stories : Feature
If It Ain’t Dark, It Ain’t Chocolate
The new breed of chocolate snobs
Not long ago, Seth Wolf’s wife found something in her husband’s possessions that shocked her. Was this the man she knew? Was he harboring a dastardly secret? No, Wolf didn’t have lipstick on his collar or a hotel receipt in a phony name. He simply had a bar of milk chocolate stashed away.
Wolf adores dark chocolate, his wife knew, and looks down upon the dairy-tinged version of his favorite confection as a lower-quality food, indeed as trash. So what was he doing slummin’ it? Wolf explained that he’d bought the bar for a friend. And you better believe he was telling the truth.
The number of Americans who, like Wolf, prefer dark chocolate to milk almost doubled from 1991 to 2003. Industry types such as John Scharffenberger, cofounder of the eponymous high-end chocolate company now owned by Hershey, say dark-chocolate-lovers are actually growing at a rate of 25 percent a year. The boom is fueled by studies trumpeting the antioxidants in dark, an exploding variety of new artisanal chocolate bars, savvy marketing, and good old-fashioned elitism. And with it, a culture of snobbery has grown.
It starts with cacao percentage. Several years ago, specialty chocolatiers like Scharffen Berger began printing it on their labels. The number, a combined total by weight of cocoa solids and cocoa butter, reflects the percentage of ingredients derived purely from the cacao bean. So, the higher percentage of stuff from the bean, the lower the amount of other ingredients, like, say, sugar. Consumers began equating higher cacao percentage with better quality, because as Scharffenberger explains, “If you’re putting less sugar in it, the cacao’s gotta be pretty good. You can’t make an 80 percent out of crummy cacao—you won’t be able to eat it.”
But percentage-mongers are only partly right. “It’s not always the amount of cacao content—it’s really the bean profile and where it’s grown and how it’s fermented that dictates its intensity, its level of acidity, and its astringency,” says upscale-chocolate-maker Michael Recchiuti. “And also the roast time. There are a lot of those elements that play into percentage wars. We have an 85 percent bar, and everybody says it tastes like 65. It’s very smooth, and low in acid, and very fruity.”
Try telling that to Elissa, an editor from Sausalito, California, who asked that her last name not be used to protect her privacy. She won’t eat anything less than 87 percent. Her friends who do are “sugarholics,” she says, disdainfully.
It’s getting to the point, says David Lebovitz, that whenever this pastry chef and cookbook author leads a chocolate tasting, everyone asks him what percentages the samples are.
“Americans like high numbers,” says Lebovitz. “That’s why we haven’t switched to the metric system: 40 degrees is not exciting; 110 degrees is!”
Wine for Dummies
Adding fuel to the fire are the chocolate-makers themselves. Borrowing language from the wine world, many high-end producers are trumpeting their beans as single origin, even if the origin is an entire country like Venezuela; printing the year (called the vintage just like wine) that the beans were harvested on the label; and producing limited edition bars, made in small batches from one harvest.
“You can choose a terroir and vintage and if you taste carefully, you’ll be able to taste something of the country where the cocoa beans were grown,” reads the website of producer Chocolove.
But the analogy only sorta works. Like grapes, cocoa beans reflect the soil and weather conditions where they were grown. But you’ll have to have a great memory if you want to compare different years from the same producer.
“There’s a reason why you can’t find a flight of chocolates from 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006,” says Clay Gordon, editor of chocolate blog chocophile.com. “By the time you get the 2006 and produce it, the 2003 is way past its peak.”
Wine ages. Chocolate rots.
Milk Is for Amateurs
Milk chocolate, meanwhile, has taken a kneecapping at the hands of those who view it as an adulterated and diluted version of “the real thing,” and others who fail to discriminate between waxy mass-market candy bars and high-quality milk chocolate.
People who like milk chocolate, says Gordon, author of an upcoming book on the confection, “have become the white-Zinfandel drinkers of the chocolate world.” The lighter the chocolate, the thinking goes, the less sophisticated it is.
