Talk:Cocoa bean/Archive 1

Archive 1

Argonne National Laboratory

"(based on text from the public-domain Web site of the Argonne National Laboratory)"

Removed this - it should be as a link to the actual page in question, not to a Wiki article about the Argonne lab. To you who added the link: Please make it an external link instead. --Janke | Talk 16:43, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Image gallery

Can someone who knows how please make the image gallery vertical? I think this would improve the layout of the page. -Pgan002 18:09, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

In addition, it would be great to have a sense of the size of the beans near the initial photos. Dropbydrop (talk) 11:24, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Dark Chocolate vs. Milk Chocolate

The article states that dark chocolate has a higher ORAC number than milk chocolate, however there is nothing in the article that explains the difference between dark chocolate and milk chocolate. Could you add a sentence or two that explains what the difference is for people who don't know?24.39.204.9 22:36, 28 October 2006 (UTC)Bennett Turk

This is an article on Cocoa, see the link in the article to Types of chocolate. Rmhermen 03:17, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Chocolate and alchemy

In the history section:

“ It was used in alchemical processes, where it was known as Black Bean. ”

That is an interesting information; May I request a citation for it. Thanks. --BorgQueen 15:14, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Commodity section

Re-introducing "Problems in the use of cocoa as a commodity" section. Unless someone comes up with a logical reason why it doesn't belong, you can't just delete sections wily-nily because you disagree with them. AlphaEta ^{T / C} 04:07, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Processing

It would be good to see more pictures of beans and nibs of various kinds and at various stages of processing. And more details about the fermentation and roasting steps. The best source of such that I've found so far is chocolatealchemy.com . (Which may also be the best source in the US of buying beans, which are hard to find.) A good source of info and links about do-it-yourself processing is here: www.seventypercent.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=1035 -69.87.203.229 (talk) 23:23, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Added a little about roasting, will do more as time permits.Sigh Ns (talk) 14:51, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Clothing line

can anyone find enough info to make a page on COCOA clothing line? i recently bought a hoodie from tj maxx, and i wanted to know more about the company... it seems kinda fake though the hoodie is good.Coralglitter (talk) 23:52, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

You have just volunteered to do the research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.159.119.123 (talk) 13:25, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Changes made to Sustainable Cocoa section

Here are the reasons I’ve made extensive destructive changes to the sustainability section.

The sustainability of the cocoa economy is presently most problematic in the area of the production of cocoa beans. The main sustainability problem in the world cocoa economy is with the farmers. They are the most important, but also the most vulnerable link in the cocoa chain. To date, the use of cocoa beans (processing and manufacturing) and final consumption (almost exclusively in the form of chocolate) have been quite sustainable. However, there are certain deficiencies in the sustainability of processing and manufacturing, while the continued sustainability of final consumption is far from secure.

This contains practically no information. What it does contain is repeated in subsequent paragraphs. It was removed.

The deficiencies in the sustainability of processing and manufacturing would appear to be mainly of a social character. A number of processing and manufacturing companies should further improve their performance in the area of corporate responsibility, with particular regard to the cocoa farming communities.

This is gives not actual information. Strong value judgments are made but not supported. The paragraph was removed.

In the past decades, final consumption of cocoa-based products, mainly chocolate, has been expanding at a growth rate of about 2.5% on average. This implies a doubling of consumption each 25 to 30 years. In recent years, this growth rate seems even to have increased, thanks to a switch of consumers to chocolate products with a high content of cocoa solids. However, some concerns of consumers and of authorities in consumer countries form a threat to a continued rapid expansion of consumption. Consumers are more and more concerned about food safety. These concerns are taken into consideration by the industry, in order to meet increasingly strict food standard regulations.

The paragraph exists solely as a sub-point (along with obesity concerns) to support the statement that consumption may not be sustained. A decades-long average growth rate of 2.5% is not a dying market. It may be shrinking slowly in real terms if the given 2.5% rate is a real rate, not a nominal one, but I can’t tell because it isn’t referenced. A “threat to a continued rapid expansion of consumption” indicates that the market may not grow, not that it will shrink. The paragraph therefore opposes the point it is supposed to support. It was removed.

