Consumer Reports on Chocolates

[Mimi Sheraton]

Anyone seen results of Consumer Reports ratings of chocolates? Doesn't it seem odd to rate chocolate as such by bon-bons? Fillings and flavorings, however delightful, mask the pure qualities of the chocolate. It would seem that the way to rate chocolate is to taste in bar and bark forms - unfilled and with no flavors other than, perhaps, vanilla. Or should they have said they were rating bon-bons, which is another matter? And no Debauve & Gallais or Lindt 70 percent cocoa? What kind of test is that?

[Bobby 2 Shakes]

My guess is it's a chance to get window shoppers inside their magazine. They always have it right before Valentine's day. I have an online subscription, so I bookmark the ones I don't already have.

Your point that the soul of a box of chocolates is the chocolate is one they would do well to adopt. Due diligence would be served if they did.

[Chantilly Bob]

Anyone seen results of Consumer Reports ratings of chocolates? Doesn't it seem odd to rate chocolate as such by bon-bons? Fillings and flavorings, however delightful, mask the pure qualities of the chocolate. It would seem that the way to rate chocolate is to taste in bar and bark forms - unfilled and with no flavors other than, perhaps, vanilla. Or should they have said they were rating bon-bons, which is another matter?  And no Debauve & Gallais or Lindt 70 percent cocoa? What kind of test is that?

←

Well, they are rating chocolates, not chocolate. That last "s" is key. There's a substantial difference.

But speaking of chocolates, here's a Web site that I think is one of the best food-relates sites I've ever seen:

http://edp.org/chocolat.htm

[rlibkind]

To most people, "chocolates" do mean "bon bons". Hey, this was a pre-Valentine's Day report, and 99.998 percent of the American public buying chocolates for giving on that day do not buy Valrhona Guanaja. The "ratings" were meant to help those who wanted some guidance on how to upgrade from Fannie Mae.

[Jaymes]

For those interested, here's a link.

[kiliki]

Not a bad article. I expected they would go for the widely available, mass produced stuff, based on other food articles I've seen in CR, but it was nice to see them recommend mail ordering Jacque Torres and La Maison du Chocolat.

[SuzySushi]

What, no See's (an institution in the West)?

[Bux]

Anyone seen results of Consumer Reports ratings of chocolates? Doesn't it seem odd to rate chocolate as such by bon-bons? Fillings and flavorings, however delightful, mask the pure qualities of the chocolate. It would seem that the way to rate chocolate is to taste in bar and bark forms - unfilled and with no flavors other than, perhaps, vanilla. Or should they have said they were rating bon-bons, which is another matter?  And no Debauve & Gallais or Lindt 70 percent cocoa? What kind of test is that?

←

As Bob noted, there's a difference between "chocolate" and "chocolates"--or "chocolate confections," at least in the US and possible among the less informed. What I believe the French call "bonbons" and the Belgians call "pralines," is what we call "chocolates," and for a large part of the candy eating public, the filling is the point. I don't really know what to call those things as "chocolates" seems to be misleading as the really good ones have such thin chocolate shells. Pralines means something else in the US, especially in New Orleans. Bonbons seems to have too wide a connotation.

The "knock" against Richart reminds me of the current thread about the NY Times review of Paul Leibrandt's new restaurant, Gilt. "Many of the fillings weren’t easy to identify, and others were an odd collection of floral, herbal, and citrus flavors that tended to be sour, bitter, or astringent." Of course that's bad if you're buying sweet, but not so bad if you're willing to adapt. Is that CR pandering to other people's supposed tastes, or is it CR veering into subjective taste and opinion.

There are two circumstances under which CR ratings don't help me much. One is when I know a lot about the subject at hand. The other is when it's a matter of taste and an abstract quality that's hard to measure or even define.

Some of my favorite chocolates (call them pralines if speaking to a Belgian person) are those from Kee's on Thompson Street here in NYC and then there are the Palets d'Or from Bernachon in Lyon. In a side by side tasting, one would blow away the other, but which one would win would depend on what it was you wanted. As CR says, "Given the differences, it’s a good idea to know whether the recipient prefers dark, milk, or white chocolate, or has a favorite type of filling, before ordering." Then again, if they really like chocolate, they prefer dark to milk and understand that "white chocolate" isn't chocolate any more than raw fish isn't sushi, it's missing an important component. In this case, one might almost make the point that it's missing chocolate. That's explained on the site linked to by Jaymes.

I loved the comment that "... some of the pieces in the Lindt assortment were slightly stale or had a fatty, lardlike filling." Indeed, speaking of chocolates (with the "s"), many fillings are heavily saturated with hydrogenated vegetable fats, not cocoa butter and not dairy butter or cream. That's the case for most commercial truffles. Worse yet, a good deal of chocolate (without the "s"), at least within the EU is now adulterated with trans fatty vegetable shortening. It seems there's an element in the UK market that actually prefers a bit of shortening or margarine in their "chocolate" bars in lieu of cocoa butter and the UK some time ago successfully lobbied against the demands of Belgium and France that such crap be allowed to be labeled as "chocolate" in the EU (and you all thought all you had to worry about was pasteurized milk in the cheese).

