After months and months of not eating any chocolate (I was getting an allergic reaction) I had my first taste of it again a few days ago. I picked a good one to start the habit again -- Hotel Chocolate's "The Purist" a 52% milk with cocoa from the Menavava Plantation in Madagascar.
This is a milk chocolate bar that I absolutely love, which quite surprised me since I have tried many milk chocolate bars only to hate them. Until I tried this bar, the only other milk chocolate bar I liked was the Amedei milk. I think I may like this more than the Amedei milk. This chocolate smells like cocoa butter and vanilla which perfectly foiled with the darker scent of cocoa solids. The flavor was amazing. It was quite rich, creamy with delightfully bitter cocoa nibs that acted as the perfect foil to sweet milk chocolate.
Am I just over-excited because it's been more than 6 months since I've eaten chocolate? Perhaps . . . . But I've heard the feedback from people whose taste I trust that this is, indeed, a very delightful bar.
I bought this assortment of Amedei chocolates at Cardullo's when I was in Boston last year. Each package came with four tasting squares. Here are the package notes and my (very brief) notes
Ecuador 70 % -- Intense aroma of forest undergrowth and cacao. A chocolate to surprise you as its immense aromatic flavour develops
My notes: Very pleasant clean earthy scent with red fruit aromas. Flavor is well balanced though finish falls a bit short.
Venezuela 70% -- Flora aroma with dried fruit sensations. A balanced chocolate with a pleasant aromatic richness
My notes: Smells a bit sharp -- like cheese and tart red fruit. Flavor is mellow and coffee-like
Trinidad 70% -- Aroma of toasted cacao and tobacco. A classic chocolate with a hint of walnut
My notes: Aroma is similar to Venezuala but brighter and fruitier. Flavor is creamy and rich. Nice finish of caramel and coffee.
Grenada 70% -- Aroma of exotic spices. A creamy and pleasantly balanced chocolate.
My notes: Scent reminds me of pho (star anise, and coriander). Flavor starts out a bit weak and ends a bit chalky-tasting.
Jamaica 70% -- Intense aroma, mediterranean fruit flavours. A highly captivating, decise, and powerful chocolate
My notes: Scent is smoky and minty and reminds me a bit of sauvignon blanc. Flavor is caramel-ly, smoky, and a little flat.
My experience with eating, buying, and talking about chocolate has lead me to notice an interesting phenomenon. Maybe you’ve noticed it too – there appears to be a chocolate hierarchy in which dark chocolate is at the top, milk chocolate is in the middle, and white chocolate is at the bottom. I try to refrain from this type of hierarchical thinking for the case of chocolate (and a few other cases too) because I believe it’s erroneous to believe something is better just because of its color.
Please don’t think that I’m a subjectivist when it comes to chocolate. I do think there are objective standards and it’s not just about “Whatever’s good for you is good, dude.” Hierarchies can be very appropriate depending on the context. For example, an appropriate chocolate hierarchy would involve high quality delicious chocolates at the top, and disgusting low quality chocolates at the bottom. But segregation should occur based on the merits of the chocolate, and not strictly on its color.
I love white chocolate, and I’m very tired of having people look down their nose at me when I admit it like it’s supposed to be some shameful secret amongst people who proclaim to love chocolate. I would like to discuss and refute some of the objections I’ve heard about white chocolate. As you can probably tell from the title of my post, this is not the definitive post on my defense of white chocolate. I will be adding more in the future. I will also eventually post an Ode to White Chocolate.
Objection 1. “It’s technically not real chocolate”(ITNRC)
If you want to see FDA’s definitions for white chocolate, check out 21 CFR 163.124.
For something to be considered chocolate by FDA, the product must contain chocolate liquor. Chocolate liquor is what results from grinding cacao nibs. That means that chocolate liquor consists of cocoa solids and cocoa fats. Without one of these components, the item is not considered chocolate. The issue with white chocolate is that it does not have cocoa solids, and therefore, people say is not “real” chocolate.
