Talk:Chocolate/Archive 1

Origin?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cocoa states it's native of the andes and the orinoco basin and that it was imported to mexico by the mayas. This article says it's native to central america and Mexico. So, which one is true? consistency is needed.DamianFinol 19:18, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Joseph Frys
There have been several Joseph Frys associated with chocolate, so it's easy to see how one could get mixed up. To the best of my knowledge Joseph Storrs Fry invented Fry's Cocoa, the famous brand of hot chocolate (though the drink had been around before that). It was his grandson, just "Joseph Fry", who invented bar chocolate.

The younger Fry was on my list of people to write up, so let me advance him in the schedule and start some research. -- Paul Drye

What was Fry doing?
There is a story about Fry's aparent intentions. Fry was based in Bristol, UK. He was making drinking chocolate out of the cocoa solids, and was pouring away the cocoa butter. This is all known. Aparently, he was told by the local council to stop blocking the drains with something the local rats found tasty, and so had to think of some alternative method of disposing of it. Logically, he tried to combine it with the solids - why throw something away when you can sell it to people? Aparently, this yielded a not altogether excellent chocolate bar - aparently the sugar came later.

This story requires verification.

In the Spanish missionary quote, "Chocolaté" is spelled with an accent on the final "e". It's not spelled this way in modern Spanish, and a simple Spanish rendering of the Indian word would certainly not have it. Is that exact from the source? --Lee Daniel Crocker A date on this source might be a good addition to the article also --rmhermen


 * I got the quote from the source listed at the bottom of the page. Sorry, I have no further information. The source says he lived in Peru in the last half of the 15th century, but how knows if he said that at age 98 back in Spain or something.


 * Well, I can help you out a little there -- Jose de Acosta started living in Mexico in 1585, and died in 1600. Even better, assuming the quote is from the books he wrote, is that his books were all published between 1588 and 1590. -- Paul Drye


 * Hmmmm. And the Exploratorium says he lived in Peru. What is your source? And did he die in the Americas or return to Europe? --Dmerrill


 * Never mind. The Catholic Encyclopeda http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01108b.htm has the full story. --Dmerrill

First recorded shipment of chocolate
"The first recorded shipment of chocolate to the new world for commercial purposes was in a shipment from Veracruz? to Seville? in 1585." To the new world?

What's the source on this? Seville makes sense, it was a center of trade with the new world, and the early Spanish writers on chocolate (Hernandez, Barrios) were Sevillianos, but I'm having trouble finding accurate sources on when trade began.

I don't know if this is helpful to you at all, but on another acurate site, I discovered that chocolate was discovered by Cortés in 1521 and collected as spoils of war when Cortés conquered the Aztecs. From then on, cacao was transported to Europe with the help of enslaved Mesoamericans. Smartestbrunette 23:21, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree with Larry that the word "chocolate" usually refers to candy in English. All of the dictionaries I checked define the word as the ground paste, "...usually mixed with sugar..." or some words to that effect. Even if most of us mean that bar stuff when we use the word, terms like "unsweetened chococlate" or "baker's chocolate" and "milk chocolate" imply that the word itself does not imply that particular form, even in the minds of English speakers. I've also heard the unadorned term used to refer to the beverage many times, but to be honest, that may be a California thing (since we have a lot of Mexican culture here, and the word there almost always refers to the drink). --LDC - Well, I'm talking about English, not dictionaries of English. Dictionaries often list the original uses of a term first, just for clarity; but why does that mean we should list the relatively obscure origin of the term first? Why not save that for later? --LMS

I agree, the first-listed sense of a term in a dictionary is not always the popular one; but several of the dictionaries I looked at don't list "candy" as a sense at all, first or otherwise. They say that chocolate is often sweetened to make candy, but they don't recognize that as a sense of the word. Most of them list the beverage as a sense, many of them list the color, many of them mention the specifically filled candies, and they all mention the ground bean paste. WWWebster is typical; it lists 4 senses: (1) the beverage, (2) "a food prepared from ground roasted cacao beans", (3) candies made with a filling and chocolate coating, and (4) the color.

Now sense (3) is not the definition you are offering--it specifically refers to the things one gets in a box of "chocolates". What you are suggesting is that the edible sweetened stuff that coats them, and that is often sold as a candy by itself, is the primary sense. Maybe its an American/British thing, but that's not my impression, and that's not what the dictionaries I looked at imply. Yes, Americans do call that rectangular thing from Hershey's a "chocolate bar", but to my ears that's using "chocolate" as an adjective (which is another sense many dictionaries list) meaning "containing chocolate" (and sugar, and milk, ...).

