphoria
- Kallari
- Madre
- Mast Brothers
- Mindo
- Moho
- Moonstruck
- Original Beans
- Patric
- Potomac
- Ritual
- Rogue
- Snake & Butterfly
- Stirs the Soul
- Taza
- Theo
Please see our permanent Chocolate Lists page (link at upper right) for current information.
Thursday, September 6, 2012
List: Chocolate Bars Without Cane Sugar
Several people have e-mailed us with requests for finding chocolate that is made on equipment without any exposure to nuts, lower glycemic chocolate that is sweetened with something other than sugar, chocolate without lecithin, and other criteria. I've answered those questions individually, but now I'll begin posting and maintaining such information on the site as well.
This posting is the first of them, listing chocolate bars that are made either without a sweetener or with a sweetener that is something other than cane sugar.
Chocolate Bars Without Cane Sugar (sweetener)
Please see our permanent Chocolate Lists page (link at upper right) for current information.
This posting is the first of them, listing chocolate bars that are made either without a sweetener or with a sweetener that is something other than cane sugar.
Chocolate Bars Without Cane Sugar (sweetener)
- Chocolat Bonnat 100% (none)
- The Chocolate Conspiracy Dark Bar (honey)
- Coppeneur Hacienda Iara 100% (none)
- Fine & Raw 78% (agave nectar)
- Gnosis Dazzling Dark (agave nectar, coconut palm nectar)
- Gnosis Simplicity (agave nectar, coconut palm nectar)
- Grenada Chocolate Company 100% (none)
- Indahphoria Dominican Republic (coconut sugar)
- Pacari Raw 100% (none)
- Francois Pralus Le 100% (none)
- Stirs the Soul Blissful Dark (dates)
- Stirs the Soul Dark (agave)
- Stirs the Soul Honey Dark (honey)
- Stirs the Soul Origins Ecuador (agave)
- Stirs the Soul Origins Madagascar (agave)
Please see our permanent Chocolate Lists page (link at upper right) for current information.
Thursday, March 22, 2012
Raw Chocolate
One of the steps in making traditional chocolate is roasting cacao beans, which subjects them to high temperatures that reduce antioxidants and other beneficial health properties of the cacao. Raw chocolate typically minimizes processing and maintains the cacao and other ingredients at low temperatures throughout.
At present, there is neither an accepted temperature limit for raw chocolate nor third-party certification for it. The raw food community seems to generally use a threshold of 40 degrees Celsius (104 degrees Fahrenheit), though some go as high as 49°C (120°F).
Raw chocolate has a reputation for being healthier than, but not tasting as good as, chocolate made from roasted cacao beans. The taste of raw chocolate, however, has been improving and a few makers seem to be crafting chocolate just as delicious as that made from roasted beans.
Over the next month, we will be reviewing raw chocolate bars from the Chocolate Conspiracy, Fearless, Fine & Raw, Gnosis, Pacari, and Stirs the Soul.
At present, there is neither an accepted temperature limit for raw chocolate nor third-party certification for it. The raw food community seems to generally use a threshold of 40 degrees Celsius (104 degrees Fahrenheit), though some go as high as 49°C (120°F).
Raw chocolate has a reputation for being healthier than, but not tasting as good as, chocolate made from roasted cacao beans. The taste of raw chocolate, however, has been improving and a few makers seem to be crafting chocolate just as delicious as that made from roasted beans.
Over the next month, we will be reviewing raw chocolate bars from the Chocolate Conspiracy, Fearless, Fine & Raw, Gnosis, Pacari, and Stirs the Soul.
Wednesday, November 2, 2011
Why are good beans so hard to get?
One of the more interesting topics of discussion at the Northwest Chocolate Festival was the difficulty for chocolate makers to get high quality cacao beans. Unfortunately, the quality problem was not due to any single cause. The primary issue, though, seemed to be the existing structure of financial compensation for farming cacao.
Commoditization
Nearly all cacao is sold based on commodity exchange market prices per metric ton (or tonne) of beans (recently around $2700), with a premium of $0 to $160 per ton based on origin. However, in the cacao market, the premium is not based on quality, but rather on consistency. Thus, traditionally high volume and low-quality cacao bean markets such as the Ivory Coast and Ghana are given the highest $160 premium.
As I explained in Chocolate Labeling Revisited, Fair Trade typically only adds about 5% to the price, and again such deals do not consider the quality of the cacao beans. The beans are simply a commodity.
