Talk:Chocolate/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chocolate. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140712023920/http://www.foodispower.org/slavery-chocolate/ to http://www.foodispower.org/slavery-chocolate/%23

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:32, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Ok. --Zefr (talk) 14:38, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Ruby Chocolate

So, if this Swiss company is telling the truth, ruby chocolate is now a thing and my world has changed forever. Just something interesting to keep an eye on and possibly add to this page. Kerdooskis (talk) 21:06, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Missing manufacturer

Hi everyone, Mondelēz International, Inc. is not mentioned as a manufacturer. I also think that Toblerone should be linked and mentioned as being made by Mondelēz International, Inc, as they are a very popular chocolate bar. --Meliss1 (talk) 18:24, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Quality based on fatty acids and crystals

Removed this statement because it's weakly sourced and doubtful that manufacturing quality or consumer satisfaction are based on these characteristics. The image provided reveals little and should not be used. --Zefr (talk) 23:29, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Disk of chocolate (about 4cm in diameter), as sold in Central America, for making hot cocoa. Note that the chocolate pictured here is soft, can easily be crumbled by hand, and already has sugar added.

A good quality chocolate has mixture of beta and beta prime fat crystals because of presence of stearic, oleic and palmitic fatty acids in certain amounts. Beta crystals are responsible for the shine of chocolate surface whereas beta prime crystals give molding ability to chocolate. Beta prime crystals are small needle like loosely packed structures and beta are tightly packed but have higher melting point as compared to beta prime crystals. Source here.

"oesophagus"?

Who uses this? Not Wikipedia. see linked article Esophagus.--134.153.5.130 (talk) 18:29, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 January 2018

"Change References 61: The Royal Institution of Great Britain. "Why Chocolate Melts and Jet Planes Don't" (PDF). The Royal Institution of Great Britain. Retrieved 24 April 2013. to Liso craves your lips and melts at your touch "Liso, Unravelling The All New Chocolate Mystery!" " Vini1321 (talk) 05:27, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Not done: That site is commercial and does not support the article content. Gulumeemee (talk) 09:58, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 January 2018

Teresavargas1301 (talk) 17:54, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Scientist have said chocolate is "on track to go extinct in 40 years" due to climate change, with cacao plants "slated to disappear by as early as 2050 thanks to warmer temperatures and dryer weather conditions". Coming to conclusions they believe that plant or ingredient such as cacao can be going extinct in order to make chocolate but yet its still a few decades away to tell early on if it will be gone forever or what will be done in order to reproduce chocolate.

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 17:57, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Interpreting the request by Teresavargas1301, I added content and a reference to this section under Production. --Zefr (talk) 18:29, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Oaxacan colonial usage

• between pre-colombian and european
• http://web.archive.org/web/20110118000905/http://hereandnow.wbur.org:80/2011/01/13/diana-kennedy
• Oaxaca al Gusto: An Infinite Gastronomy By Diana Kennedy
  • The Pillars of Oaxacan Cuisine : Chocolate By Fray Eugenio Martín Torres Torres

64.175.40.231 (talk) 03:39, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Process of Chocolate Making

• https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLD0iCDKqYiNSw4BGehdAVaN45ONF3kQ7C

Part 1 - Harvesting of Cacao pods Part 2 - Fermentation of cacao beans Part 3 - Drying of cacao beans Part 4 - Exporting of Cacao beans Part 5 - Tasting of Cacao Liquor Part 7 - The Process of chocolate-making Part 8 - The chocolatier's work Part 9 - Final Stage of chocolate making 64.175.40.197 (talk) 11:29, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Planning on adding information,

I would like to include how the term hot chocolate came to be because they added chili pepper. I would also like to add a section comparing how the Aztec vs the Mayans used chocolate, how they differ and how they were similar. I would also like to expand on how important chocolate was viewed as a currency. I currently have a word document with facts and information in addition to the citations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yessii (talk • contribs) 01:28, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 May 2018

Chocolate (from náhuatl: xocolātl ) (/ˈtʃɒklɪt, -kəlɪt, -lət, ˈtʃɔːk-/ ) is a typically sweet, usually brown food prepared from Theobroma cacao seeds, roasted and ground. Akh02 (talk) 22:02, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. That seems to be the article's opening sentence. What change are you esking for? RudolfRed (talk) 22:24, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

@RudolfRed: It appears the OP wants the phrase "preparation of" changed to "prepared from". I'm not attached to either wording myself. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 22:31, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Conching edit