However it does seem very odd to talk about chocolate as being candy. Candy is almost pure sugar and slowly dissolves in your mouth whereas chocolate is mostly fat and quickly melts in your mouth. They are very different products -- Derek Ross

In Canadian and, I believe, British English, the unsweetened powder is "cocoa". Chocolate -- as a noun -- is the edible solid stuff. Some confusion arises because "Chocolate" is also used as an adjective, in which case it takes on wider meanings. -- Paul Drye

As a Briton, I'd agree with Paul on that -- Derek Ross

OK, I can see how chocolate might not be regarded as a candy, but it certainly is a kind of sweet. Anyway, in Russia, Germany, and the United States (the three countries where I've bought chocolate bars), my impression was certainly that "chocolate" (or the cognates) primarily referred to the sweet that goes into making a chocolate bar. --LMS

Toblerone
Since this is a topic near and dear to my heart and since it's immediately after Christmas and I am just home from the office, I have numerous examples at hand for which I can examine the ingredients lists and descriptions.

A Toblerone is described on the package as "Swiss Milk Chocolate with Honey and Almond Nougat". Take away the honey and nougat and you're left with the solid edible, and they're calling it "chocolate".

Real chocolate ice cream topping from the local purveyor of fine foods; ingredients reads "sugar, cream, cocoa, etc." with nary a breath of "chocolate". I presume the cocoa refers to the unsweetened powder, as a tin of Fry's Cocoa *is* the dried poweder and lists only two ingredients: "cocoa, sodium bicarbonate". So it's not "chocolate" by their definition.

There's also the interesting boundary case of the white chocolate buttons in my baking cupboard. While sorely lacking in cocoa, they're still called "chocolate" (though the ingredients listing feels in necessary to apologetically list what goes into the stuff in more detail). Solid and edible again (though only marginally the latter in my opinion).

This is all intended more as evidence for further discussion than argument.-- Paul Drye

Daniel C. Boyer: Regarding chocolate coulage, please stop adding it to this page. The only net references to "chocolate coulage" all point to you. I don't think you can be objective about it. It is, at the very least, self-aggrandizing and indirect advertizing of your own artistic works. Daniel Quinlan 21:53 28 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Does this addition by Daniel C. Boyer really belong on this page? Searching for "heraldry chocolate" on Google only found a lot of novelty edible candy items and the Wikipedia heraldry page does not list every last color used in heraldry,


 * You really misunderstand heraldry, or at least you misunderstand what I am saying. "Chocolate" is not a heraldic colour; the shade in which a colour is depicted in heraldry is immaterial and just an artistic matter.  "Chocolate" is the dark shade of gules in which heraldic artists usually painted gules in a particular period.  --Daniel C. Boyer 14:52, 6 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * Because I didn't use precise terminology does not mean I really misunderstand heraldry. Fine, I should have said "shade of color" rather than "color".  That only further indicates that this really belongs on the heraldry page.  In addition to what I said before, I think the distinction between whether or not chocolate is a shade of gules or a color in its own right is confusing, especially as this isn't even explained on the heraldry page.  Place it there.  Daniel Quinlan 18:26, Aug 6, 2003 (UTC)

just the major ones. I see no reason why it should be in this article. If anything, it should be on the heraldry page or a history of heraldry page.


 * Chocolate is a particular shade in which gules is painted in heraldry; it was fashionable to depict gules in coats-of-arms in this shade in the 17th century.  It should be noted that in the science of armory it is not important in what particular shade a given colour or metal is painted.

Daniel Quinlan 22:00, Aug 3, 2003 (UTC)

European rules
The "European rules" seem to be incorrect. It must be 35% (25%) cocoa liquor or perhaps even just cocoa--I don't know which is right, and coudn't google out the regulations. I believe it cannot be "cocoa solids" (as it is now), because a 60%-cocoa dark chocolate would have much less solids than that (cocoa = solids+cocoa butter = 60%). --Glimz 05:00, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)

Cocoa liquor is simply roasted, ground and melted cocoa beans, nothing more or less. Typically to make "chocolate" one has to add more fat (in the form of cocoa butter) along with sugar and an emulsifier (plus milk, if that's your thing), but yes cocoa liquor is nothing more than melted, ground up cocoa nibs. And yes, I'm an authority on this. ;) --MUSpud2 16:56, 25 May 2006

