Yeah, it's unclear from the article what the product is actually going to be composed of. 70% dark chocolate means basically 70% cocao and 30% sugar. Is it still going to be 30% sugar? It might not be cane sugar, but it'll still be sugar.
That's really not true. Or at least in europe, 70% chocolate contains 70% cocoa solids. The remaining 30% are mostly butter (cocoa butter or another type of fat) and can contain sugar and milk.
At least in the US to be called chocolate it has to be cocoa butter. Chocolate is an FDA regulated term. Hershey learned this lesson the hard way a few years back as they tried to change over to vegetable oil, IIRC. [1] Apparently in the UK it must be at least 20% cocoa solids.
Generally, manufacturers include the cocao butter in the percentage of cocao solids. And only low-grade chocolates would substitute another kind of fat.
Basically bakers chocolate. I remember finding some in the pantry as a kid. Hidden candy! Until I took a bite and the bitter crumbly taste of 100% dark hit me.
They probably use enzymes to breakdown some cellulose into fructose which is sweeter tasting than glucose or convert glucose to fructose, so they could add less sugar.
FTA:"... finding a way to alter the structure of sugar to boost its sweetening power" and then go on to say since it's sweeter they can use 40% less.
> They’re not adding any processed sugar, so they can make the “no added sugar” claim. They’re still adding sugar via another method.
To me the "no added sugar" pretty clearly encapsulates and is understood to be in-line with what is going on here. The most common place I can think of seeing that phrase in on packaging for fruit juice drinks, and I think it's pretty clearly understood that they still have plenty of sugar, and the only thing it really denotes is whether the product is more "natural" (in a marketing sense).
It's a broken world if you think this is good at base level.
Sugar is mass produced and very efficent. It'll use way less energy than this 'new' method.
It doesn't matter where the sugar comes from health wise, magic won't stop it giving you cancer. Unless it's is a different molecule?
The cocoa leftovers has a use, such as fertilizer, turning them into hipster food doesn't do much.
It might make it more a more interesting world, hipster is a hobby with as much value as most hobbies and it's less efficient, so increases consumption, which is good for economics.
Cacao pulp is delicious. It is interesting that we use the bitter seeds from the fruit, and mostly throw out the tasty pulp. If you are in San Francisco you can get cacao fruit smoothies from Dandelion Chocolate. I hope the pulp starts showing up in more food products instead of going to waste.
Traditionally the pulp is left on the beans during fermentation to impart flavor, and is basically used up in the process. It's mostly American style chocolate that removes the pulp before fermentation and throws it away, in order to... reduce flavor, I guess?
I think the majority of the hatred for Nestlé comes from their aggressive approach to selling baby formula in poor countries where (for various reasons) it wasn't appropriate, which probably directly harmed children as a result.
My number one reason to hate them is trying to privatise all drinking water and not believe water is a human right. But baby formula is a close second.
They're baby killers. That's not hyperbolic language.
See the Controversy section on their wikipedia, which touches on just a few of their issues (note that it's the largest section on the page, and is by no means exhaustive).
Have they really been throwing it away? The white 'fruit' is delicious... If you ever see a cocoa tree, try it. It's like a fruit that tastes like chocolate.
I remember in chemistry we learned the difference between ordinary, reagent grade sucrose and the fancy, organic, fair trade, whole wheat, gluten free sucrose. The fancy stuff was way better for you.
How can sucrose be "whole wheat"? And why would reagent grade sucrose have gluten in it? Sucrose usually comes from gluten-free sources, like sugar beets and cane, yes?
Looks like I'm being downvoted because I can't distinguish your humor from your being misinformed by your teacher.
I thought it was a lesson that that "reagent grade" is different from "food grade", Eq, https://www.spectrumchemical.com/OA_HTML/chemical-products_S... lists 99.9% purity, while commenting: "Sucrose, Ultrapure, also known as sugar, is derived from cane sugar and used as a food sweetener. Ungraded products supplied by Spectrum are indicative of a grade suitable for general industrial use or research purposes and typically are not suitable for human consumption or therapeutic use."
So I figured there was some common lab impurity in sucrose that your teacher was referring to, which you mistook for, or mis-remembered as gluten.
As you almost certainly know, "organic" and "fair trade" refer to farming and labor practices, which is independent of the chemical content. The latter may be better for your mental well-being, for those sensitive to humans subjected to terrible employment practices.