I work in the biggest chocolate factory chain, in the headquaters. The conching process is not at all how it happens. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JonaCabra (talk • contribs) 23:50, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Although COI is always a concern at project Wikipedia, as well it should be, you are uniquely positioned within the industry to have a knowledge of sources for process information. If you bring the sources to this page to be vetted, there is no reason for you not to be a part of the conversation. All sides should be heard. Personally, I have no knowledge of "conching," and come here out of concerns about fair trade and child labour practices. Secondary and tertiary sources are preferred over primary sources, but if this "conching" is not controversial, an industry source may be acceptable for clarification. rags (talk) 11:57, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Theobromine poisoning

The article on theobromine poisoning says how pets can be poisoned. It should be summarized here. Bod (talk) 01:34, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Per WP:SCIRS, this needs a review discussing the dose of theobromine in a given type of chocolate, and the lethal dose for given pets for a given amount of chocolate consumed. You're adding unsourced blog information to an encyclopedia. Please stop; giving a warning, as this now represents WP:WAR. --Zefr (talk) 20:21, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

@Zefr: Now you are just skeptical of all my sources. All that information on chocolate poisoning in pets was copy/pasted, cut, summarized, etc. from theobromine poisoning. It is fairly common knowledge around these parts that small dogs can be poisoned by chocolate. It was all information from Wikipedia and I think you knew that. Bod (talk) 21:15, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Every science editor at Wikipedia should be skeptical and challenge for solid sources. You're not helping by doing your part to find sources that support content you wish to add. From this source under Methylxanthines, it states that 20 mg/kg theobromine is the threshold for dogs to show mild clinical effects of overdose. In a small 10 kg dog, that's 200 mg theobromine consumed. For "poisoning", the article states that 40 mg/kg or 400 total mg consumed for a small dog. As the same source says that dark chocolate per gram contains about 5 mg theobromine, a small dog would have to eat 40 grams dark chocolate to reach the mild-symptom threshold, and 80 grams of chocolate for the poison threshold. How practical is this, and how much do chocolate theobromine contents and dog weights vary? It's an unwieldy, variable issue, and in my opinion, it's both guesswork and WP:UNDUE for the chocolate article. --Zefr (talk) 21:41, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Well, since the article is linked, I think I am fine with there being no information about pet poisoning in this article. And you are right that my main source was from when I was a kid and heard from someone a story of their friend's dog eating chocolate and them rushing it to the hospital and worrying about it dying. I'm not sure it actually died and probably in my memory I just imagined it dying. And you know how people can be about their pets when they get concerned and overreact. So that was the impression I got for how toxic chocolate could be for dogs. I just assumed there would be news stories, etc. but sometimes people do exaggerate in real life and don't get all the facts right. The wikipedia article supports the fact that they have established the LD50 for dogs and dogs have gotten sick. One article says that older dogs can die, especially if they have a heart condition (https://vcahospitals.com/know-your-pet/chocolate-poisoning-in-dogs). You are right that I am a little bit stubborn when content is removed towards giving people the benefit of the doubt. And it does seem like a good thing that people are pushing for requiring better sources. So your efforts are appreciated. Bod (talk) 22:56, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

The anecdotal evidence is distinctly lopsided, as "you know how people can be about their pets" is exactly right. I personally know people who say they give their dogs chocolate, to no ill effect. Thus the importance of published info from vetted sources, and particularly WP:NOR. This page has been considerably archived, so controversial issues are likely to have been previously hashed over, if you are interested. rags (talk) 12:29, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Fair Trade

The single source (footnote 119), over four years old, is in re fair trade, but does not address the chocolate industry per se, where child labour and trafficking seem to be a more pronounced part of the problem. When fair trade is attempted by BIG CHOC itself, parallel to sister divisions which are old-school and other than fair-trade within the same corporation, one wonders if the motivation veers from fairness more towards increasing market-share. Sorry to editorialize, but this does go to sources and article improvement. As with any controversy, sources can be cherry-picked to support an agenda, so one solution is more sources to achieve better balance. And any proactive program to correct a widespread problem in a multibillion $ industry can and will fall short in specific instances. The Mennonite Church has made significant inroads with fair trade, particularly for cottage industry, having no profit motivation nor stockholder concerns. When disposing of bathwater it's always best to err on the side of caution with regards to the baby. Eyes on the prize, is all I'm saying. rags (talk) 12:56, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

I have added recent fully-cited content (from Fortune (magazine), for example, to this article and several others. Another editor deleted all of it, with no explanation or discussion in the Talk page. That editor then tells me, that I should discss it on the Talk page. Should that person not have started a discussion suggesting why the content should be removed?

