I want candy... dun dada dada dun dun... I want candy

...and from what I understand, the Cadbury's made here isn't the same as it is over "there." And the stuff that is made over "there" is blooming by the time it hits out shelves. I don't believe Cadbury chocolate is ment to be gritty...
 
...and from what I understand, the Cadbury's made here isn't the same as it is over "there." And the stuff that is made over "there" is blooming by the time it hits out shelves. I don't believe Cadbury chocolate is ment to be gritty...

A slight divergence: there's a sizable amount of candy here that are marketed as "chocolaty" (because, legally, they can't say it contains chocolate) but don't contain much genuine chocolate. Its known as "Mockolate" among foodies: http://www.candyblog.net/blog/category/mockolate/

Mr. Goodbar's are a prime example. They used to be made with real chocolate, now they're made with mocolate to save money because I guess they're not exactly popular.
 
I heard that some cheap chocolate makers have now gone to extracting the cocoa butter and replacing it with cheaper palm oil. So watch out for the list of ingredients.
 
I heard that some cheap chocolate makers have now gone to extracting the cocoa butter and replacing it with cheaper palm oil. So watch out for the list of ingredients.

Yup, that's Mocklate in a nutshell.
 
are these sold anywhere but belgium?

dyn008_original_800_600_pjpeg_2567348_f228b7db89d469dc3fd93684ee7a53d3.jpg


they're kinda like sex...


We have them here

poiana_chokotof.jpg
 
Milka tastes of sugar.

Sugar is the main ingredient in every milk chocolate (except for the ones for people with diabetes). It's what makes milk chocolate taste like milk cocolate in the first place. Even the hardcore 99 % cocoa bitter sorts come with added sugar.

I'd like to see some people make a blind test and I would bet all the money I don't have, that they wouldn't be able to tell the difference between a 49-Cent Aldi chocolate and 2-Euro Lindt.

When they take away your other senses and your knowledge of what product you are consuming, it has some really astonishing results. I have seen farmers preferring cheap supermarket meat over their own "bio" meat in blind tests and bakermen prefer bread from a discounter over bread from a traditional craftmanship bakery.

Pride comes before the fall.

It's really not that easy and much of it comes down to ideology and what you believe. The whole wine industry for example, lives from irrationality and there is that myth about people being able to tell a wine and its year and brand only by its flavour. That is absolute rubbish. They might be lucky one day but fail the next. It is random luck.

Take away every sensation except the tongue in your mouth and strange things happen. My favourite example is the 1976 "Judgement of Paris", which marks a turning point in wine history, because it de-mystified the French wine once and for all and we wouldn't have good wine from Australia, New Zealand, Africa or South America today without it.

In essence you taste what you expect to taste. If you get a cheap slab of chocolate from the supermarket shelf, you expect nothing else than cheap chocolate and will taste cheap chocolate. I you wrap the same cheap chocolate in a fancy package, that says "handcrafted by naked virgins at full moon", it will immediately taste better to you.
 
Last edited:
Sugar is the main ingredient in every milk chocolate (except for the ones for people with diabetes). It's what makes milk chocolate taste like milk cocolate in the first place. Even the hardcore 99 % cocoa bitter sorts come with added sugar.

I'd like to see some people make a blind test and I would bet all the money I don't have, that they wouldn't be able to tell the difference between a 49-Cent Aldi chocolate and 2-Euro Lindt.

I'd be one who couldn't and if I could, wouldn't be able to pinpoint why. I'm unashamed in having the taste buds of a 7 year old. :p
 
Also, just because something tastes a certain way different from another, it doesn't mean that it's automatically inferior.
 
In essence you taste what you expect to taste. If you get a cheap slab of chocolate from the supermarket shelf, you expect nothing else than cheap chocolate and will taste cheap chocolate. I you wrap the same cheap chocolate in a fancy package, that says "handcrafted by naked virgins at full moon", it will immediately taste better to you.

if, in the end, you end up paying for fancy packaging but said fancy packaging makes the product more enjoyable to you (or taste better), wouldn't you in turn agree that the higher price was justified?
 
As long as I was oblivious to it, yes. Of course It would be justified.

But once I knew... no, not anymore.
 
LindtGold-Bunny.gif


Just ate one...
 
I'd like to see some people make a blind test and I would bet all the money I don't have, that they wouldn't be able to tell the difference between a 49-Cent Aldi chocolate and 2-Euro Lindt.

When they take away your other senses and your knowledge of what product you are consuming, it has some really astonishing results. I have seen farmers preferring cheap supermarket meat over their own "bio" meat in blind tests and bakermen prefer bread from a discounter over bread from a traditional craftmanship bakery.

Rubbish.
 
No, the truth. Sadly. You are being influenced by much more than just your taste buds. You might call it rubbish but you cannot get away from that -- if you are a human :p

Granted, your abilities to tell different flavours apart from each other, enhance a bit with age and experience but you will aways be susceptible to other influences, that have nothing to do with what you actually have in your mouth. And in essence you are quite powerless against the research labs of the modern food industry.

Or do you still believe, that a peach yogurt has a large enough amount of fruit in it to make it taste like peach?
 
Last edited:
No, the truth. Sadly. You are being influenced by much more than just your taste buds. You might call it rubbish but you cannot get away from that -- if you are a human :p
Of course. Our sense of "taste" relies heavily on smell.

That said, the idea you seem to be supporting that quality is irrelevant is simply wrong. Quality is not irrelevant, though some are better at detecting differences than others. Perhaps the better point is that price and prestige are not necessarily accurate indicators of quality. Some things are high quality but not necessarily high in cost, while others are high in cost or prestige but not necessarily high in quality. Wine is a fantastic example of this - there are poor wines that are cheap, good wines that are cheap, poor wines that are expensive, and good wines that are expensive.

Additionally, perception (the way food is presented, etc.) does have an impact. But to use that to say quality is irrelevant is ridiculous.
 
Yes, that is also a way to explain it :)

But a fact is also, that in a blind test they can make you eat "cheese", that never came from a cow or "ham", that was glued together with enzymes from leftovers. And you won't be able to detect it by taste or texture and might even prefer it over the natural stuff.
 
Or do you still believe, that a peach yogurt has a large enough amount of fruit in it to make it taste like peach?

i don't mind the "natural strawberry flavour" they extract from saw dust :p ... they didn't lie about natural - it's just misleading is what it is :dunno:
 
i don't mind the "natural strawberry flavour" they extract from saw dust :p ... they didn't lie about natural - it's just misleading is what it is :dunno:

The thing is, that you wouldn't be able to achieve the same result with using just strawberries. If you mix strawberries with raw yogurt and present it to people in a blind test, they will prefer the industrial stuff by far.
 
Top