There should probably be something about the British chocolate controversy here. In fact it'd be a good idea to list varieties of chocolate associated with different parts of the world more generally, as I'm sure 'milk chocolate' and its synonyms mean different things in different places. Incompetent 17:57, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I think it is cocoa solids, because bars of chocolate I buy say '_% cocoa solids'. Some say '60% cocoa solids', none say '60% cocoa'. Skittle 08:48, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Interesting article
Someone might have some use for this... : http://www.physorg.com/news1208.html This is some sort of scientific analysis of chocolate, but it's a bit beyond me.. Rhymeless 01:18, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I dont get it.

The picture
(William M. Connolley 19:02, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)) Someone else may know better, but I don't think the piccy is a sculpture. Its a "fountain".

Tempering
The melting point of cocoa butter lies at about 33 degrees C. So, IMHO it cannot be correct that they reheat the melting to 37 degrees C in tempering process.

The melting point of pure substances often chances when things are put into them as a suspension or dissovled in. That's why we grit the roads during winter - it lowers the freezing point of the water to lower than the ambient temperature, meaning the ice melts and the roads are safer.

As to the melting point used during tempering, the article is nearly correct. The actual temperature used varies depending on the type of chocolate in use. The lower the cocoa solids content, the lower the temperature used. When I was working as a chocolatier for Barry-Callebaut, the process was as follows:

- Melt 70% of the chocolate you'll need at 37 centigrade - Bring the temperature down to 2 degrees centigrade below the operating temperature you will use by adding the other 30% of the chocolate drops you will be using - Set the temperature on the machine to the operating temperature (2 degrees hotter than the mix is currently).

The operating temperature was different for different types of chocolate - the belgian dark chocolate was operated at 35 centigrade, the milk at 34, and the white at 33.

When poured into a mould, chocolate should be allowed to cool in the air - it shrinks as it does so, so the mould doesn't need any coating prevent it from sticking to the mould.

Chocolate also behaves like glass - if it is cooled very quickly it retains some liquid properties. Here's something to try at home to show this - you will need a slab of something smooth (a marble cheese board is ideal for this), a spatula and some chocolate to melt. - Place the marble cheese board in the freezer for an hour or two (or just pour liquid nitrogen on it, if you happen to have that handy). - Melt some chocolate, and keep at around body temperature. - Pour the melted chocolate onto the frozen cheeseboard, and spread to a few millimetres thick with the spatula. It should cease looking wet very quickly, and when it does so, it's too late to spread it further.

This chocolate is now "set", but should still be easily bendable. Personally, I make a lattice out of white and dark chocolate to curl over the top of a slice of homemade cheesecake to serve for desert, but then i'm a bit of a show-off - it's also great fun for the kids to do, and then they get to eat bendy chocolate. -- rik

At kitchen you always have some already hardened chocolate. You need not temper the melting if you just drop some hard pieces of chocolate into the melting whilst cooling down to somewhat below the melting point (32 degrees C) Then fish out the rests of the hard pieces and your melt will cristallize fastly and perfectly at room --62.253.148.52 01:41, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The method described there tempers the chocolate by melting the type 1 to 5 crystals, then fishing out the type 6 crystals. This is a "wasteful" method - industry prefers somply to melt the type 6 crystals, and then not allow them to reform. for the kitchen, however, this is a very simple method with a guarenteed result. Note also that less choolate is needed than the industrial method, which needs to melt around three quarters of a kilogramme of chocolate to start the process up properly. -- rik

Am I right in saying that you do not believe chocolate as chocolate? Cadbury was the first chocolate make in the UK and just because it's mass produced on a factory line it does not mean it's not made from the same staple chocolate ingredients as other more refined chocolate from countries such as Switzerland. Cadbury's is still regarded as chocolate from the people who eat it, and that is all that really matters. JP


 * When I was flying from RSW to CLE on USA-3000, the inflight entertainment included a special on chocolate. Intrestingly, This mostly covered the scientific properties of chocolate. Anyway, my point is that it was mentioned that Hershey's was commitioned to make chocolate for the troops in Afganistan. The tempering process was modified to produce chocolate that did not melt till, I think it was, 130 degrees F. LexieM 06:51, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Caffeine
The article states that there is caffeine in chocolate (though in very small amounts). But this site (which we link to in the theobromine article) states that caffeine does not occur naturally in chocolate. Which is it? Most sites state there is little caffeine in chocolate, but the site above claims its a myth. Which is it? Anyone know? &mdash; Frecklefoot | Talk 18:51, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)