I have done an UNDO. This aspect of the cocoa/chocolate industry is highly relevant. Your thoughts, rags Peter K Burian (talk) 16:24, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Fortune is an American multinational business magazine headquartered in New York City, United States. It is published and owned by Meredith Corporation. The publication was founded by Henry Luce in 1929. The magazine competes with Forbes and Bloomberg Businessweek in the national business magazine category and distinguishes itself with long, in-depth feature articles.[2] The magazine regularly publishes ranked lists, perhaps best known is the Fortune 500, a ranking of companies by revenue that it has published annually since 1955.[3] Peter K Burian (talk) 16:25, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Update: User:Zefr (in his comment re: a recent reversion of my text) suggested that I add a condensed version. I have done so with a citation that is correctly formatted.

   Approximately 2.1 million children in West Africa were involved in harvesting cocoa, as of 2015. A 2016 report offered this comment about the issue: "I think child labor cannot be just the responsibility of industry to solve. I think it’s the proverbial all-hands-on-deck: government, civil society, the private sector. And there, you really need leadership", according to Sona Ebai, the former secretary general of the Alliance of Cocoa Producing Countries.

References

Peter K Burian (talk) 17:07, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

• Support Peter K Burian's version. I have hence reverted an attempt to delete it. --David Tornheim (talk) 17:57, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, David Tornheim. This is relevant content that the industry may not like, but it's a very important aspect. Thankfully, the article is in the highly-respected Fortune magazine. AND although User:Zefr keeps saying to condense it, I have done so already. Cheers, Peter K Burian (talk) 18:21, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

The Fortune article/quote adds little to what the section already stated, and is 3 years out of date for a topic with worldwide scrutiny and influence. I objected to the redundancy and old news, and am adding more recent sources if they provide newer information. --Zefr (talk) 19:32, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Child labor, slavery, trafficking -- to Lede

I have added this material to the lede with this edit per WP:LEDE. The lede must summarize the material in the article. --David Tornheim (talk) 14:32, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

*Support. Good idea, David Tornheim. When I first read this article, I thought, "What a whitewash of the situation". Parts of the article sound like it was written by the industry's Public Relations hacks. Peter K Burian (talk) 14:44, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

It's happened before: [1][2][3][4][5][6]. We have an article that talks about this particular case. I suspect that edit won't stand long and you will see WP:TENDENTIOUS editing trying to get it removed or buried so readers don't see it. I hope I am wrong, but I have been here too long not to notice these kinds of problems. It used to not be that way before about 2012. --David Tornheim (talk) 14:51, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Well, if necessary, David Tornheim, I will arrange for a Feedback Request or ask for Admin Help.Peter K Burian (talk) 14:58, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

The discussion of Child Slavery was pretty weak in the Cocoa article as well. I have beefed that up. This is a huge issue, extensively covered by the major news media.

https://www.google.com/search?q=child+slavery+cocoa+industry&rlz=1C1RUCY_enCA781CA781&oq=child+slavery+cocoa+industry&aqs=chrome..69i57.5660j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 Peter K Burian (talk) 15:11, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Revised version by Zefr

I prefer my version for the WP:LEDE:

Concerns have been raised that as many as two million children may be involved in the production of cocoa and may be victims of child slavery and trafficking.

References

to Zefr's much longer version:

With some two million children involved in the farming of cocoa in Côte d'Ivoire and Ghana, child slavery and trafficking were major concerns in 2018, with international attempts to improve conditions for children failing because of persistent poverty, absence of schools, increasing world cocoa demand, and more intensive farming of cocoa.

References

I believe simplicity is preferred. Also, I think the explanation "international attempts to improve conditions for children failing because of persistent poverty, absence of schools, increasing world cocoa demand, and more intensive farming of cocoa" is too WP:POV. It places the blame on child labor on abstract economics factors rather than on human actors who profiteer off of the child labor and authorities who could pass and enforce more restrictive child labor laws, but do not. It does not include the fact that the demand for chocolate is a result of globalization and colonialism.[7][8]. Our article Child labour in cocoa production suggests these causes:

The blame for the slavery in cocoa production has been passed from one group to the next. Those who sell the children to the farmers claimed they did not see the slavery. The Ivorian government accused foreigners of using and selling slaves and blamed multinational chocolate companies for keeping cocoa prices low and farmers in poverty; it claimed the low prices forced some farmers to use slave labor. The Ivorian prime minister, Pascal Affi N'Guessan, said the price would need to increase 10 times to ensure a good quality of life for the farmers and their families. Farmers who bought slaves blamed the worldwide cost of cocoa. Cocoa suppliers claimed they cannot manage what happens on the farms. Chocolate companies stated that the suppliers needed to provide cocoa that was not produced by slaves. Consumers did not know that their chocolate was produced using slave labor.

