Talk:Caramel/Archive 1

Archive 1

History

I have removed the sentence: "Caramel was invented in Turin sometime before the 18th century." because it is unsupported by any evidence I can find. The word caramel is attested in English already in 1715 (OED). The etymology is not entirely clear, but appears to go through Old Spanish, so it doesn't seem likely that it was invented in Turin. What evidence is there for the Turin claim? I have checked Davidson, OED, Britannica, Littre, Larousse du XIX, and Grande Encyclopedie and see nothing about Turin. --Macrakis 19:42, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Culinary disputes can become quite ridiculously nationalistic. Nations seem almost willing to go to war about who invented crème caramel and crème brulée. In fact Julia Child's Mastering the Art of French Cooking gives different origins for brulée in different editions, first calling its origin Creole and later English. Having lived in the Eastern Mediterranean for a year and a half, I quickly learned that you dare not call Turkish coffee "Turkish coffee" in Greece. You call it "Greek coffee" in spite of the fact that in Greek they call it "tourkiko" (Turkish). One Greek cookbook I bought there, stated that the fact that many Greek dishes had Turkish and Italian names was because the Turks and Italians had introduced their own names for these dishes during occupation. Similar disputes occur between Turks and Armenians as one might expect knowing how those two get along. Oh well. Mike Hayes (talk) 19:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Pronunciation

WP is an international encyclopedia, so the usual pronunciation worldwide should come first. The pronunciation ['kærəˌmɛl] is not only the usual pronunciation outside the US (see Oxford dictionaries), but also one of the two (the other is ['kɑrˌməl]) used in the US. US dictionaries disagree on which is more common: Merriam-Webster says ['kɑrˌməl], American Heritage says ['kærəˌmɛl]; Random House (in the older edition I have) calls ['kɑrˌməl] Midwestern, but it would be useful to check a current edition. --Macrakis 22:01, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

The pronunciation of ['kɑrˌməl])has been the common pronunciation of the word until the recent affection we are seeing in North America to pronounce every letter in a word that, previously, had not been "sounded out" when saying the word. I suspect it won't be long before we are pronouncing "island" as "iz-land" in order to satisfy the apparent need to speak each word phonetically. I've spent less than an hour (now pronounced "how-wer") wondering when that word and others like it will be pronounced in such a way to satisfy the linguistically challenged masses.(That's my rant for the day. Thank you!) (unsigned comment)

It's certainly true that some words have changed their pronunciation to align more closely with the spelling. This may or may not have happened in this case. Do you have any evidence? After all, in the UK it is apparently pronounced ['karamel], which is not surprising since it comes from French [karamel]. In any case, we should record what the actual current pronunciation(s) are as well as any interesting facts about the history of the pronunciation. --Macrakis 01:16, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

['kɑrˌməl] is a corruption caused by confusion with the mountain range Carmel. It is not a variant; it is a mispronunciation. It has nothing to do with elision and any attempt to present it as such is specious. Mike Hayes (talk) 19:28, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

It's definitely a variant. Everyone I know says ['kɑrˌməl]. 128.210.12.39 (talk) 09:27, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

What evidence have you go to suggest that it's not a mispronunciation? "Everyone you know" doesn't count, by the way. It seems that there is strong support for the claim that it is a simple mispronunciation and the correct version ought to be preferred and encouraged. Turkeyphan^t 19:14, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

For evidence, see The Big Book of Beastly Mispronunciations: The Complete Opinionated Guide for the Careful Speaker (Houghton Mifflin, 1999) by Charles Harrington Elster. At page 61, Elster writes, “Today all four major current American dictionaries recognize
KAHR-mul, and two of them list it first.”

Elster is a prominent expert on the English language and its pronunciation.Wahrmund (talk) 21:24, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

What is that evidence for? Turkeyphan^t 00:54, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

It is evidence that KAHR-mul is not a mispronunciation, as dictionaries don't normally include mispronunciations in their content.Wahrmund (talk) 01:54, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Why would you think that? Charles Harrington Elster explicitly recommends against it. Turkeyphan^t 15:07, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Elster does not do any such thing. On the contrary, he writes that KAHR-mul has “widespread acceptance, a sweet-toothed success story in which the influence of TV's candy bar commercials cannot be overlooked.” Nowhere in the caramel entry does he make a recommendation of any kind. Wahrmund (talk) 18:36, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I am baffled by the unsigned comment. Not only does it smack of self-righteous ego, the user seems to look down on any one with a different opinion than his own. How can one ridicule 'the linguistically challenged' and not know the difference between affection and affectation? I can't claim that I know from whence the variant pronunciation derives, but it is clear for the already cited reasons that ['kærəˌmɛl] has a broader, and older, user-base. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.246.21.98 (talk) 19:38, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