Personally, I find all the focus on cocoa solids to be a red herring that takes our focus away from cocoa butter – the beautiful, unique, gorgeous fat that comes from cacao nibs. As long as the public is focused on and up in arms about protecting cocoa solids, companies that mass-produce low quality chocolate can lobby FDA to allow for the substitution of cheap vegetable fats for the cocoa butter. Substituting vegetable fats for cocoa butter allows these companies to sell the cocoa butter to cosmetic companies. This means they can make money from selling cocoa butter to cosmetic companies AND they can increase their profit margin by substitution a cheaper fat for the cocoa butter. This focus on the cocoa solids at the expense of cocoa butter also allows people to think things like “Well, all the important qualities of chocolate are in the cocoa solids, so it doesn’t matter what fat we use.” (Sorry for my digression into conspiracy theories. . . )
One objection I have to the “it’s not real chocolate” statement is “Who cares what FDA thinks?” FDA does not define food products by how good they taste, how well they were made, and how much care was put into their development – all factors that I think are far more important than the stale definition that FDA came up with. If you were to use FDA to guide you then that waxy, bitter, and sour chocolate -- Hershey’s Special Dark is “real chocolate” while the beautifully balanced, fragrant, flowery but not perfume-y Amedei White is “not real chocolate.” Does FDA really dictate to you what you consider a food or drug? Is St. John’s Wort an herbal supplement or a drug? FDA officially considers it an herbal supplement, but it could qualify as a drug based on FDA’s definition. Practically speaking, St. John’s Wort has many potentially dangerous side effects especially if consumed with certain food items. This does not make it “bad” – it just means that it, like any drug, can potentially be very dangerous. Is Revitalash a cosmetic or a drug? Does FDA consider shampoo to be a cosmetic or soap? Often the answers to these types of questions has little to do with the ingredients and more to do with the marketing and labeling.
Also, “chocolate” is a culinary term. It is not jargon of the legal or scientific community, so why take all the fun out of chocolate by attempting to be pedantic and overly-technical? There seems to be a lot of pointless debate of what something “really” is – like in the case of tomatoes. Some courts have ruled that the tomato is a fruit; some have ruled that it is a vegetable. Botanists say it’s a fruit, but botanists also have no jurisdiction over the term “vegetable.” So why can’t they be both vegetable and fruit? How about they’re
“fruit” when used in a tomato cake (like what David Kinch did for his Tomato Modernista dinner in 2006) and “vegetable” when used in a savory sauce? In any case, even if all the lawyers, lawmakers, chefs and scientists were to one day officially agree that the tomato is a fruit, would that really change anything important? Are we going to make the Campbell Soup Company stop selling V8 as vegetable juice just because there are tomatoes in it?
When people say “white chocolate isn’t real chocolate” nothing has been elucidated other than their desire to recite some piece of trivia about cocoa liquor, cocoa solids and cocoa butter. Usually they haven’t even stopped to consider why cocoa solids are required for something to be considered chocolate by FDA, what role cocoa butter plays, and where cocoa liquor fits into everything. In fact, I suspect the real reason why they bring this up at all is to confuse and alienate people so they can arrogantly look down their nose at how little other people know. Now, I don’t necessarily mind arrogance. I think it can be one element of a very charismatic personality. However, this works ONLY IF you have a good reason to be arrogant, e.g., you’re a renowned expert in your field, you’re highly-accomplished in something, etc. But if the source of your arrogance comes from the fact that you happened to hear a sound bite about “real chocolate” on The View, your arrogance in this subject is not justified.
My other major objection to ITNRC is more philosophical. Philosophically, it can be debated that words don’t actually denote real classes that exist in the noumenal world. These words were invented by human beings to take them out of their solipsistic existence and allow them to relate to other human beings and the world around them. Therefore, the focus of chocolate shouldn’t be whether not it’s “really chocolate” because it really doesn’t matter. Quibbling over this word and its definitions is pointless. The focus should be more about whether it tastes good, how it can be used in recipes, how it can be enjoyed with family and friends, etc. In contrast, pickiness when it comes to words like “fermentation” and “oxidation” is okay because they are more meaningful in that they actually denote very different processes and there is a practical advantage to not misusing these words because it clarifies to others that you’re talking about one natural process and not the other.
My other philosophical objection to ITNRC has to do with pragmatism. Does it really make a difference in your world whether or not white chocolate is “real chocolate?” I alluded to this concept when I spoke about chocolate being a culinary term. If, one day, the powers-that-be decided that the confection formerly known as “white chocolate” will forevermore be called “bianca-beans” it really wouldn’t change anything. You will like or not like the flavor of this product based more on your perception and taste rather than what it’s called. Therefore, if your objection to white chocolate is that you don’t like the way it tastes, then you don’t like the way it tastes. You can’t possibly not like white chocolate just because it isn’t “real chocolate” – that doesn’t really make any sense. If it were true, does it mean that you also don’t like eggs because they’re not “real chocolate?” How about peanut butter? That’s not real chocolate either.