 * I don't think there is caffeine at all. If there is, it is the same amount as most vegetables, e.g. negligible.  Much like how all nightshade plants contain nicotine, but only a few such as tobacco contain significant amounts of it.  But I am not entirely sure...  Either way, it does not make me worry about caffeine when eating chocolate where I know that caffeine has not been added by the manufacturer. - Gilgamesh 03:59, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, Gilgamesh. The reason I asked is because the article states that it does have caffeine in it (except where it is added by the manufacturer). If it doesn't contain it naturally, we should take that info out of the article. Linking to the site above might also help. Actually, is the guy in the site above just nuts or is the "rumor" of caffeine in chocolate really untrue? Numerous sites say that chocolate does have caffeine, but the all seem to be parroting one another. Comments? &mdash; Frecklefoot | Talk 17:45, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)


 * I think some websites should be disregarded simply as a penalty for using certain color schemes. "Full results are on the Science Page." + "Cacao does not naturally contain any caffeine. See the Caffeine section." And he complains about circular references? In one place it's explained that "theobromide" is incorrect, in another place the term is mixed with "theobromine" in the same paragraph. The whole reasoning seems to center around that caffeine was not detected by The Biochemist, (Apr/May 1993, p 15). Other references that do list caffeine are circular or wrong. &mdash; Really, I don't think there should be changed anything in the article until there are a few other independent sources that say the same. Femto 20:29, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thomas et al.* shed some light on the issue. Apparently, it is difficult to accurately determine the precise quantities of different xanthines when several of them are present. Still, the National Institute of Standards and Technology has published caffeine, theobromine and theophylline contents of a reference material (baking chocolate) based on interlaboratory comparison exercises (how's that for a big word?). It indicates that, while the amount of caffeine is small, it is certainly not negligible: 1.06 g/kg, compared to 11.6 g/kg for theobromine. I will edit the article accordingly.
 * Thomas JB et al. Determination of Caffeine, Theobromine, and Theophylline in Standard Reference Material 2384, Baking Chocolate, Using Reversed-Phase Liquid Chromatography. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2004, 52, 3259-3263.

--Soundray 17:54, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thank you! This is the comprehensive answer I was looking for. Chocolate does contain caffeine as verified by scientific experiments. I was hoping for the opposite answer (it doesn't contain any), but really just wanted "the straight dope." Thanks again! &mdash; Frecklefoot | Talk 18:07, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)

I looked at "Caffeine Consumption" in Food and Chemical Toxicology Volume 34, Issue 1, January 1996, Pages 119-129 by J. J. Baronea and H. R. Roberts since it gives some estimates of caffeine in chocolate. They cite a number of studies and say that early tests had a hard time differentiating between theobromine and caffeine. Earlier tests stated an average of 4mg per 5 ounce cup of chocolate drink. Possibly as high as 20 mg per ounce for dark chocolate candy. They claim that more recent tests show 1.5 to 6 mg per 1 ounce (28 gram) serving of chocolate candy.

Though it seems that chocolate has some caffeine, it is a very small amount even compared to caffeinated soft drinks which they state to contain an average of about 3 mg per fluid ounce. Though these numbers are similar per ounce consumed, a typical amount of chocolate eaten is an ounce or two while a typical soft drink is anywhere from 12-20 ounces. So 2 ounces of chocolate contain 3-12 mg of caffeine, while a typical 12 ounce caffeinated soft drink would contain somewhere between 36-60 mg of caffeine. A serving of chocolate at worst case probably probably contains less than 1/3 the caffeine of a cola. And in many cases it contains about the same amount of caffeine per serving as decaffeinated coffee (10 fluid oz cup of decaf has 6 mg, while 2 ounces of chocolate contain 3-12 mg). So if you eat a chocolate bar, it's probably roughly equivalent to the consumption in a cup of decaffeinated coffee.