A variant is just a nice way of saying that you can't fix a mistake. This word has a well illuminated path into English; at some point, a group of English speakers clearly decided that three syllables was too much effort. Of course, it's not a bad thing or a good thing, it just is. Language has evolved in this way for many years before today and will, if youtube is anything to go by, continue to do so in years to come, regardless of clever constructions such as dictionaries and spell-checkers. 118.209.180.163 (talk) 15:58, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that the group of English-speakers to which you refer originated in Omaha, where anything beyond a grunt and perhaps a bit of manly drool and a pointing finger is considered too much effort. Three syllables works well for me. 73.83.43.194 (talk) 23:00, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

External Links; Name brands

I have removed the link to Werther's Original as it smacks too much of brand-name advertising rather than referral to a factual resource. --HarmonicSphere 06:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I just removed this section- let's try to keep all the commercials out of the Caramel article! brain 21:49, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

These flavours are most often used in chocolate candies, like the Hershey's Pot of Gold collection of chocolates, or other boxed assortment of chocolate candies. However, they are also used as individual candies, such as the rum butter flavored and chocolate flavored caramel squares made by Primrose Candy Company, which are very common during Halloween as candy given out for trick-or-treat.

Caramelization

Caramelization is already mentioned in the paragraph underneath the first. User: Maurice45

Can someone provide a simple chemical formulation of the process of caramelization? The first sentence in this section ("Caramelization is the removal of water from a sugar, proceeding to isomerization and polymerization of the sugars into various high-weight compounds. Compounds such as difructose anhydride may be created from the monosaccharides after water loss") sounds like a good description, but for those of us who remember enough high school chemistry to understand through simple observation that caramelization must be a dehydration of the organic compound, it is frustrating to go through wikilink after wikilink and not find any such info. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.252.22.70 (talk) 14:38, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Contradiction between Maillard and caramel articles

The following text:

The color and flavor of caramel candy are due not to caramelization, but to the Strecker degradation or the Maillard reaction, which occurs between an amino acid and a reducing sugar.

Contradicts the statement in the Maillard reaction article that caramel candies made from milk and sugar are not the product of the maillard reaction. It also refers to Strecker degradation, which I can't find by searching Wikipedia; is it purely a synonym for the Maillard reaction? If so, perhaps that clarification belongs in the Maillard reaction article.

Interestingly, I went to Wikipedia for information on caramel after encountering a similar seeming contradiction in Harold McGee's "On Food and Cooking" (Fireside edition p. 421) where he states that "[the] characteristic caramel flavor comes from browning reactions between milk proteins and milk sugar [which might imply Maillard reactions] as well as from the caramelization of lactose alone."

He also, states, though, that such candies are boiled to a temperature "only a few degrees higher than fudge," (which temperature he states elsewhere to be 238°F.) This implies that the caramelization temperature of lactose (not listed on the caramelization page) must be somewhere in that neighborhood. It's also a quite low temperature for extensive Maillard reactions, though I suppose if lactose can caramelize at that temperature, it can also engage in Maillard reactions.

This needs to be clarified both here and on the Maillard page, and the Caramelization page should be modified to include information on lactose. I do not have the proper references to make these corrections myself, but I'm hoping someone out there does. I suspect Belitz's Food Chemistry may have some information on the topic, but I seems to have lost my copy in a recent move. Brad daniels 21:06, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I determined that the reference to "Stecker" degradation should be "Strecker" degradation, and that the Maillard reaction includes Strecker degradation (see e.g. [1], or anyplace in [2]). Since there is no article on Strecker degradation, I do not believe it warrants separate mention here.

I also confirmed directly with Harold McGee that lactose caramelization does in fact occur during the making of milk caramel. Brad Daniels 03:46, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not confident that lactose caramelization can occur (though invert sugars can caramelize at these temperatures.) I've deleted the reference to lactose, and sent e-mail to McGee asking for further clarification. Brad Daniels 04:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

How did this spawn a talk page? It's such an easy mistake to just correct and move on. An easy end to the argument of caramelization v. maillard reaction is to go in the kitchen, take some sugar, and cook it! There's no enzymes in table sugar, or in the pot/pan. Zephalis 16:20, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