Moreover, consumers increasingly want their food products to be produced in a socially acceptable way, with respect for the environment and providing an acceptable income to the farmers. However, the world cocoa economy does not seem to be sufficiently geared towards these consumer demands. This constitutes a threat to the sustainability of cocoa consumption.

This part was changed to emphasize consumer interest in human and environmental impact without (1) featuring the implied idea of avoiding cocoa products in order to improve the living standards of cocoa farmers, which is the product of economic misunderstandings or (2) suggesting that the cocoa industry is not meeting consumer’s needs, given that the previous paragraph indicated that the industry is not shrinking.

The next paragraph I’ll deal with in parts:

The major sustainability problem in the cocoa economy is the lack of economic sustainability of cocoa farming. There are problems of price instability and a declining trend in real cocoa prices.

Changed to “Price instability and a declining trend in real cocoa prices are likely to cause a contraction in cocoa output in future.”

However, the core problem is the low income levels of cocoa farmers. A well-to-do cocoa farmer in West Africa has a cocoa farm of three hectares, with an average yield of around 650 kg. per hectare. The farm family has to handle around 50,000 cocoa pods, resulting in a net income of around US$ 2,000 to US$ 3,000, at best. For an average family size of six or seven, that amounts to US$ 300 to US$ 500 dollars per capita per year. Growing their own food, the family can achieve an income that comes to the poverty threshold of US$ 2 per capita per day, as established in the Millennium goals of the United Nations.

The farmers are free to grow the food instead. It it’s beneficial to do so, some will switch over. The cocoa supply is not threatened as reduced supply will lead to higher prices and improved profitability for the remaining cocoa farms, providing an incentive for them to stay in business. While less cocoa products will then be consumed due to their higher price, no sustainability problem is presented here. This section was removed.

Even in such circumstances, it is clearly not economically sustainable for the farmer to remain in cocoa farming. However, with a little less land and/or lower yields, the income of the family easily drops below the poverty line.

This is entirely unclear. My best guess of what it is intended to mean contradicts the preceding analysis. The section was removed.

This situation is not acceptable

This is a strong value judgment that is unsupported. It was removed.

and clearly makes cocoa cultivation not economically sustainable.

See arguments about the paragraph starting “However, the core problem is the low income levels of cocoa farmers.” This was removed.

The lack of economic sustainability also results in shortfalls in both social and environmental sustainability of cocoa cultivation. Cocoa farmers in many producing countries do not enjoy the social amenities that would be considered sustainable in terms of the criteria formulated in the United Nations Millennium Development Goals. Living in rural areas, many farmers are denied access to basic infrastructure facilities, such as roads, electricity, potable water, medical services, education and other essential basic amenities. Due to a lack of genuine educational opportunities and poverty, the farm family often decides that the child should work on the farm. In some cases, this results in the occurrence of the worst forms of child labour, as defined by relevant ILO Conventions. This is not acceptable and if left unchecked, such occurrences give cocoa a bad name and might also negatively impact on the sustainability of consumption.

If, as was suggested previously, cocoa farmers could raise their standard of living by growing food instead, any child labor that occurs has nothing to do with any sort of dependence on cocoa, making this paragraph irrelevant to discussion about cocoa. If on the other hand cocoa is the highest value crop these farmers can grow, it is still safe to say that cocoa production isn’t causing child labor, again making this paragraph irrelevant to discussion about cocoa. Additionally, while it is certainly distasteful, is child labor actually unsustainable? I’m not sure about that last point. The paragraph was removed.

The lack of economic sustainability also has a direct negative effect on environmental sustainability. Poor people cannot afford to care about the environment. For many decades, cocoa farmers have encroached on the forest, most of the time after the best trees had been cut down by logging companies. This has happened less in recent times, as there is less forest left and because many governments and communities take better care of the remaining forests. Usually, use of current inputs, such as chemical fertilizers and pesticides, by farmers is limited. This also explains why most farmers have only limited knowledge of the most appropriate ways of using such inputs. Therefore, considerable work remains to be done in this area.