--Sbfisher 27 Feb 2006

Why would anyone add synthetic caffeine to chocolate when caffeine extracted from tea waste or coffee decaffeination is so easily available? Is synthetic caffeine even made in significant quantities? 4hodmt 20:35, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

redundant wording?
''...; this is the definition of chocolate used in many dictionaries. ''

Do we need this? RJFJR 17:20, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)

Contradiction regarding cocoa powder?
The article claims first that "In baking use natural cocoa in recipes which call for baking soda (because it's an alkali)", but then later in the same paragraph claims "Dutch-process cocoa has been processed with alkali to neutralize its natural acidity..." These contradict. Is natural cocoa (non-dutch-processed) acidic or alkali? -- Kaszeta 19:36, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it's just badly-worded; baking soda is the alkali referred to. -- Logotu 22:29, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I don't agree with you are not know everything

I think this should be a featured article, but sadly, I do not know how to nominate it. If anybody feels the same way, and knows how to nominate it, please do.

Significant chocolate makers 2
I removed several entries in this list. All of them are obscure and none have an article written about them. I don't think the list should include all local and insiginificant chocolate-makers: just significant ones (see the list title). So I trimmed the list to remove the obscure makers. The ones I removed are:


 * Amedei
 * Bernard Castelain
 * Chocolat Bonnat
 * Callebaut (large Belgian producer of couverture, used in many chocolate products)
 * Dolfin
 * Domori
 * El Rey
 * The Day Chocolate Company (Divine)
 * Green and Blacks (organic chocolate products with high percentage of cocoa solids)
 * Leonidas
 * Leysieffer
 * Michel Cluizel
 * Poulain
 * Scharffen Berger
 * Traidcraft (First Fair Trade chocolate in UK)
 * Valrhona (French manufacturer, couverture used by many candy makers)

If I accidentally removed a significant maker, please add it back in (or discuss here first). FWIK, all the ones I removed are not noteworthy. &mdash; Frecklefoot | Talk 18:29, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm not *that* much of a chocoholic myself, but I think of these, Dolfin, Leysieffer, Michel Cluizel and Valrhona at least are definitely noteworthy. -- Schnee (cheeks clone) 19:18, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * The ones not taken out are all ones well-known in the United States. People in Europe or other parts of the world may have different ideas of which chocolate companies are significant or popular. -- Logotu 21:00, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Indeed - and for the record, I'm from Europe myself. -- Schnee (cheeks clone) 11:13, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Hey, that's fine. Put them back in.  I had never heard of them, and they didn't seem that noteworthy since they didn't even have articles on them.  So, after you add them back in, at least write a stub on them so they at least look noteworthy. :-)   &mdash; Frecklefoot | Talk 18:03, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * I have not heard of any of these either. Typical American I guess.  Looks like one of them is significant enough to have an article about it, so leave that one in.  The other ones I say leave off or confine them to a "List of chocolate manufacturers" page or something. &mdash;  F REAK OF N URxTURE  ( TALK )  08:48, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * Nevermind. The article Leonidas is merely a disambiguation page.  The link for the choc. company article is red.  Keep these all off the main list at Chocolate until somebody writes articles about them. &mdash;  F REAK OF N URxTURE  ( TALK )  08:51, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I'll make stubs for some of the manufacturers that I know of, and I've started a  "Chocolate Manufacturers" category to hold these.  -- Kaszeta 14:23, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The List of chocolate manufacturers" page doesn't exist yet, but I think that's a great place for lesser noteworthy manufacaturers. We can link to it from this article after it's created.  It'd be nice to just list the most noteworthy manufacturers in the article.   &mdash; Frecklefoot | Talk 16:19, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't think only the most popular brands/makers should be considered significant/most noteworthy. Some of the largest (and thus most significant) chocolate producers sell through subsidiaries (e.g. Barry-Callebaut→Sarotti, Van Houten, Gubor, Alpia and others) or to "makers" which just blend, repackage, etc. (e.g. Belcolade→Dolfin). Also, shouldn't the most highly regarded producers be of the "most noteworthy"? These would include Amedei

, Michel Cluizel, Domori, Valrhona (and several others actually, but they are perhaps too small). On the other hand, I don't think Orley foods belongs here (google-o-meter reads 317). --Glimz 04:36, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