I'm well aware of the differences between the different grades of sugar. You're still not getting the OP's joke. Purities aside, all sucrose is just as good or bad for you health-wise as any other sucrose.
As you almost certainly know, organic and fair trade refers to farming and labor practices, which is independent of chemical content. This is why fair trade sugar isn't any better for you than non-fair trade sugar. The substance you're eating is the same.
"Purities aside"? My objection - and confusion - is precisely because when you buy "reagent grade sucrose", you don't actually buy 100% pure sucrose - you buy "sucrose with a small amount of impurities." And the impurities that are okay in a lab might not be healthy.
Yes, in retrospect I can see where the humor is supposed to be. But I think it isn't a good joke, for reasons I've described.
47 comments
[ 15.1 ms ] story [ 1200 ms ] thread“The food company is using a patented technique to turn the white pulp that covers cocoa beans into a powder that naturally contains sugar.”
They’re not adding any processed sugar, so they can make the “no added sugar” claim. They’re still adding sugar via another method.
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/09/business/worldbusiness/09...
FTA:"... finding a way to alter the structure of sugar to boost its sweetening power" and then go on to say since it's sweeter they can use 40% less.
Just replace "cocoa beans" with "sugar cane" and read it again.
processed sugar has a different colloquial meaning that has nothing to do with whether you found it like that on your farm
I think "natural" is the best most relatable term here
This sugar is very much processed. The difference is that they changed the recipe to stop removing this sugar.
I wouldn't call it 'added sugar'; it's like using whole milk directly instead of reducing it to 1% milk.
To me the "no added sugar" pretty clearly encapsulates and is understood to be in-line with what is going on here. The most common place I can think of seeing that phrase in on packaging for fruit juice drinks, and I think it's pretty clearly understood that they still have plenty of sugar, and the only thing it really denotes is whether the product is more "natural" (in a marketing sense).
https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/food/the-uncured-ba...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/business/hershe...
Sugar is mass produced and very efficent. It'll use way less energy than this 'new' method.
It doesn't matter where the sugar comes from health wise, magic won't stop it giving you cancer. Unless it's is a different molecule?
The cocoa leftovers has a use, such as fertilizer, turning them into hipster food doesn't do much.
It might make it more a more interesting world, hipster is a hobby with as much value as most hobbies and it's less efficient, so increases consumption, which is good for economics.
I'd be surprised if it is truly wasted. Most likely it servers some other useful purpose. Fertilizer or fuel are two uses I can think of.
However, according to this page, there are other reasons too: https://www.zmescience.com/science/nestle-company-pollution-...
"probably directly harmed children" - report after report from (respected) NGOs and the WHO concluded babies died. No "probably", beyond "harmed".
See the Controversy section on their wikipedia, which touches on just a few of their issues (note that it's the largest section on the page, and is by no means exhaustive).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nestl%C3%A9#Controversy_and_cr...
That was not only in California.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coffee_cherry_tea
(That it’s a component of cocoa beans doesn’t necessarily mean it’s permitted in chocolate as an unlisted component.)
I thought it was a lesson that that "reagent grade" is different from "food grade", Eq, https://www.spectrumchemical.com/OA_HTML/chemical-products_S... lists 99.9% purity, while commenting: "Sucrose, Ultrapure, also known as sugar, is derived from cane sugar and used as a food sweetener. Ungraded products supplied by Spectrum are indicative of a grade suitable for general industrial use or research purposes and typically are not suitable for human consumption or therapeutic use."
(What is "reagent grade" for sucrose? Sigma-Aldrich's "ACS reagent grade" sucrose is only promising ≥99% purity (see https://www.sigmaaldrich.com/catalog/substance/sucrose342305... ).
So I figured there was some common lab impurity in sucrose that your teacher was referring to, which you mistook for, or mis-remembered as gluten.
As you almost certainly know, "organic" and "fair trade" refer to farming and labor practices, which is independent of the chemical content. The latter may be better for your mental well-being, for those sensitive to humans subjected to terrible employment practices.
As you almost certainly know, organic and fair trade refers to farming and labor practices, which is independent of chemical content. This is why fair trade sugar isn't any better for you than non-fair trade sugar. The substance you're eating is the same.
Yes, in retrospect I can see where the humor is supposed to be. But I think it isn't a good joke, for reasons I've described.