“I have had people come in embarrassed,” says Adam Smith, owner of San Francisco newsstand and chocolate shop Fog City News. “They’ll sorta look around and say in a low voice, ‘Uh, I actually like milk chocolate, but my friends say I shouldn’t like it.’”
Smith, Recchiuti, Gordon, and Lebovitz all believe dark-chocolate snobs are missing out on some darn good chocolate.
“There are nuances to milk chocolate that you can never achieve with dark chocolate,” says Recchiuti. “The milk adds a different dimension to the flavor. And if you can really taste the cacao—as opposed to the first things hitting your palate being sugar and milk—then it becomes interesting.”
Recently, Smith was invited to lead a blind chocolate tasting at the Berkeley Chocolate Club in Berkeley, California. Smith was well aware that the group had a rule about only tasting dark chocolate (because most of the members like it better). However, after stealthily confirming that nobody had an allergy to dairy, Smith secretly slipped a milk chocolate sample into the lineup.
When the club members tasted the plant, there were gasps and cries of “This is very interesting!” “Cinnamon notes!” “A cheesy quality!” One person exclaimed, “Oh my God!” When Smith told them it was milk chocolate, the members amiably admitted they should, says Smith, “open their eyes to it.”
To date, the Berkeley Chocolate Club continues to taste only dark chocolate.
I'm not a big chocolate eater, but since I prefer a dark, complex, bittersweet or semisweet chocolate to a smarmy, insipid milk chocolate, then I guess I am a chocolate snob after all. I just didn't realize it until I read this article, or did I? I do think of milk chocolate eaters as the kind of people who won't try sushi or green tea ice cream, or think of valencia oranges as sour rather than a sweet, tart riot in your mouth, or order deep-fried food wherever they go. In other words, I think of them as having an "infantile palate". Food snob I admit to, but wasn't really aware of the level of snobbery associated with chocolate until just this minute! Thanks- I think.
What do I think?--mostly I think people are nuts, as this article and the first comment prove. I enjoy chocolate in many forms--dark when I'm in the mood for a pure chocolate "hit"; milk when I'm in the mood for something sweet and dessert-ish. Obviously, there are better and worse qualities of both available. Oh, and EWSflash, fyi I also have tried, and dislike, green tea ice cream, have never had the opportunity the try a valencia orange, but would love to, and order fried food on occasion. I also don't ridicule other people. Call me infantile.
Valencia oranges are a standard orange variety in the US and the one mostly commonly used for juice -- very few people have never eaten one. I think EWSFlash meant Seville oranges, which are sour.
My Mom has become a dark chocolate snob -- so much so that her revisionist history is that she never liked milk chocolate. Personally, I think people who have a fetish about the cocoa solids percentage in their chocolates probably have insensitive palattes -- they can't taste chocolate unless they're hit over the head with it. I'm very sensitive to bitter flavors, and I find most ultra-high cocoa solids chocolates unpleasantly bitter and almost invariable dry. Give me a smooth, melting, well-balanced 65 percent dark any day.
What this article failed to explore is the amazing milk chocolate that is on the market now. My favortie chocolate is the Slitti Lattenero bar (latte = milk; nero = dark), that comes in different varieties up to 70 percent cacao, but the milk really rounds out the flavors. I actually think their 60 or 50 percent lattenero is better than the 70 percent. But other than that I generally prefer dark chocolate, so I recommend chocolate snobs try it!
MommaJ, please don't take offense. And please don't fling it about, either. Almost everybody orders fried food sometimes, because it's tasty, and you aren't obligated to like green tea ice cream. Do you ever order anything BESIDES breaded deep fried food? That's what I was talking about when I said infantile palate.