I don’t expect everyone to like white chocolate (I am a bit perplexed by the notion though – I suspect those who don’t like white chocolate either have never eaten a worthy specimen or they’re just saying they don’t like it so they can fit in better with the snobs. Just kidding! I’m sure there are some people who just don’t like white chocolate just as there are people who don’t like butter, tomatoes, and meat). In any case, I don't think that there are no good reasons to not like white chocolate. I know many who just don't enjoy the flavor, texture, smell, whatever. These reasons are valid enough. My objections are to those who "don't like white chocolate" for reasons that are guided by politics and principles rather than flavor, taste, and enjoyment.
While snooty chocolate connoisseurs insist that we all convert to eating only single-origin bars, I really disagree. I think as more people became interested in good chocolate, a backlash among chocolate snobs resulted in fads like single-origin bars, organic chocolate, fair-trade chocolate and a disdain for milk and white chocolate. At the point where the fads dictate taste, people will mindlessly consume terrible-tasting single-origin bars just because somebody told them that they're "better" than blends.
The blending of cacao beans is a wonderful thing. In fact, I tend not to enjoy single-origin bars as much as a good blend. Blending is done to balance flavor profiles of different beans. Different beans lend different characteristics to the flavor of a finished bar. A particular bean variety may have fantastic fruity flavors but fall short on the finish. Some beans are quite acidic and wouldn't be pleasant on their own, but provide balance to other beans that may be short on acidity. Generally, I tend to find single-origin bars interesting to taste, but not quite pleasurable to eat. Having said that, there are some fantastic single-origin bars. One of these is the the Amedei Chuao-- I think Chuao beans are so interesting. I'm always amazed when I eat this bar how balanced the flavor profile can be given that it consists of only one type of bean. It starts off with bitter coffee flavors that are perfectly balanced by acidity. Toward the middle I get dark cherry flavors and blueberries, and at the very end I taste earthy enoki mushrooms.
While Chuao beans are considered by many to be the best beans in the world, the Amedei Chuao bar is not my favorite. My absolute favorite bar ever is the Amedei 9 bar. The 9 bar is the bar that got me obsessed with chocolate. It's the bar that inspired me to spend the money I work so hard for on other $15 chocolate bars in hopes of finding another gem, drive an hour away from my home to a famous chocolate shop where parking costs $20, and bore my friends by talking way too much about chocolate. The scent is complex -- dark, rich, with the subtle "cat pee" aroma of sauvignon blanc but not as bright or acidic. It's a blend of beans from 9 different plantations. I'm not familiar with any of the plantations, but there is definitely the enoki mushroom flavor of Chuao beans that I enjoy in there somewhere along with blueberries, and chili pepper. Beyond these flavor notes, my tasting notes for this bar are rather vague and metaphorical, and I won't bore you all with poetic raptures that cannot be empirically verified. I've tried to sit down and taste the Amedei 9 bar and take systematic notes, but I've never been successful. I enjoy the experience of eating the Amedei 9 too much to intellectualize it.
Last week I invited a friend of mine over for a chocolate tasting . She said yes, but didn't seem as enthusiastic as I had wanted her to be. Thinking that she must not have understood how much fun this would be, I decided to take out my chocolate collection and lay it out in a relatively pleasing way and took a picture to send to her for the e-vite. I love chocolate, and I compulsively buy different ones the way many women buy clothing, shoes and bags. I've spent a lot of money on chocolate in the last few years. What you see here wasn't everything -- it's just the stuff I haven't eaten yet. So yes, it is getting more and more similar to the many women who compulsively shop and end up with a bunch of shoes that they've never worn.
Anyway, my friend saw the picture and confirmed her attendance with a lot more enthusiasm.
I know it's not a good idea to have all the chocolate just sitting out like this, but it looks so pretty and enticing. Tomorrow, after the tasting, I will put the chocolate all away again. . .::sigh:: Ideally, someday I'll have a nice big temperature-controlled box to display my chocolates in so that I can visually enjoy them without exposing them to the varying temperatures of my room.