Thus, the typical financial incentive for cacao farmers is simply to produce as much as possible, regardless of the bean quality.
Hybrids
So, what's a farmer to do when a hybrid cacao comes along that is twice as productive as their existing trees? CCN51 is such a hybrid, and it seems to make financial sense to plant it. When some disastrous weather ruined large numbers of cacao trees in Ecuador in 1997-98, many farmers replanted with CCN51. Planted near other cacao, cross-pollination occurs with existing trees. Touted as twice as productive with the same quality, CCN51 lives up to the former, but fails at the latter. It is now prevalent in Ecuador, Peru, and Colombia, and there are new hybrids on the horizon that may increase yields by a factor of four over heirloom cacao.
Not only does CCN51 cacao have worse flavor than heirloom cacao, but it also has different fermentation times and destabilizes the land. CCN51 requires a longer fermentation time than the heirloom cacao with which it is often grown, fermented and dried. As a result, something has to suffer: the CCN51 ends up underfermented, the heirloom cacao overfermented, or sometimes both!
The biggest problem for the farmer, though, is that the higher productivity of CCN51 has a cost: it depletes the soil after about 8 years. Much of the extra income from CCN51 then needs to be spent on fertilizing (and that can be especially problematic for less accessible farms) and organic homeostasis is over.
Prices
Once artisan chocolate makers find great cacao beans, they pay a much higher premium to ensure they get the beans they want. Chuao and Porcelana beans typically cost around 400% of the market price for generic cacao.
At those prices, farmers can earn a good living with lower yield cacao. However, even most other quality cacao is sold for much less, and the lower prices may not be sufficient to incentivize farmers to continue to grow heirloom cacao. Alternatives include planting higher yielding cacao, growing other crops instead of cacao, or quitting farming altogether. On many farms, other crops, such as plantains, are already grown alongside cacao.
Fermentation and Drying
Great genetic heritage alone, though, isn't sufficient for getting quality beans. The cacao beans must be properly fermented and dried as well. Many makers are actively involved with the process and help educate their suppliers to improve fermentation and drying of their cacao beans. The chocolate experts at the Northwest Chocolate Festival were generally positive that improvements in fermentation and drying are occurring throughout the industry, even with mainstream cacao.
Conclusion
Of course, cacao farmers are not motivated solely by money. As a general rule, they love their farms and care about their trees. However, when financial incentives are aligned against growing quality cacao and instead encourage increasing yields, it is more difficult for heirloom cacao farmers to make a decent living.
Commoditization
Nearly all cacao is sold based on commodity exchange market prices per metric ton (or tonne) of beans (recently around $2700), with a premium of $0 to $160 per ton based on origin. However, in the cacao market, the premium is not based on quality, but rather on consistency. Thus, traditionally high volume and low-quality cacao bean markets such as the Ivory Coast and Ghana are given the highest $160 premium.
As I explained in Chocolate Labeling Revisited, Fair Trade typically only adds about 5% to the price, and again such deals do not consider the quality of the cacao beans. The beans are simply a commodity.
Thus, the typical financial incentive for cacao farmers is simply to produce as much as possible, regardless of the bean quality.
Hybrids
So, what's a farmer to do when a hybrid cacao comes along that is twice as productive as their existing trees? CCN51 is such a hybrid, and it seems to make financial sense to plant it. When some disastrous weather ruined large numbers of cacao trees in Ecuador in 1997-98, many farmers replanted with CCN51. Planted near other cacao, cross-pollination occurs with existing trees. Touted as twice as productive with the same quality, CCN51 lives up to the former, but fails at the latter. It is now prevalent in Ecuador, Peru, and Colombia, and there are new hybrids on the horizon that may increase yields by a factor of four over heirloom cacao.
Not only does CCN51 cacao have worse flavor than heirloom cacao, but it also has different fermentation times and destabilizes the land. CCN51 requires a longer fermentation time than the heirloom cacao with which it is often grown, fermented and dried. As a result, something has to suffer: the CCN51 ends up underfermented, the heirloom cacao overfermented, or sometimes both!
The biggest problem for the farmer, though, is that the higher productivity of CCN51 has a cost: it depletes the soil after about 8 years. Much of the extra income from CCN51 then needs to be spent on fertilizing (and that can be especially problematic for less accessible farms) and organic homeostasis is over.