My mother-in-law, who is a truly beautiful human being, has valencia trees in her Phoenix yard. I've never had such good oranges, they're so complex and strong-tasting and sweet and just a little bit of underlying tartness. They sometimes send my salivary glands into spasm,they're so full of flavor. She thinks they're sour and likes navel oranges that I think are insipid and boring. We agree to disagree, no big deal.
Seville oranges are most definitely sour, but they're great for marinades, dressings, and orangeade, but you have to sweeten it with something or your face will turn inside out unless you like really, REALLY tart flavors.
I neither know nor care what the ingredient ratios in chocolate are- only whether it tastes good or not. And I don't eat it often
"My Mom has become a dark chocolate snob -- so much so that her revisionist history is that she never liked milk chocolate."
Ruth, perhaps our moms were twins, separated at birth- the revisionist history angle is a great observation. My mom was a wine snob- she only drank Carlo Rossi chablis, until she switched to one inexpensive brand of sauvignon blanc that she drank from then on and refused to acknowledge the Carlo Rossi years. ;-)
My chocolate taste has been a journey. As a kid, I loved milk chocolate (MC), and in Canada, I think our bars were even sweeter and milkier than US bars. I remember my first Hershey bar, and thinking "Man, that's bitter". Anyone who's been to Canada and tried a Neilson "Dairy Milk" bar will know exactly what I mean.
Then I went through a stage where it was about caramel - the classic "Caramilk" bar (little pockets of caramel surrounded by MC), or the "Oh Henry" - a log of caramel studded with peanuts and enrobed in MC. Finally, I moved on to chocolate with fruit and/or nuts. When I got there, I noticed I was starting to prefer the darker chocolate. For example, I used to love "Mars" bars (that caramel thing again), but I fell in love all over when they introduced "Mars Dark".
Then I found out I was diabetic and most chocolate is now a no-no. The exception is high-cocoa dark chocolate, so I tried a few. I have to confess, the 85 is too dark and bitter for me, but a 70 tastes very good, and when that's about all the chocolate you're allowed, you savour every bite (not allowed more than 2 squares a day).
In a way, I find my chocolate progression matched my alcohol progression. When I started drinking in my mid-20's, it was B-52's and Brandy Alexanders. In my early 30's, it was vodka and oj, and white wine spritzers. By the time I reached my mid-30's, it was scotch, bourbon, or brandy with only ice or water, and Bordeaux reds. And now that I'm diabetic, it's none of the above.
I believe I read somewhere that as people age, the taste buds that respond to sweetness become less sensitive; perhaps that's why our tastes migrate to the bitter and tart as we get older?
"I think of them as having an 'infantile palate.'" "please don't take offense."
Hilarious.
I think of a food snob as someone who enjoys the self-congradulatory feeling associated with experiencing quality rather than the experience of quality itself. Eat whatever you like!
Kevin, interesting observation- you may be on to something.
Sorry about the diabetes- may you stay in good health.
Platypus, it looks like I'll never get anywhere near your good side from now on, so I won't try. Have a great day.
KevinB, I agree that you're on to something.
I grew up on Hersheys Milk Choco, but now I prefer a 70+ cocoa content. Don't think it's snobbishness, just tastebuds.
Ditto for drinks. Started off on Zima (shudder) but over time it went to wine coolers then beer, then rum&coke, then gin &tonic then vodka tonics and finally red wine.
Coffee started off as mochas with whipped cream and over time have been reduced to americanos with a touch of cream and sugar. Tonight I had espresso straight up b/c it tasted sweet enough as is.
Plus I've developed a taste for sour patch kids - and i hated them years ago!
I think it's ridiculous to create a hierarchy based on something as personal as taste. Milk, dark, whatever! I've enjoyed both, and generally prefer milk, quite frankly, but then, I'm not a huge chocolate nut. Give me toffee anyday. Or pralines.
What do you think drives snobbery? IMNSVHO snobbery is all about fear--fear of being ridiculed. So, snobs frantically adhere to what they think their tribe approves of, lest they be found "inferior" and drummed out of the herd.