Refs omitted. --David Tornheim (talk) 17:34, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

"Concerns have been raised that as many as two million children may be involved in the production of cocoa and may be victims...". The statement can be made with more certainty, and other relevant information added from the sources. It wasn't POV, but stated there in the references. I suggest an edit. --Zefr (talk) 17:44, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

I'll let Peter K Burian take a stab at it. --David Tornheim (talk) 17:46, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Lead: The longer wording tries to shift the reader's view vs. the countries and trafficking, but the industry needs to accept responsibility too. In my view, the brief, factual coverage in the lead, added by User:David Tornheim was ideal. It did not assign responsibility. The longer, later section can discuss all of the parties who are responsible.

Hmmm.... OK, I can live with the longer discussion of slavery in the lead; I revised it slightly. Peter K Burian (talk) 18:39, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Who is responsible for child slavery in the cocoa fields?

So far, the article blames poor farmers, traffickers, the countries, but not the chocolate industry. But the industry has responsibility too:

Nestlé sued again over child labor in cocoa supply chain https://www.confectionerynews.com/Article/2018/02/13/Nestle-sued-again-over-child-labor-in-cocoa-supply-chain Feb 14, 2018 - Nestlé sued again for allegedly 'using child and slave labor to make chocolate' ... ADM, which alleged the firms aided and abetted child slavery in West Africa.

Your Halloween Candy's Hidden Ingredient: Child Slave Labor ... https://www.motherjones.com/food/2018/10/halloween-candy-hidden-ingredient-chocolate-child-slave-labor-nestle-mars-cargill/ Oct 31, 2018 If you’re buying last-minute Halloween candy, you might want to know about a recent ruling by the US Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit in a long-running lawsuit against Nestlé and agribusiness giant Cargill that alleges the companies aided and abetted child slavery on cocoa farms in the Ivory Coast.

Does Your Chocolate Come From Slaves? – ETHICAL UNICORN https://ethicalunicorn.com/2018/02/24/does-your-chocolate-come-from-slaves/ Feb 24, 2018 - Many children in Western Africa live in poverty, so begin working at a young age to ... supply cocoa to the international giants such as Hershey's, Mars, and Nestlé, ... eliminating child and forced labour in cocoa farms, particularly West Africa, ...

But if responsibility is assigned to the industry, Neutral POV suggests that the article also cover the corporations' attempts at improving the situation

Cocoa | Nestlé Global - Nestle https://www.nestle.com/csv/raw-materials/nestle-cocoa-plan Mar 21, 2018 - The cocoa supply chain features serious challenges, from low incomes for farmers to child labour and gender inequalities. We are tackling these issues through ...

Cocoa has a poverty problem. You can help by eating more dark ... https://newfoodeconomy.org/chocolate-farmers-ivory-coast-ghana/ Jul 7, 2018 - On this World Chocolate Day, we're sharing insights on the state of the chocolate market and ... and Nestlé expressed their collective commitment to combat child labor in cocoa growing communities in West Africa through their support of the ...

Granted, most of this additional discussion belongs in the article about Child labour in cocoa production. I have updated that article accordingly. Peter K Burian (talk) 20:17, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Colonialism

I think more should be said in the article and especially the WP:LEDE about globalization and colonialism with regard to chocolate. The issue of child labor in the article sounds almost like it is something new, but the exploitation of labor and resources in African colonies has a long history. I have not done an extensive search for WP:RS, but something like this is a probably a start for that kind of material. --David Tornheim (talk) 17:49, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

True David Tornheim, but after updating a lot of articles about child labor in the cocoa fields, I just don't have the energy to tackle another topic. If you do so, I will certainly take a look and perhaps do a bit more on this issue. Cheers, Peter K Burian (talk) 20:19, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Incorrect grammar on page

Hello, "Chocolate is a usually sweet, brown food preparation of roasted and ground cacao seeds" is grammatically incorrect. Chocolate can also be white, and other colours.

Suggest edit "Chocolate is a sweet confectionery prepared from roasted and ground cacao seeds." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.171.134.189 (talk) 04:46, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Containing vitamin B12 ?