At any rate, there's a greater difference between "chocolate" and "chocolates," than between "fish" and "fishes," although those are not at all analogous terms. Mimi is correct in that the article is not aimed at chocolate lovers. Llindt 70% is probably not to be recommended for the casual Valentine's day gift.

[TrishCT]

"Then again, if they really like chocolate, they prefer dark to milk..."

Not necessarily.

Edited February 14, 2006 by TrishCT (log)

[Jaymes]

What, no See's (an institution in the West)?

Yes, they did mention See's, which fared very well among the mass-produced brands. But you had to click on the link that showed all the ratings.

Here it is:

Ratings.

[Behemoth]

It is a weird way to rate chocolate, unless (presumably) you are average Consumer Reports general reader in the market for a box of Valentine's Day truffles. Having said that, I have to admit that their ratings strike me as relatively well-sorted given what they tested. I've never cared for Lindt of any percentage and I'm glad to see Moonstruck got some national recognition. I'm not a truffle fan but I love their plain dark bars. Very nice complex flavor, and not at all waxy or oversweetened. I do wish they were cheaper though...

[John DePaula]

There are two circumstances under which CR ratings don't help me much. One is when I know a lot about the subject at hand. The other is when it's a matter of taste and an abstract quality that's hard to measure or even define.

Quite right!

[Fat Guy]

The folks at Consumer Reports are brilliant when it comes to rating things like child car safety seats. They design expert tests and administer them ruthlessly: they have sophisticated crash simulation devices to which they attach the safety seats and they reveal all sorts of fallacies in various manufacturers' product claims. And who can resist the temptation to cheer when the fancy $300 European model favored by Upper East Side snobs turns out to be not nearly as safe as the $59 product everyman can get at Target? This is what Consumer Reports is good at.

When it comes to comparing food products, however, the Consumer Reports team lacks competence. The comparisons tend to be poorly designed from the outset, and the tasters rarely seem to have any real expertise or experience. The comparisons in Cook's Illustrated are on the whole a lot more compelling. The tasters are at least experienced enough to identify the products that will most appeal to American middlebrow tastes. But there doesn't seem to be a publication out there that has a consistently reliable mechanism for identifying the food products that will most appeal to educated palates. There's the occasional tasting panel put together by the New York Times or one of the good food magazines, but these are so sporadic they're hardly worth mentioning. In this regard the wine people are way ahead of the food people. For better or for worse, there doesn't seem to be a food-products equivalent of Wine Spectator or Wine Advocate.

[Bobby 2 Shakes]

For those willing to do a little digging, eGullet appears to be as close as it gets at this point.

[MarketStEl]

There are two circumstances under which CR ratings don't help me much. One is when I know a lot about the subject at hand. The other is when it's a matter of taste and an abstract quality that's hard to measure or even define.

←

I understand your point and basically agree, and this is a common knock against Consumer Reports' ratings.

Keep in mind, though, that the reader Consumers Union seeks to "test, inform and protect" with recommendations and advice is not an aficionado, technical expert or conoisseur, but rather the average shopper. In the case of chocolate candies, I would suggest that the typical American consumer expects them to be sweet, or slightly bitter if he or she knows about dark chocolate, but would indeed recoil at a chocolate that tasted "sour" or "astringent," or extremely bitter for that matter.

[Blanche Davidian]

Didn't Consumer Reports declare Claim Jumper to be the best chain restaurant?

I guess that would tell you a little bit about what they thought about food.

[mikeycook]

Not a bad article. I expected they would go for the widely available, mass produced stuff, based on other food articles I've seen in CR, but it was nice to see them recommend mail ordering Jacque Torres and La Maison du Chocolat.

←

I completely agree. My wife and mother-in-law are difficult to buy chocolate for, in that they usually tend to prefer very different brands. The first time I bought them Jacques Torres chocolates out in DUMBO was the first time I ever really saw them on the same page (i.e. they both LOVE it). I was even happier to see Torres' web site go up (mrchocolate.com) so I don't have to make a trip out for every holiday.

[MarketStEl]

Didn't Consumer Reports declare Claim Jumper to be the best chain restaurant?

I guess that would tell you a little bit about what they thought about food.

←

If I remember right, the ratings of chain restaurants are based not on judges' evaluations as the chocolates ratings were, but on responses to the Annual Questionnaire sent out to all Consumers Union members (subscribers to the magazine are automatically members of CU).

So this is more like Zagat minus the groupquotes.

And it wouldn't tell you at all what Consumer Reports or the staff of Consumers Union think about food--only what the subscriber-members did. Or rather, those subscriber-members who bothered to return the Annual Questionnaire.

[Blanche Davidian]

I'm sure they consider their readership when developing criteria for rating products like food, which would make surveys like that at least marginally instructive. I wasn't trying to imply that the staff of Consumer Reports are rubes--just that in order to appeal to readers they have to sort of shoot for the middlebrow...