Prices
Once artisan chocolate makers find great cacao beans, they pay a much higher premium to ensure they get the beans they want. Chuao and Porcelana beans typically cost around 400% of the market price for generic cacao.
At those prices, farmers can earn a good living with lower yield cacao. However, even most other quality cacao is sold for much less, and the lower prices may not be sufficient to incentivize farmers to continue to grow heirloom cacao. Alternatives include planting higher yielding cacao, growing other crops instead of cacao, or quitting farming altogether. On many farms, other crops, such as plantains, are already grown alongside cacao.
Fermentation and Drying
Great genetic heritage alone, though, isn't sufficient for getting quality beans. The cacao beans must be properly fermented and dried as well. Many makers are actively involved with the process and help educate their suppliers to improve fermentation and drying of their cacao beans. The chocolate experts at the Northwest Chocolate Festival were generally positive that improvements in fermentation and drying are occurring throughout the industry, even with mainstream cacao.
Conclusion
Of course, cacao farmers are not motivated solely by money. As a general rule, they love their farms and care about their trees. However, when financial incentives are aligned against growing quality cacao and instead encourage increasing yields, it is more difficult for heirloom cacao farmers to make a decent living.
Wednesday, October 26, 2011
Chocolate Labeling Revisited
Earlier this year I posted about how labeling in chocolate can be inaccurate. At the Northwest Chocolate Festival (NWCF), there was a lot of disappointment with chocolate labeling.
One repeated issue seemed to be the use of the traditional terms of Criollo, Trinitario and Forastero to indicate the type (and implicit quality) of cacao (as I explained in an early blog post about cacao trees).
Multiple presentations at NWCF explained that there is no longer any pure Criollo cacao, and that all quality cacao is now pretty much Trinitario that is closer to Criollo on the spectrum of hybridization between Criollo and Forastero. Some people felt that labeling anything as Criollo is deceptive. It also depends who you ask. As one chocolate maker explained, since Criollo means local and Forastero means foreign, if you ask a farmer if his cacao trees are Criollo or Forastero, he'll look at you as if you're stupid: of course they are Criollo (i.e., local)!
Ten distinct genetic types of cacao have actually been identified, and yet none of those names is used in labeling chocolate. Using the three terms of Criollo, Trinitario, and Forastero is obviously less meaningful.
The other labeling concern at NWCF was the near universal disdain regarding Fair Trade, which typically requires only 5% or so above market prices. Such pricing is insufficient to pay for the higher costs of growing quality cacao. The chocolate makers I spoke with said they paid anywhere from 30% to 400% higher than market prices for their quality beans (sometimes fermented and dried in a manner they requested). One maker cynically suggested that fair trade certifications seemed to be primarily for marketing and for generating money for the certification organizations.
Because much of the quality cacao is grown on many small (e.g., 1 hectare) farms and then the cacao from multiple farms are brought together for fermentation and drying, the cost of certifying those individual farms is too expensive. Many such farms are organic, but they are uncertified. Similarly, chocolate makers are often paying higher than fair trade prices, but aren't certified. Thus, both labels may be lacking on their products. I try to capture this distinction in our reviews and explicitly mention in the text about certifications.
An ideal label for me would include everything from accurate genetics of the cacao to the detailed dates and methods of harvesting and processing it into chocolate -- way too much information for a reasonable consumer. Another piece of information I would like to know is whether or not any added cocoa butter is made from the same cacao beans as the rest of the chocolate (or if a less expensive cocoa butter was used). One member of the audience in a class asked about finding out the percentage of the retail price of a chocolate bar paid to the farmers for their beans.
Beyond ingredients, what information would you want?
One repeated issue seemed to be the use of the traditional terms of Criollo, Trinitario and Forastero to indicate the type (and implicit quality) of cacao (as I explained in an early blog post about cacao trees).
Multiple presentations at NWCF explained that there is no longer any pure Criollo cacao, and that all quality cacao is now pretty much Trinitario that is closer to Criollo on the spectrum of hybridization between Criollo and Forastero. Some people felt that labeling anything as Criollo is deceptive. It also depends who you ask. As one chocolate maker explained, since Criollo means local and Forastero means foreign, if you ask a farmer if his cacao trees are Criollo or Forastero, he'll look at you as if you're stupid: of course they are Criollo (i.e., local)!
Ten distinct genetic types of cacao have actually been identified, and yet none of those names is used in labeling chocolate. Using the three terms of Criollo, Trinitario, and Forastero is obviously less meaningful.