In this article, the presence of vit. B12 (up to 29% of recommended daily intake !!) is mentioned. But one reads everywhere that B12 is produced only by certain bacteria which are absent from plants and active naturally only in some animals like cattle, rabbit etc. And when no milk is added, chocolate is purely vegetal, so cannot contain the vitamin (unless it is being added from industrially produced B12). The text and table shown are thus at least misleading in this aspect. IMHO --UKe-CH (talk) 10:34, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

The nutrition table in the article uses milk chocolate as the example (as a Google search will show, it is the most common type of chocolate). Since milk chocolate uses whole milk and/or butter in manufacturing, the bacteria and vitamin B12 in these dairy sources would explain the 29% DV in a 100 gram serving of milk chocolate. In the USDA nutrient database (search here), there are dozens of chocolate products that were assayed for nutrient content; it seems reasonable to use milk chocolate as the example for nutrition and vitamin B12 content in the article. --Zefr (talk) 16:57, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

You are basically right, I had not seen what is on the top of the nutrition table. But may-be it would be good to mention that the B12 is there only due to the milk --UKe-CH (talk) 21:59, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

That would require an assumption that the dairy ingredients are the source of B12 without knowing the sample constituents. The article section on nutrition, including the table and specifying the content is about milk chocolate, says all we can objectively state, in my opinion. --Zefr (talk) 23:03, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

History in Asia

When the Spanish introduced chocolate to the their colony the Philippines, they had also introduced chocolate to Asia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.200.192.132 (talk) 10:37, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Common Era Usage

Reading this article I was surprised to find the Dionysian notation for dates as opposed to the Common Era notation especially given the non-Christian nature of this article. Before changing to the more neutral and, in my mind, more appropriate Common Era notation I thought it would be a good idea to open a talk page in case this has been considered before. Ibrmrn (talk) 18:52, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

"Chokolade" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Chokolade. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 (talk) 06:58, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

"Choccie" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Choccie. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 (talk) 00:03, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Spelling mistake

Something is weird at Type > White. 'Main article: white chocolate' should be 'Main article: White chocolate'. 111.88.15.184 (talk) 10:37, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Raising concern on etymology (again)

Somebody has made a comment about this before, see Talk:Chocolate/Archive 5#Etymology of chocolate. While the current etymology section states:

The origin of the Nahuatl word is uncertain, as it does not appear in any early Nahuatl source, where the word for chocolate drink is cacahuatl, "cacao water". It is possible that the Spaniards coined the word (perhaps in order to avoid caca, a vulgar Spanish word for "faeces") by combining the Yucatec Mayan word chocol, "hot", with the Nahuatl word atl, "water".

this may seem pretty sound for a non-Spanish speaker, until you understand that "caca" words in Spanish derived from the same origin exist and are used frequently, like "cacao" and "cacahuete" (peanut). I hope another version is provided because this sound pretty fallacious.--ReyHahn (talk) 10:22, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

You have a point. Unfortunately, there is a quite reliable source (Coe & Coe) for this claim. --Macrakis (talk) 20:21, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

"How chocolate is made" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect How chocolate is made. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 2#How chocolate is made until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 15:14, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

The Wikipedia page does not mention a lot about how many companies cannot source their chocolate to where it was grown:

The use of commodity exchanges for bulk cocoa purchases results in major companies not being able to track where their cocoa product comes from. Big name corporations such as Hershey, Mars, and Nestle, have stated that they are unable to claim whether their chocolate was made with or without child labor. Currently, Mars can only trace 24 percent of their cocoa, and Hershey and Nestle can only trace a little under half. Fortunately many big companies such as General Mills have made promises for their cocoa to be 100 percent sourceable in the next few years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hnmitchell99 (talk • contribs) 17:39, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the place to Right Great Wrongs. Besides, that belongs in the cacao article. Kleuske (talk) 17:44, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 May 2020

Change the last graph of the intro from: With some two million children involved in the farming of cocoa in West Africa, child slavery and trafficking were major concerns in 2018.[5][6] However, international attempts to improve conditions for children were failing because of persistent poverty, absence of schools, increasing world cocoa demand, more intensive farming of cocoa, and continued exploitation of child labor.

To: With some two million children involved in the farming of cocoa in West Africa, child slavery and trafficking were major concerns in 2018.[5][6] International attempts to improve conditions for children were failing because of persistent poverty, absence of schools, increasing world cocoa demand, more intensive farming of cocoa, and continued exploitation of child labor.

Removing the word "However," which does not make sense in context. Danny Kaplowitz (talk) 20:19, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Done, thank you – Thjarkur (talk) 20:39, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

"Introduction to United States" subsection is underdeveloped and poorly sourced

This section is editorialized ("an empire still going strong today"), only mentions the formation of the first chocolate manufacturer, and cites a trivia website. Recommend revising sources/language.