I'm learning about wine, it's a subject complex enough I'll never master it and yet it rewards even the smallest effort. Wine snobs are a hazard, yet they get their comeuppance.
Recently, the Sturdy Wench and I attended a dinner and chardonnay blind tasting. We couldn't afford the high-end wine we thought it would take to win (winner(s) got their meal comped) so I punted and picked up a bottle of Kali Heart, normally a $10 wine, on sale for $8. Other people brought much more expensive wines.
Guess whose wine won? LOL, bingo! No one was more surprised than we were. Our Kali Heart beat out wines costing 3-5 times as much.
Chocolate snobs, as seen in the anecdote about the Berkeley tasting, get their comeuppance just as much.
I'll paraphrase the cajun cooking show host Justin Wilson:
"Whatever chocolate you like best, that's the right one to eat."
Geez......since when do we judge people on the color of their chocolate? I hope it's all said in a playful fun manor. Just because someone prefers milk chocolate doesn't mean they never tried dark. I used to be a dark chocolate person and I do still like it in on ocassion....but I think I burned out on it and now I like the creaminess of good quality milk chocolate. So sue me!
Part of the process of the refinement of the palate, I believe, besides actual maturation of preferences, has to do with the decline in the number of taste buds we have as we age - so, one may prefer a nice single malt scotch or an 87% dark chocolate when they're middle-aged not only because they're more refined, but because they can't taste as acutely as they used to and these items now seem more subtle and nuanced than they did earlier in their lives.
The best dark chocolate I have ever had was from the Grenada Chocolate Company on the island of Grenada. As a self confessed chocolate snob (I once told a WSJ reporter that my husband eats white chocolate but I have learned to overlook that flaw in his character - it was a very slow news week), I have tried some of the new milk chocolate out there. While it is good, for me, there is nothing like the sharpness of good dark, savorable chocolate.
There is absolutely no direct, consistent, relationship between cocoa content and chocolate quality. 70 percent is just a number. All it does is refer to the total quantity of cacao-derived ingredients in a chocolate. It says nothing about how a chocolate tastes and whether or not you will like the taste of any particular chocolate.
Choosing chocolate based on cocoa content is like choosing vodka based on proof. 86-proof vodka is not better than 80-proof vodka just because it has three percent more alcohol. There is a lot more to chocolate than cocoa content just as there is a lot more to vodka than alcohol content.
People who insist on setting a minimum cocoa content for edibility are missing out on a wide range of very interesting chocolates including the Felchlin Cru Sauvage (made from Bolivian beans that are harvested from feral trees), which weighs in at "only" 68%. It is, according to everyone I know that has ever tasted it, truly one of the great chocolates ever made. Felchlin also makes a 64% Madagascar and a 65% Venezuelan in their Grand Cru line that also need to be tried. The 65% was voted "Best Couverture in the World" in 2004.
From another perspective, the Pralus Vanuatu is a very challenging chocolate usually with a lot of smokiness, acidity, and astringency. It passes "the 70% test" but most people do not like it at all. [While it is not one of my favorite chocolates, I have the experience to appreciate it and never turn it down when offered.] There are many, many chocolates that fall into the category of passing "the 70% test" that are also challenging chocolates that need thoughtful attention in order to appreciate. The analog is a very peaty single-malt scotch like Laphroaig. I did not like it at all on first taste but as I tasted more and more single-malts I came to appreciate it. I still don't drink it often, I have to be in the right frame of mind.
As a professional chocolate critic and educator, as far as chocolate snobbery goes, I don't think that there is any room for it. There is what I like (and don't like) and there is what you like (and don't like). Snobbery is about acting on the emotional need to feel superior to someone (and making someone feel inferior) because their tastes are not the same as yours. Not worse - just different.