The other labeling concern at NWCF was the near universal disdain regarding Fair Trade, which typically requires only 5% or so above market prices. Such pricing is insufficient to pay for the higher costs of growing quality cacao. The chocolate makers I spoke with said they paid anywhere from 30% to 400% higher than market prices for their quality beans (sometimes fermented and dried in a manner they requested). One maker cynically suggested that fair trade certifications seemed to be primarily for marketing and for generating money for the certification organizations.
Because much of the quality cacao is grown on many small (e.g., 1 hectare) farms and then the cacao from multiple farms are brought together for fermentation and drying, the cost of certifying those individual farms is too expensive. Many such farms are organic, but they are uncertified. Similarly, chocolate makers are often paying higher than fair trade prices, but aren't certified. Thus, both labels may be lacking on their products. I try to capture this distinction in our reviews and explicitly mention in the text about certifications.
An ideal label for me would include everything from accurate genetics of the cacao to the detailed dates and methods of harvesting and processing it into chocolate -- way too much information for a reasonable consumer. Another piece of information I would like to know is whether or not any added cocoa butter is made from the same cacao beans as the rest of the chocolate (or if a less expensive cocoa butter was used). One member of the audience in a class asked about finding out the percentage of the retail price of a chocolate bar paid to the farmers for their beans.
Beyond ingredients, what information would you want?
Monday, March 21, 2011
Thoughts on Chocolate Labeling
As with other food products, chocolate is often labeled with descriptions that may be more or less accurate, but increase the perceived value and thus the price of the product. General terms such as "organic", "fair trade", and "sustainable" come to mind. Chocolate-specific terms include "single-origin", "plantation", higher quality bean names ("Criollo", "Trinitario", or "Arriba"), and chocolate names suggestive of desirable specific provenance, such as "Chuao", "Venezuela", or "Sambirano".
For a few of these terms, there are government and third-party certifications. The downside of certifications is that they cost money, and some chocolate makers achieving the same goals may choose not to acquire certification due to the added cost.
What provoked me write about this was my recent review of Pralus Caracas, during which I discovered that the chocolate was made from a blend of both Trinitario cacao beans from Venezuela and (lower quality and lower priced) Forastero beans from Ghana. This clearly conflicted with the wrapper that indicated a single origin in Venezuela, not only with the name of the city of Caracas, but also with its latitude and longitude. The wrapper only listed Trinitario cacao beans. Pralus had more complete information on their website, and while I give them credit for providing it, it would be much more honest to disclose such information on the wrapper of the bar itself.
That experience only makes me wonder what other chocolate makers may not be telling us, whether through intentional deception or not.
Ultimately, what matters most to me is the resulting chocolate, regardless of where and how the cacao was grown, what type of beans were used, etc. However, the other information is relevant, and for some consumers even more important than the sensual properties of the chocolate. I wish we could rely on every chocolate maker to straightforwardly present full and accurate information about their chocolates, but savvy consumers should remain skeptical and place more faith in government and uninvolved third-party certifications.
Here are some of the certifications you may see, along with links to the certifying organization for additional information.
For a few of these terms, there are government and third-party certifications. The downside of certifications is that they cost money, and some chocolate makers achieving the same goals may choose not to acquire certification due to the added cost.
What provoked me write about this was my recent review of Pralus Caracas, during which I discovered that the chocolate was made from a blend of both Trinitario cacao beans from Venezuela and (lower quality and lower priced) Forastero beans from Ghana. This clearly conflicted with the wrapper that indicated a single origin in Venezuela, not only with the name of the city of Caracas, but also with its latitude and longitude. The wrapper only listed Trinitario cacao beans. Pralus had more complete information on their website, and while I give them credit for providing it, it would be much more honest to disclose such information on the wrapper of the bar itself.
That experience only makes me wonder what other chocolate makers may not be telling us, whether through intentional deception or not.
Ultimately, what matters most to me is the resulting chocolate, regardless of where and how the cacao was grown, what type of beans were used, etc. However, the other information is relevant, and for some consumers even more important than the sensual properties of the chocolate. I wish we could rely on every chocolate maker to straightforwardly present full and accurate information about their chocolates, but savvy consumers should remain skeptical and place more faith in government and uninvolved third-party certifications.
Here are some of the certifications you may see, along with links to the certifying organization for additional information.
Thursday, January 27, 2011
Chocolate Consumption Statistics
UPDATE: You can read more recent information based on the 2012 report here.