Succynic (talk) 17:06, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Use of BCE

When reading this article, I suspect most people will come across the phrase "dating from 19 centuries BCE" and have no idea what that means. I know I didn't. JettaMann (talk) 21:41, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 November 2020

change "dating from 19 centuries BCE" to "dating from the 19th century BCE". 138.229.149.15 (talk) 03:34, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

 Done — IVORK _Talk 04:49, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 March 2021

{{editprotecte}

122.56.168.237 (talk) 19:50, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Add to Cacao Varieties Section

A single pod of cacao can have between 20 and 30 cacao beans, and a single cacao tree produces enough seeds to make roughly one pound of chocolate per year. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nkurtz12 (talk • contribs) 02:31, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Add to Industry > Fair Trade Section

Most of the money made from cocoa –- approximately 79% -- goes to retailers and chocolate manufacturers. Cocoa farmers often have to support their families on less than $5 a day. Many cocoa farmers and workers earn even less than $1.25 per day, leaving them far below the poverty line. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ShaunC40 (talk • contribs) 18:42, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Zephyr Ji.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:34, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Change sentence in processing section

Cacao pod harvesting is a painstaking process, as they must be harvested by hand to not damage the seeds. They are harvested by using a long knife or machete to cut the pods off the tree. 

References

The quote attributed to Jose de Acosta has a word, "the" that needs to be removed. It should read, "...chocolate is said to be... " "This aforementioned chocolate is said to the be made in various forms and temperaments, hot, cold, and lukewarm. They are..." Oirampec1 (talk) 19:53, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 September 2022

My suggested changes are: Change A to B (See below). A is how it is right now. B is my edit. It removes an unnecessary comma early in the sentence and adds two elements: 1. An oxford comma for better legibility at a glance, and 2. The word 'either' which also improves legibility.

A: Chocolate is a food made from roasted and ground cacao seed kernels, that is available as a liquid, solid or paste, on its own or as a flavoring agent in other foods.

B: Chocolate is a food made from roasted and ground cacao seed kernels that is available as a liquid, solid, or paste, either on its own or as a flavoring agent in other foods. Rosedaler (talk) 07:22, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

 Done. Aidan9382 _(talk) 09:35, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

"Chocolate pie" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Chocolate pie and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 10#Chocolate pie until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Jay 💬 16:50, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 October 2022

Change For example, the Aztecs used a system in which one turkey cost 100 cocoa beans and one fresh avocado was worth three beans.

to For example, the Aztecs used a system in which one turkey cost cocoa 100 cocoa beans, and one fresh avocado was worth three beans. Additionally, according to a 16th-century Aztec document, one cocoa bean could buy a tamale. Alabamaasian7 (talk) 20:20, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done - Trivia. Zefr (talk) 21:15, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

References

Wiki Education assignment: Research Process and Methodology - FA22 - Sect 200 - Thu

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 September 2022 and 8 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Rheaxx666 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Rheaxx666 (talk) 18:26, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Systematic misuse of "cacao solids"

In this article and other chocolate-related articles, there is a lack of standardization of how "cacao solids" are used. The majority of the uses in these articles do not fit with how the phrase is used by regulatory bodies or within the chocolate industry.

"Cacao solids" refers to both cacao butter and nonfat cacao solids ie cacao powder. Here is an example:

https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/c.r.c.,_c._870/page-22.html

"(b) shall contain not less than 35 per cent total cocoa solids, of which (i) not less than 18 per cent is cocoa butter, and (ii) not less than 14 per cent is fat-free cocoa solids; and"

It's also consistent with labeling requirements in the US. You can check Lindt 85% vs Lindt 90% cacao content chocolate sold in the US, the 90% only has additional cacao fat.

If the intent is to only mention cacao powder or non-fat solids then it should be explicit. This is consistent with how the FDA uses the terms:

https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfcfr/CFRSearch.cfm?CFRPart=163&showFR=1&subpartNode=21:2.0.1.1.39.2

"(1) In the preparation of the product, cocoa or a mixture of cocoa and chocolate liquor is used in such quantity that the finished food contains not less than 6.8 percent by weight of nonfat cacao solids, calculated on a moisture-free basis;"

23.25.142.37 (talk) 02:08, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

domestication

There is nothing here about the history of the development of the plant into something that produces a food. It seems that it was first developed in South America, but I don't have a good citation on this claim from a museum in new mexico. https://news.unm.edu/news/unm-archaeologist-to-discuss-chaco-canyon-chocolate-at-museum-lecture-series2600:6C67:1C00:5F7E:618D:3A7E:5451:6D73 (talk) 15:16, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Unclear

"The shell is removed to produce cocoa nibs, which are then ground to cocoa mass." Which is ground up? The shell or the "nibs", which also needs clarifaction of what are "nibs". Nibs are the kernels? Then this should be stated in the first line. 194.193.192.4 (talk) 03:59, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

The nibs are what remains after the shells of roasted beans are removed. The sentence is already self-defining. Why ever would you think chocolate is made by grinding up the shells? That makes no sense. SpinningSpark 14:15, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 February 2023