There's clearly no question that sugar will caramelize. The question is whether the process of making caramel candies such as the one on the caramel page employ caramelization or whether it instead relies on Maillard reactions to provide color. Caramel candies are, of course, made with milk, which provides both protein and lactose. This will all be even more clear if you read what Brad Daniels has written above. -CS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.114.172.10 (talk) 05:01, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I suppose if one wanted to be bothered, one could isolate each compound in the mixture and see which one browns at the lowest temperature. Every organic compound will burn and therefore every organic compound will start getting brown at some point. Mixing them will also alter these things but is it really that interesting? Mike Hayes (talk) 19:51, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

this very informative and detailed article says "The mellow flavour and colour of caramel result from the Maillard reaction between milk protein and the reducing sugar lactose. Lactose caramelizes at a lower temperature than other sugars, so at the firm ball stage to which we bring caramel, lactose will be the primary sugar caramelized. A long slow cooking will give a softer, mellower toffee. The principal cause of toughness and lack of flavour in caramel are high temperatures and inferior materials." http://forums.egullet.org/index.php?/topic/92495-confectionery-101/ Jbailyn (talk) 10:25, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I found a reference for your question. Maybe somebody with more time can work it into the article. It's Ranger et al. 2017. Caramellization depends heavily on whether it's amorphous or crystalline lactose. For the former it's around 140°C. — J.S.^talk 09:57, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

caramel

So the production of caramel ironically isn't based on caramelization? --Abdull 13:09, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

that is correct. "Real" i.e. caramelized caramel is a lot darker and was more popular in old-fashioned candies. Source: Jason Huntzinger, candymaker at Preston's Candy & Ice Cream brain 21:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Are you certain? It seems that caramelized lactose is involved, at least. There's some internal inconsistency here (see the section "Contradiction between Maillard and caramel articles" below.) Brad daniels 21:06, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

There is a lot of confusion. Several of the articles on sugars in cooking are confused. The chemists have ironed out most of the theoretical issues but the "cooking" parts are still confused. Likely candies made with caramelized sugars and milk involve both Mallard reaction and standard caramelization that occurs without milk compounds. Mydogtrouble (talk) 03:44, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

According to another dictionary caromel means "to turn into caramel". http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2058454/Scrabble-champion-Wayne-Kelly-crowned-thanks-word-caromel.html 86.44.79.87 (talk) 15:23, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

No history section?

Nowhere is there a history section in this article for history about caramel. Article about the chocolate here already has history section. What's up with that? --Legion (talk) 06:19, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

It's so bizarre that we don't see even a rough history section. Was caramel discovered thousands of years ago or around the 16th century?! Is it truly totally unknown? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.87.228.230 (talk) 22:35, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

I doubt if it was discovered thousands of years ago. The only kind of sugar that has been available in even moderately high amounts until the last few varieties is honey, and I doubt if many people ever tried heating honey until it caramelized (or if this can even be done). Agree there should be a history section.

(Btw, regarding chocolate - chocolate has a history of human use going back thousands of years, this is true, but chocolate was never sweetened until only a few hundred years ago; the pre-Columbian New World aristocrats and royals drank it unsweetened, flavoured with vanilla and chile) Firejuggler86 (talk) 08:49, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

I think all these Ideas of having a history section is a good one. I may add a template for that / research into it. Imurmate I'ma editor2022 (talk) 22:04, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Serving is what?

what constitutes a serving of caramel?--79.213.245.27 (talk) 20:17, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Illustration

Why is the page illustrated with "Mirepoix (carrots, onions, and celery) being caramelized" - when this surely is an example of the misuse of the term for a Maillard reaction? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.21.127.76 (talk) 11:36, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Hard caramels and ... ?

Seems a section on/mention of 'hard caramels' may be useful. (Werther's Original and ... ?). As it stands the article seems weighted to 'milk caramel' items. 'Salted caramel' may deserve mention as well. --Kevjonesin (talk) 03:43, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

dairy commercial

discussion on how to stop the animal exploitation unionists from destroying this page .
preference should not superseded animal welfare .
how to stop those with a preference for animal exploitation from using this article as an animal exploitation activism platform  ?

Nutritional information

Per "Four and Six Tenths tablespoons (i.e., 69 grams)" must be the most bizarre unit of measurement I have ever come across. The use of i.e. suggests the author thinks this is a well established conversion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.6.164.85 (talk) 19:14, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

It might be for whatever particular product is being refered to; but one measures volume and the other weight, so the number of grams in a tablespoon will vary, depending on what is being described. This practice, though, is common on nutritional labels in the US, for the serving sizes: the serving size will be listed in US measures first, either in cups (for amounts of 1⁄4 cup) or in tablespoons for smaller portions, then it will give the amount of grams in parentheses. I agree that it is somewhat odd. Firejuggler86 (talk) 08:40, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

If my memory still works, there are three teapoons in a tablespoon, which would mean four tablespoons two teaspoons is very close to 4.6 tablespoons. I also have never seen decimal tablespoons, but I'd venture a guess that this was the origin of that measurement - a misguided attempt to semi-deci-delineate a non-decimal measuring system ... strange. Should probably be 4 tbsp 2 tsp (69g). 73.83.43.194 (talk) 23:11, 6 June 2021 (UTC)