The most recent reliable data I found on chocolate consumption were from the ICCO (International Cocoa Organization), CAOBISCO (European Union Association of the Chocolate, Biscuit and Confectionery Industries) and the ICA (International Confectionery Association).
A 2010 report on The World Cocoa Economy was particularly interesting, and has a lot of great information on the volatility of cocoa supply and demand.
Here's a summary of the 2008 annual per-capita consumption of chocolate in several nations around the world, in terms of kilograms per year, pounds per year, and 100 gram chocolate bars per year. Of course, this data includes chocolate consumption in any form; I'm just using 100 gram bars per year as an interesting equivalent.
The most recent reliable data I found on chocolate consumption were from the ICCO (International Cocoa Organization), CAOBISCO (European Union Association of the Chocolate, Biscuit and Confectionery Industries) and the ICA (International Confectionery Association).
A 2010 report on The World Cocoa Economy was particularly interesting, and has a lot of great information on the volatility of cocoa supply and demand.
Here's a summary of the 2008 annual per-capita consumption of chocolate in several nations around the world, in terms of kilograms per year, pounds per year, and 100 gram chocolate bars per year. Of course, this data includes chocolate consumption in any form; I'm just using 100 gram bars per year as an interesting equivalent.
| country | kg/year | lb/year | equivalent 100g bars/year |
| Germany | 11.4 | 25.1 | 114 |
| Switzerland | 10.8 | 23.7 | 108 |
| United Kingdom | 10.3 | 22.7 | 103 |
| Norway | 9.8 | 21.6 | 98 |
| Denmark | 8.6 | 18.9 | 86 |
| Austria | 7.9 | 17.4 | 79 |
| Estonia | 7.9 | 17.3 | 79 |
| France | 7.4 | 16.3 | 74 |
| Finland | 7.0 | 15.4 | 70 |
| Belgium | 6.8 | 15.0 | 68 |
| Sweden | 6.6 | 14.5 | 66 |
| Lithuania | 6.1 | 13.4 | 61 |
| Australia | 6.0 | 13.1 | 60 |
| United States | 5.1 | 11.2 | 51 |
| Poland | 4.5 | 10.0 | 45 |
| Greece | 4.5 | 9.9 | 45 |
| Portugal | 4.5 | 9.8 | 45 |
| Hungary | 3.5 | 7.7 | 35 |
| Spain | 3.3 | 7.3 | 33 |
| Italy | 3.3 | 7.2 | 33 |
| Brazil | 2.5 | 5.5 | 25 |
| Bulgaria | 2.2 | 4.9 | 22 |
| Japan | 2.2 | 4.7 | 22 |
Monday, November 15, 2010
Chocolate Value
As you've probably noticed, we do not consider price as a criterion in evaluating chocolate on this site. Our ratings and rankings are independent of price. However, we recognize that price is relevant and have always posted a list price for any chocolates that have them. For those that don't, we include a reference price for purchasing them online in the text of the review.
I thought it might be interesting to separately look at the relative prices of some of the chocolates we've reviewed. To that end, I added a best chocolate values page to this site that we will maintain as we continue to review chocolate bars.
Trader Joe's chocolates are, by far, the best deal, with the Pound Plus bars coming in at a mere 28 cents ($0.28) per ounce and the others well under $1 per ounce. At the other extreme is Domori's Porcelana bar, priced at almost $8 per ounce.
You can find the best chocolate values page by clicking the Chocolate Value link in the Pages section on the top right of the home page.
I thought it might be interesting to separately look at the relative prices of some of the chocolates we've reviewed. To that end, I added a best chocolate values page to this site that we will maintain as we continue to review chocolate bars.
Trader Joe's chocolates are, by far, the best deal, with the Pound Plus bars coming in at a mere 28 cents ($0.28) per ounce and the others well under $1 per ounce. At the other extreme is Domori's Porcelana bar, priced at almost $8 per ounce.
You can find the best chocolate values page by clicking the Chocolate Value link in the Pages section on the top right of the home page.
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
Criterion: Color
You may have noticed that we recently started using standard PANTONE colors rather than our previous light, light-medium, medium, medium-dark, and dark brown descriptions of color.
Lindy and I were both a bit frustrated using the darkness of browns as our description of the color of chocolates. We wanted to find a standard to use instead. We decided to choose a book rather than a website, because it is difficult to adjust monitors to display colors accurately.