Change

"As of 2017, there is no high-quality evidence that dark chocolate affects blood pressure significantly or provides other health benefits.[39]"

to

"While the positive health effects of chocolate can be a source of debate, preliminary evidence suggests there appear to be small but statistically significant beneficial effects to cardiovascular health.[39]"

Source: Contrary to the current claim, the originally cited source states there is small but significant blood pressure benefits. (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6478304/). Katie.steck (talk) 02:34, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

The article does not say anything about "source of debate". What it does say under quality of evidence is The evidence is of moderate quality. We were unable to identify any randomised controlled trials that tested the effect of long‐term daily use of cocoa products on blood pressure, and there were no trials that measured the health consequences of high blood pressure, such as heart attacks or strokes. Statistically significant is not the same as medically significant. As the source says, such evidence is currently lacking. SpinningSpark 13:56, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was Merge. Excutient^Talk 19:30, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

---

I propose merging Health effects of chocolate into Chocolate. The content on "Health effects of chocolate", from my understanding, already appears on the "Chocolate" page and so a separate article is unnecessary. Content on the "Health effects of chocolate" page is not substantial in wordcount and could be merged with "Chocolate" without causing any problems with article-size. --Excutient^Talk 12:59, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

• Support merge as it would be easier to have all the content on one article. No need to have two articles with duplicated or similar content. Psychologist Guy (talk) 15:36, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
• Support as proposed. Zefr (talk) 15:42, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 21 April 2023

there is a comma, but there should be and after it. saying: "chocolate has a sugary structure, has a..." is not easy to read for some viewers. instead write something like: " chocolate has a sugary structure, and has a..." so it is easier to read for some of our younger users. Loganoranges (talk) 12:27, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

 Note: That section you quote, "chocolate has a sugary structure", is not in this article. Perhaps you meant a related article? Actualcpscm (talk) 12:52, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 July 2023

Add article to category Category:Mexican cuisine. 2607:FB91:321:4D27:AC39:8391:8023:7F0B (talk) 08:50, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

 Done --Ferien (talk) 09:16, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Polyphenol and theobromine contents

Removing this table from the article as there are no reliable sources for the polyphenol contents. The theobromine contents for the different chocolate preparations are provided in the FoodData Central tables, typically at the bottom of each report. Search using this link for each preparation.

The below sentence and table are removed from the article (theobromine values updated with FoodData Central):

The following table shows the content of polyphenols and theobromine in various preparations of chocolate.

Type of chocolate	Total polyphenols (mg/100g)	Flavonoids (mg/100g)	Theobromine (mg/100g)
Raw chocolate			3300^
Dark chocolate	579^	28^	802
Baking chocolate			1300
Milk chocolate	160^	13^	205
White chocolate	126^	8^	0

^ unverified contents. This PubMed search for review articles on polyphenol contents in chocolate does not yield trustworthy or useful sources. Zefr (talk) 00:52, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Lead illustration

Given that this article is about chocolate in the broad sense of the term (and not only about chocolate bars), there should be an illustration that shows at least the two most common forms of chocolate: powder and bars.

Here are two illustrations that could be used:

• 
  current image
• 
  best composition but not very high resolution
• 
  higher resolution version

Zach (Talk) 16:44, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

 Done - the Roshen image is an advertisement, now replaced with your high-resolution version. Zefr (talk) 01:00, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I think I will try to do something better by the end of the year. I really like this composition (for instance) and I'm sure we can do even better. I'm of course open to suggestions. Zach (Talk) 10:04, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Chocolate in Aztec mythology

This line in the article, "They associated chocolate with Quetzalcoatl, who, according to one legend, was cast away by the other gods for sharing chocolate with humans,[13]..." is not corroborated by any textual source. The citation on the Field Museum website does not list a textual source for this and I have been unable to locate the original work that this is from.

This line should be removed text unless a better source can be listed.

I believe what this is actually referring to are Nahuatl traditionas about Topiltzin Quetzalcoatl, the legendary Toltec ruler of Tollan who is often confused with the god Quetzalcoatl. There are references in these stories to Topiltzin discovering multicolored cacao and this playing a part in Toltec culture and refinement. (See page 42 of H.B Nicholson's "Topiltzin Quetzalcoatl" for the reference.)

The rest of the line about equating chocolate with blood is correct and does not merit removal. Major Letdown (talk) 14:02, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 November 2023

Change "In 1729, the first water-powered machinery to ground cocoa beans" to "In 1729, the first water-powered machinery to grind cocoa beans". Ground is the past participle of the base verb grind and it is stylistically and grammatically not accepted to use a past participle with an infinitive marker "to" as here. 125.253.110.15 (talk) 12:44, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

 Done Thanks. Liu1126 (talk) 14:18, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Hazelnut was introduced to solid chocolate before 1814

"giandoja [dʒaŋˈdʊja]) is a homogeneous blend of chocolate with 30% hazelnut paste, invented in Turin during Napoleon's regency (1796–1814)."