There is nothing here about sustainability of the cocoa industry. The crux of this paragraph was used to create a new “Environmental impact” section.

I pruned an uninformative phrase and an uninformative sentence from the RSCE section.

=== The social pillar of sustainable cocoa ===

This heading does not make sense in general usage. It was replaced with === Child labour in the cocoa production industry === since that is what the points that follow cover.

At this point I must ask again: Is it known whether child labor is actually unsustainable? I’ve left the child labor section there because (1) I don’t know the answer to the preceding question and (2) I think it is interesting context about the industry and it would be nice to use it somewhere in the article.

I will explain or support any of my statements on request.

Disclaimer: I’m not a subject matter expert. My arguments for the changes I’ve made are based on substance, coherence, support of statements, consistency and economic logic. I have not fact-checked the section. I’ve made this change in a hurry so I may have made mistakes.

AnotherPerson 2 (talk) 23:20, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was consensus against move — æk^Talk 08:01, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

---

Cocoa → Cacao — Cacao is also a name used instead of cocoa, and is typically more coherent with the other article at Wikipedia, Theobroma cacao. KVDP (talk) 10:36, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose - I have no idea in what way cacao is supposed to be "more coherent", but it isn't the most common term in English use, and not the term most readers will recognise. See WP:NAME. Knepflerle (talk) 14:50, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. There are three distinct topics; the plant, the product, and the drink. There's a similar situation with tea; our articles on that issue are respectively Camellia sinensis, Tea, and Tea culture. Apart from the last one (where I think the article in this case can stay at Hot chocolate), I think that solution would work here, too. "Cocoa" is the more common English word for the product, so (per WP:EN) it's the name we should use for the product's article. I agree with the OP that the plant should be at Theobroma cacao. As "Cacao" refers to the product rather than the tree (which would be "cacao tree" or "cacao plant"), I would support Cacao being changed to a redirect to Cocoa. Tevildo (talk) 22:01, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose this is about the product, not the plant, the rename would make it about the plant, which this article is not about. 76.66.194.220 (talk) 05:04, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:UCN. older ≠ wiser 15:11, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose — Both page names are ambiguous and should be occupied by disambiguation pages: Cacao (disambiguation) and Cocoa (disambiguation). --Una Smith (talk) 16:28, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Question. I would support Cacao as a dab page, but, if we change Cocoa to a dab page as well, what do we call this article? Cocoa (foodstuff)? Tevildo (talk) 21:36, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
    • The actual topic of the article is the cocoa bean or cocoa nib or cacao bean or cacao nib; 3 of the 4 are redirects, one pointing to this article. Redirects need fixing... --Una Smith (talk) 02:16, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
      • I'm not sure that this article is exclusively about the bean, because of the "Health benefits" and "Animal consumption" sections. I suppose those could go to Chocolate if necessary. I still support keeping this article at Cocoa, though. Tevildo (talk) 23:11, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

World production

There are two sets of estimates of world production of cocoa beans available in the internet.

One comes from the UN FAO:[1]

2004: Cote D'Ivoire 1407, Ghana 737, Indonesia 642 (thousand metric tons) 2005: 1360, 740, 643 2006: 1372, 734, 769 2007: 1384, 615, 740 2008: 1382, 681, 793 2009: 1223, 711, 800

The other seems to come from the International Cocoa Organization (e.g. [2]):

2004-05: Cote D'Ivoire 1426, Ghana 552, Indonesia 470 2005-06: 1557, 660, 575 2006-07: 1422, 555, 525 2007-08: 1431, 730, 500 2008-09: 1234, 730, 490

Some variations are to be expected, because one of the sources uses calendar years and the other does not, but these differences go beyond any reasonable levels. According to the FAO, Indonesia has been outproducing Ghana since 2006. According to the ICCO, Indonesians are way behind.

This Wikipedia article manages to report both sets of data at the same time (in two different tables), without any attempt of explanation.