I know Callebaut is known as one of one of "the" makers of better-quality chocolate for baking in North America. They make several grades and types of high-quality baking chocolate and cocoa. It is used professionally, and us regular folk can find their baking chocolate in some grocery stores. It appears as though the company has started marketing small individual size chocolates/truffles and chocolate bars too. Here (Canada), I'd say the common folk who don't know any better (or don't care) use generic store brand, Hershey's/Chipits, or Baker's. The more enlightened will eat Lindt if they want a treat, but for baking will use Callebaut. Lindt tends to market individual bars but not baking chips and chocolate, whereas Callebaut is the reverse. I think it would also be safe to say the North Americans don't have nearly the same selection as the Europeans do. -Kat 01:19, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with this last graf - there's no question that Callebaut is one of the preeminent producers of chocolate for home and professional baking in NA. Using the "I've never heard of it" standard for inclusion is usually a pretty dangerous way to go about trimming an article. | Klaw ¡digame! 00:30, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I added Malley's Chocolates. It might not be as big an Hershey's but it is the most noteable chocoalte in my area of the countntry (USA). (it is also my favorite chocolate) LexieM 06:57, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, Green and Blacks is noteworthy (as well as well-known) for popularising fairtrade chocolate in the UK and being very successful with a product that had previously been thought 'niche'. Valrhona is very noteworthy. Traidcraft and divine are both pretty big fairtrade chocolate producers in the UK. Most likely, they are not known in the US. Skittle 08:54, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Most of the top chocolate makers (in terms of quality) are not well known, simply because they sell mainly within the industry - to chefs, chocolatiers etc. For example, Amedei, Michel Cluizel and Valrhona, are all considered to be amongst the top chocolate makers in the world, yet they're all hard to find in stores, unless its a speciality or gourmet food store - if you were to walk into a good (high-end) chocolate store like La Masion du Chocolat and asked, you'd find that they use a lot of Valrhona chocolate. The highest quality chocolate tends to be sold mainly as couvature, and not as bars... Elem 125 23:31, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I've created a List of chocolate manufacturers based on the list in the Chocolate article and the lists in this talk section. I have not done any checking, except to remove See's Candies because they don't manufacture chocolate, they make candies from chocolate bought from Guittard. I encourage the rest of you chocolate fanatics to fix any similar mistakes in my list, and to fill in the table with more information. Argyriou 20:03, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Vegetarians & Chocolate
Is the sugar used in chocolate-making refined, like other sugars, through animal char?


 * I added a blurb on veganism, since someone I know was just asking about it. The sugar can be processed in different ways and I don't think anyone actually tracks which type is used in commercial chocolate. Janet13 23:05, July 2, 2005 [EST]
 * The statement, There is a lot of debate over whether commercial chocola is vegan seems unnecessary. Vegans either buy commerical chocolate products that are clearly marked "vegan", or they don't; it's pretty simple. I don't see what the "debate" is about; it's either vegan or it isn't. --Viriditas  | Talk 11:36, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Inspired by the above comment, I have rewritten the section to remove the reference to a "debate". Also, I took out the unnecessary qualification that "commercial" brands of chocolate are difficult to identify - there aren't many people making chocolate themselves, and it's obvious that they would be in control of the veganness in that case. The carob reference is misleading since right on the carob page it says that butter is often mixed in, and sugar is used in carob chips as well, so there is no advantage inherent to carob. Also, I think this whole section is unnecessary; are we supposed to have a note like this on the page for every product containing sugar? Capybara 19:04, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Images
This article doesn't have too many images, but the three at the top are problematic. They cause poor rendering with my (standard) resolution. Does anyone want to take a whack at spreading them about the article? &mdash; Frecklefoot | Talk 19:49, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

Pimento
Should this direct to the spice pimento better known as allspice or the sweet pepper pimento? Rmhermen 20:35, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

Medical Information
A company called Signet Diagnostics can test for sensitivity to chocolate. A blood test can show how well a person reacts to it. Many people although not allergic, (not developing a skin rash or asthma after eating chocolate), sometimes experience headaches, malaise, mood changes or other effects that are not pleasant for them. They do not normally like chocolate and as children will not eat it if they can choose what foods they want. For these people, endorphins (natural pain killers) are released by their own body to combat these effects. If these people eat chocolate every day, they then become "addicted" in a way due to the release of these endorphins, and must then eat chocolate every day in order to feel "normal" They become very tired or moody without it. This does not happen to everyone who eats chocolate or normally likes it. (submitted by Dr John Paul Schwartz Arlington, TX

I read an article a few years ago that reported that cocoa butter passes through the human body mostly undigested- which is where the makers of Olestra got the idea for their product. I will try to look for this. (submitted by Aaron Proot)