We had high hopes that the PANTONE standard colors in The PANTONE Book of Color would provide complete and accurate color descriptions that could be referenced by anyone.
However even with this reference book, we found that the colors of chocolates do not often have exact matches among the standard colors. We're choosing what we think is the closest color, but as a result, multiple chocolates that have somewhat different colors end up labeled with the same standard color. Still, we feel the addition of PANTONE colors is definitely an improvement on our previous descriptions, and hope you think so, too.
Lindy and I were both a bit frustrated using the darkness of browns as our description of the color of chocolates. We wanted to find a standard to use instead. We decided to choose a book rather than a website, because it is difficult to adjust monitors to display colors accurately.
We had high hopes that the PANTONE standard colors in The PANTONE Book of Color would provide complete and accurate color descriptions that could be referenced by anyone.
However even with this reference book, we found that the colors of chocolates do not often have exact matches among the standard colors. We're choosing what we think is the closest color, but as a result, multiple chocolates that have somewhat different colors end up labeled with the same standard color. Still, we feel the addition of PANTONE colors is definitely an improvement on our previous descriptions, and hope you think so, too.
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
Cacao Trees
Cacao trees (Theobroma cacao L.) are divided into three morphological types: Criollo, Forastero, and Trinitario.
Criollo trees produce the most valuable beans, with better flavor and less bitterness than other types. Unfortunately, they are are vulnerable to disease and have lower bean yields. The lower yields mean that even with substantially higher Criollo bean prices, they generate less revenue for farmers than planting with Forastero or Trinitario. Criollo trees are grown primarily in Venezuela, Columbia, Comoros, Grenada, Jamaica, Java, Madagascar and Trinidad. Between 1% and 5% of the annual world production is Criollo.
Forastero trees are often subdivided into lower Amazon Forastero and upper Amazon Forastero in terms of genetics, but since the chocolate created from both Forastero varieties is generally considered inferior, they are simply called Forastero from a consumer perspective. Both types of Forastero produce higher bean yields and are much more resistant to disease than Criollo, and as a result, are used in most cacao plantations. They are grown in the Ivory Coast, Brazil, Cameroon, Columbia, Ecuador, French Guyana, Ghana, Guyana, Indonesia, Nigeria, Peru, São Tomé, Venezuela, and other countries of West Africa, South America, and Southeast Asia. Between 80% and 90% of the world production is Forastero.
Trinitario trees are a hybrid of Criollo and Forastero trees, originally from Trinidad, and are now grown in many countries, including Cameroon, Ecuador, Java, Lesser Antilles, Papua New Guinea, Samoa, Sri Lanka, and Venezuela. Acquiring much of the quality of Criollo and the increased yield and disease-resistance of Forastero, Trinitario has become a popular cacao tree among plantations selling to artisan chocolate makers. Between 10% and 20% of the world production is Trinitario.
A recent study published in 2008 suggests that the traditional division into three types of cacao trees does not accurately reflect their genetic diversity. Instead, they propose a new classification of 10 types: Amelonado, Contamana, Criollo, Curaray, Guiana, Iquitos, Marañon, Nanay, Nacional and Purús. Until such a change is widely accepted, I'll continue to use the traditional classification into Criollo, Forastero, or Trinitario.
Note: the ranges of values for world production are because I did not find reliable data, and instead combined data from multiple unconfirmed sources.
Criollo trees produce the most valuable beans, with better flavor and less bitterness than other types. Unfortunately, they are are vulnerable to disease and have lower bean yields. The lower yields mean that even with substantially higher Criollo bean prices, they generate less revenue for farmers than planting with Forastero or Trinitario. Criollo trees are grown primarily in Venezuela, Columbia, Comoros, Grenada, Jamaica, Java, Madagascar and Trinidad. Between 1% and 5% of the annual world production is Criollo.
Forastero trees are often subdivided into lower Amazon Forastero and upper Amazon Forastero in terms of genetics, but since the chocolate created from both Forastero varieties is generally considered inferior, they are simply called Forastero from a consumer perspective. Both types of Forastero produce higher bean yields and are much more resistant to disease than Criollo, and as a result, are used in most cacao plantations. They are grown in the Ivory Coast, Brazil, Cameroon, Columbia, Ecuador, French Guyana, Ghana, Guyana, Indonesia, Nigeria, Peru, São Tomé, Venezuela, and other countries of West Africa, South America, and Southeast Asia. Between 80% and 90% of the world production is Forastero.