Source: Gianduja (chocolate), Wikipedia in English DELIKAKTUS (talk) 12:18, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 December 2023

The section on lead states Nigeria still uses leaded fuel. As of 2021, no nation is using leaded fuel.

Sonukus (talk) 06:13, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Added, thank you for the edit! I can do stuff! (talk) 06:45, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

References

Cacao seed taste

The very start of the text where it says the cacao seeds have an intense bitter taste seems wrong. Cacao seeds, straight out the pod, are actually mild and slightly sweet. The fermentation isn’t to remove a bitter taste, it’s simply to make it taste more interesting and complex 81.111.248.185 (talk) 22:15, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Add to Industry of Chocolate section

The chocolate manufacturer market is dominated by only a few large corporations, such as Mars and Hershey, but the production of Cacao is a different story. The farming and production of cacao is 90% comprised of many small family farms, that are 2-5 hectares in size. These small farmers are the most vulnerable part of the chocolate supply chain, they face low wages, harsh working conditions, and even use child labor. The few corporations at the top of a billion-dollar industry control the market, and keep the prices of cacao low, and these small farmers do not see any of the massive amount of money generated by the industry.

There is an interesting disparity between the production and the consumption of chocolate. Chocolate is consumed heavily in the global north, while cacao is produced in the global south.

References

Removed chocol + atl text

Removed "It is possible that the Spaniards coined the word (perhaps in order to avoid caca, a vulgar Spanish word for "faeces") by combining the Yucatec Mayan word chocol, "hot", with the Nahuatl word atl, "water"."

Kaufman and Justeson (2007 p. 226): "Da´vila Garibi (1939) proposed that the Nawa word chokola:tl for the drink chocolate originated, in part, in a Mayan language. This proposal was accepted and elaborated by Coe and Coe (1996:118–119) with data from Yukateko and colonial Kaqchikel. It has been uncritically accepted by some scholars— for example, by Tedlock (2002:170)—but it is demonstrably false. It depends on a misunderstanding of the Kaqchikel sources and on a lack of understanding of the history of a Yukateko word meaning ‘hot’."

Elaborated further on the page. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 07:23, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Etymology of Cacao

This is really contested, largely between Kaufman & Justeson and Dakin & Wichmann. I've tried to find where the consensus is and have written out a timeline of sources, NPOV will likely just be "it's heavily contested." Cacao is generally accepted as coming from kakawa-tl. It's being debated whether it's from the Uto-Aztecan language family (which includes Nahua, referred to as UA) which would be a lot more recent, or from Mixe-Zoque language family (includes Olmec, a lot older, referred to as MZ).

• Campbell and Kaufman 1976 argue it originates in MZ.
• Coe and Coe 1996 repeat this, citing Kaufman.
• Dakin and Wichmann 2000 (59) argue the word actually has a UA origin.
• Macri 2005 says archeological evidence supports Dakin’s theory.
• Kaufman and Justeson 2007 release a polemic article arguing the word has a Mixe-Zoquean origin.

The journal Kaufman and Justeson publish in solicits comments and publishes responses to the article in 2011.

• Beekman calls the MZ origin “convincing.”
• Dakin and Wichmann responds, noting that historical linguists often disagree about where words come from and researchers are hypothesizing. They argue against MZ and for UA, taking some things into account, disregarding others.
• Hopkins finds Kaufman’s thesis “convincing.”
• Rosenwig is more muted in approval, citing inability to evaluate etymological minutiae.
• Trivino 2013 says the controversy is still alive, and linguists have “joined the controversy.”
• Coe and Coe 2013 print the MZ origin in their 2013 edition of A True History of Chocolate.
• Law 2017 describes Kaufman 2007 as thoroughly refuting UA theory.
• Swanton 2024 says there is an ongoing and robust debate involving the etymology of cacao.
• The OED and Merriam Webster use the Nahuatl origin.

In terms of substance of debate, this is the best summary: Hill 2019. On the whole, there seems to be more support for the MZ theory, although it is very contested. I'm not sure how to word or source this beyond just saying it's contested, as I'm worried about NPOV if I present them as too equally supported or if I present MZ as more popular by selecting sources (i.e. the 2011 article comments, the Law piece and the Coe and Coe reprint), and ignoring the sources implying equivalence or the dictionaries favouring UA.

Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 12:36, 16 July 2024 (UTC)