Rather than focusing on percentage, it's important to focus on taste and mouth feel and developing the confidence to eat any chocolate that you like. Rather than being a close-minded snob you can feel good about being open-minded and adventurous and eating chocolate that tastes good to you - without shame or regret, but with sublime satisfaction - regardless of the amount of cocoa it contains.
Clay Gordon
author, Discover Chocolate (avail. Oct 18, 2007)
editor, chocophile.com
Ah, the food snob, what a rotten breed! 'Tis all about the satisfaction it gives you, so if you love milk chocolate, I say go for it! The obsession with higher numbers is silly, personally I find 85-87% cacao content to be totally unpalatable, but that's my palate, YPMV.
But the Bay Area is interesting, as usual. We have far more dark chocolate lovers than milk, that has been true forever, I guess it fits better our continental image. Nowadays you can get so many different types of chocolates with all sorts of crazy flavors like chiles and violets. It's definitely not all good, but some of it is very good, let your palate be your judge. And at worst, its still chocolate. There are super local chocolatiers like the ones mentioned, plus Guittard, Ghirardelli, Joseph Schmidt, and I love discovering all new favorites, like at Fog City News. In the end, a passion for chocolate is definitely a good thing, and it really is just a renaissance.
Personally, I'll find that just as soon as I get "into" something it is as-if the whole world gets into it. (Am I a trend setter, or a crowd follower? Who knows.) Eitherway, I too, grew up eating crappy hershy's m&m's and other asorted junks around the holidays (christmas, all hallow's eve,) and now I find that the only way I can really enjoy chocholate anymore is if its more of a savory food, rather than a sweet, which is nice since now its kind of the "trend". This morning I injested a ancho-chili blended mexican mocha at a local coffee house, and I must say it was one of the most satisfy-ing and interesting drinks I've had in recent times.
But I do find it interesting that, like most mentioned, chocolate is gaining a new culture about it, that mirrors the wine crowd, but I cannot help like feeling its one of those things that's going to pass...
I've always loved dark chocolate, and I was always the loner in my family in asking for dark chocolate assortments rather than mixed or milk. I simply prefer the taste of it. What I don't like these days are many of in the single origin chocolates, especially those with too high a cacao count -- they taste like chalk, to be honest. I'm also not crazy about mixing particular flavors with chocolate just to be hip. I had rosemary and basil filled chocolates recently that were just stinking awful.
But when I find good dark chocolate, from places as varied as Mrs. See's, Trader Joe's and Edelweiss Chocolates, I'm as happy as can be. One of my happiest recent discoveries was a little shop in Paris called Reine Astrid, and I only wish I had brought home twice as much. They were just little chocolate squares, but the flavor was fantastic. And that's what it's all about, anyway, something really enjoyable. The health benefits are nice to know, but it's like a good red wine versus a mediocre one. I'd rather drink a good one, and I'd rather eat dark chocolate that I like.
People are always trying to differentiate themselves from the rest. For a growing number of folks, chocolate is just another vehicle for doing that.
asq749d, I think you've hit it on the head.
my attempts at eating Lindt 87% the other night were such that it took me 45 minutes to eat one square, while my friend could easily finish off the bar. I don't think chocolate snobbery is in my future.
What I prefer is High quality chocolate of ALL types. I can't stnd chocolate that is too bitter, though.
It all depends upon what one craves. A good milk or white chocolate can be just as flavorful and delicious as a dark in the hands of the right chocolatier.
Thank god for Europe, where people are less silly about these things. Fine belgian chocolate makers make confections from all sorts of chocolates and are proud of all of them.
I imagine the dark snobbery comes from the idea started long back that dark is healthier for you. well, it sorta is.
Yes, I love the fancy gourmet dark my husband brings home, but he better remember to bring a little milk and some white (my fave!)
then again, now and again a good cadbury's egg or flake hits the spot!
This is a hot topic right now, and I lately gave my two cents worth on my chocolate blog. Dark, milk, percentage high or low-- what matters is the quality of the chocolate. Many great chocolates will be missed with too many limitations.