Does anyone have any idea why these numbers are so different, and which one should be trusted? --Itinerant1 (talk) 11:08, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

According to International Cocoa Organization [3]total production for 2011-2012 was 3,987 (000 tonnes) with Cote D'Ivoire 1,400, Ghana 870, Indonesia 500. Please update. Shoshie8 (talk) 03:03, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

ITC external link to trade data

Hello everyone, I am working for the International Trade Centre (ITC). I would like to propose the addition of an external link that could lead directly to the trade data regarding cocoa beans, whole or broken, raw or roasted held by ITC. I would like you to consider this link under the WP:ELYES #3 prescriptions. Moreover, the reliability and the pertinence of this link can be supported by the following facts 1) ITC is part of the United Nations 2) No registration is required 3) Trade data (imports/exports) are regularly updated 4) The link gives direct access to the trade database referring to the specific product 5) The addition of a link to reliable data could provide an appropriate contribution to the piece of the article regarding the trade of this product category Thank you in advance for your attention.Divoc (talk) 19:01, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Production in the Philippines

Cocoa production in the Philippines in 2008 seems to have been about 5,000 tons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.160.42.238 (talk) 09:26, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Toxicity of cocoa?

It doesn't seem to mention that cocoa contain the toxin theobromide which is mildly poisonous to humans and very poisonous to other animals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.193.162.120 (talk) 11:59, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Cocoa and Chocolate

I have recently been hearing of cocoa that is not "heat-treated". On wiki (at Chocolate or here) there is no clarity regarding the process of fermenting, roasting and grinding to a powder for onward processing. However, in this blog for instance there is detail of both commercial, low temperature, and Dutch processing methods for cocoa/chocolate http://nourishmylife.wordpress.com/2013/04/24/raw-cacao-vs-cocoa/ Is there more? Are there products made that do not ferment the coaacoa for example or do not roast it? LookingGlass (talk) 10:15, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Some misinformation - fat content

This sounds like false generalization: "Standard cocoa powder has a fat content of approximately 10–12 percent. " It is not true.there are two qualities: 1, the "cheap one" contains 10 percents of coca-butter and the 2, "good one" (also called Holland coca powder) contains 20 percents.

Also many statements of the article are lacking a source/citation.94.21.25.82 (talk) 12:58, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

New subsection to "Environmental impacts"

I've added a new subsection under the "Environmental impacts" about agroforestry and cocoa cultivation as a class project. Please feel free leave any comments/feedback. Thank you! CphamX6511 (talk) 06:55, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Cocoa bean. ... my edit. ... I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080724105142/http://www.cocoainitiative.org/images/stories/pdf/harkin%20engel%20protocol.pdf to http://www.cocoainitiative.org/images/stories/pdf/harkin%20engel%20protocol.pdf

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

• 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. - failed to load
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120415005849/http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayArticle09.asp?xfile=data/diversions/2012/February/diversions_February12.xml&section=diversions to http://www.khaleejtimes.com/Displayarticle09.asp?section=diversions&xfile=data/diversions/2012/February/diversions_February12.xml

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.

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below/above to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:31, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Fat levels in cocoa powder

Article says "Standard cocoa powder has a fat content around 10–12%." without a source. My packet of fairtrade cocoa powder says "fat 21.0%, of which saturates 13.2%". Is there a decent source for typical figures ? - Rod57 (talk) 13:50, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Just noticed comment three-above says 'Holland coca powder' has 20%. Needs more research. - Rod57 (talk) 13:55, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Untitled

To User:JRR Trollkien: Interesting remark about slavery. But I wonder: are you talking about anything recent or about colonialization times? More details would definitly be important. I take it you're working on that in the not yet existing Cocoa Protocol article? TIA. Sanders muc 09:48, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

There have been reports that forced, often child, labour has frequently been brought in to work on modern plantations. However, this remark is unbalanced; cocoa was originally introduced to the area by the Quaker families Cadbury, Fry and Rowntree largely to provide an alternative cash crop to the slave trade! What is happening now is far less like real slavery, which cocoa actually reduced. PML. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.62.227.74 (talk • contribs) 10:00, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

To PML: Interesting as well. An article about the history of cocoa farming hence might be valuable. Would you give it a try? Sanders muc 11:23, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

---

When I get around to it, I'm going to combine this page with chocolate, and leave this page only for cocoa as the solids component -- unless someone else beats me to it. jaknouse 05:24, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Dutch Process not available in U.S.???