Trinitario trees are a hybrid of Criollo and Forastero trees, originally from Trinidad, and are now grown in many countries, including Cameroon, Ecuador, Java, Lesser Antilles, Papua New Guinea, Samoa, Sri Lanka, and Venezuela. Acquiring much of the quality of Criollo and the increased yield and disease-resistance of Forastero, Trinitario has become a popular cacao tree among plantations selling to artisan chocolate makers. Between 10% and 20% of the world production is Trinitario.
A recent study published in 2008 suggests that the traditional division into three types of cacao trees does not accurately reflect their genetic diversity. Instead, they propose a new classification of 10 types: Amelonado, Contamana, Criollo, Curaray, Guiana, Iquitos, Marañon, Nanay, Nacional and Purús. Until such a change is widely accepted, I'll continue to use the traditional classification into Criollo, Forastero, or Trinitario.
Note: the ranges of values for world production are because I did not find reliable data, and instead combined data from multiple unconfirmed sources.
Friday, September 10, 2010
Criteria
What should I include in a review of chocolate?
I assumed that chocolate tasting would be rather straightforward, and I'd want to evaluate the appearance, aroma, and taste of the chocolate. However, after doing research on the web, I found that chocolate tasting is as complex as wine tasting. Some reviews include seemingly unusual criteria, such as the sound of the snap as you break off a piece or the feel of the surface of the chocolate. Reviews often break down taste into factors such as the flavor of the chocolate, how it melts in your mouth, the length of time that the flavor lasts, and the final aftertaste (called finish).
At this point, I'm not all that interested in the appearance or snap of the chocolate. I'll still try to observe those things, but please have patience that my appreciation and reviews will improve with practice and experience.
Here's the best guide I've found on how to review chocolate, on SeventyPercent.com.
First review coming soon...
I assumed that chocolate tasting would be rather straightforward, and I'd want to evaluate the appearance, aroma, and taste of the chocolate. However, after doing research on the web, I found that chocolate tasting is as complex as wine tasting. Some reviews include seemingly unusual criteria, such as the sound of the snap as you break off a piece or the feel of the surface of the chocolate. Reviews often break down taste into factors such as the flavor of the chocolate, how it melts in your mouth, the length of time that the flavor lasts, and the final aftertaste (called finish).
At this point, I'm not all that interested in the appearance or snap of the chocolate. I'll still try to observe those things, but please have patience that my appreciation and reviews will improve with practice and experience.
Here's the best guide I've found on how to review chocolate, on SeventyPercent.com.
First review coming soon...
Thursday, September 9, 2010
Not just the percentage
Up until a little over a year ago, I used to believe that good chocolate was measured simply by the proportion of cocoa in the chocolate. My favorite chocolate bars were the 85% and 70% bars from Green & Black's and Lindt that you could buy in some grocery stores.
I didn't consider that the type and quality of cocoa beans varies like that of coffee beans for coffee or grapes for wine, but of course it does.
Just as important to a chocolate bar are the other ingredients. In addition to cocoa solids, chocolate requires fat (best as cocoa butter) and a sweetener (typically sugar). Nearly all chocolates also use an emulsifier (to make the chocolate smoother, often in the form of lecithin) and flavoring (usually vanilla). Some chocolates also include other ingredients and flavorings (though the better chocolates seem not to).
I'm going to try to review and rate the chocolates I taste over the next 10 months. Admittedly, the rating part will be completely biased by my own preferences. Please note that the chocolates I taste here will be almost exclusively "dark" chocolates, with at least 50% cocoa solids, as those are the varieties I like best.
By the way, it turns out that Chocolopolis has its own blog.
I didn't consider that the type and quality of cocoa beans varies like that of coffee beans for coffee or grapes for wine, but of course it does.
Just as important to a chocolate bar are the other ingredients. In addition to cocoa solids, chocolate requires fat (best as cocoa butter) and a sweetener (typically sugar). Nearly all chocolates also use an emulsifier (to make the chocolate smoother, often in the form of lecithin) and flavoring (usually vanilla). Some chocolates also include other ingredients and flavorings (though the better chocolates seem not to).
I'm going to try to review and rate the chocolates I taste over the next 10 months. Admittedly, the rating part will be completely biased by my own preferences. Please note that the chocolates I taste here will be almost exclusively "dark" chocolates, with at least 50% cocoa solids, as those are the varieties I like best.
By the way, it turns out that Chocolopolis has its own blog.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)