//Adding an alkali produces Dutch process cocoa powder, which is what is generally available most everywhere in the world except the United States and has less acidity.//

I don't know if this is really true, since most chocolate products I see in the U.S. have "cocoa processed with alkali" in their ingredients lists. Is this not the same thing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.8.33.163 (talk • contribs) 07:57, 29 October 2004 (UTC)

Products may contain alkali-processed powder but when you are buying the powder itself, it is not Dutch-process. (Although I did recently see one labeled as Hershey's European Dutch process cocoa powder.) Rmhermen 01:02, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)

I live in the US, and I just looked at my Hershey's Cocoa Powder. On the back there was one ingredient: COCOA PROCESSED WITH ALKALI — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.13.53.121 (talk • contribs) 03:43, 11 April 2005 (UTC)

This in response to the question in this headline, I work for a company that sells chocolate to all big retailers of chocolate and we make dutch processed cocoa in chicago ,IL From regular cocoa powder to jet black cocoa powder. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.214.79.62 (talk) 18:12, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Dutch process chocolate seems to say the Dutch[ing] process uses alkalising agents. - Rod57 (talk) 16:19, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Cocoa vs. Cacao

I'm trying to find out the relationship between the word "cacao" and "cocoa." According to the dictionary and several web sites including The International Cocoa Organization web site at http://www.icco.org/questions/qindex12.htm, the tree can also be called "cocoa."

Is "cocoa" just the English rendition of the Latin/Spanish word "cacao?" If anyone has any information on the etymology of this word and how it morphed from "cacao" to "cocoa", please post it here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.196.231.7 (talk • contribs) 13:55, 27 December 2004 (UTC)

My understanding is that the word "cocoa" comes from a typographical error made by Samuel Johnson. I think in English the general usage is that "cacao" refers to the plant or the seeds, and "cocoa" to the product once it has been processed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.168.121.2 (talk • contribs) 22:44, 14 March 2005 (UTC)

From the tree to the final product, the plant, the flower,the fruit and the seed; all them are cocoa (in english) or cacao (in native and spanish language) the very final product once processed that you see everywhere or drink to warn you up and give you energy in winter is called chocolate ("Chocolatl" in native language) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.32.227.190 (talk • contribs) 22:37, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

This statement, at least as it's written, is dubious, as "cacao" has Nahuatl roots (see http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/cacao): The cacao plant was first given its name by Swedish natural scientist Carl von Linné (1707-1778), who called it "Theobroma cacao" or "food of the gods". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.101.97.92 (talk • contribs) 06:10, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

It would be helpful if this was cleared up, as both 'cacao' and 'cocoa' have been used in the article to refer to the same thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.86.210.200 (talk • contribs) 02:07, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I have worked selling chocolate before and have heard many times that cocoa is a misnomer - it refers to the powered, often sweetened drink, not the cacao pods. This website seems to confirm that. I suggest a change of this article from cocoa to cacao, with a separate article about cocoa as a drink. --Vince | Talk 00:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

We have long had an article on the drink: Hot chocolate. Rmhermen 04:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

My suspicion is that the English word in common usage has long been "cocoa", but that pretentious manufacturers have decided that "cacao" adds to the mystique of their products, especially when these are of the ultra-premium, 70%+ variety. That or people are just trying too hard to "obey" the original word. For practical purposes, I find that "cocoa" is better suited to the patterns of English speech than "cacao". Not scientific evidence, admittedly...--Humphrey20020 17:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

cocao powder vs cocoa powder ---> cocoa powder is roasted cocao... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.243.106.82 (talk) 00:42, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Expert needed

I strongly think an expert is needed to verify the difference between cocoa and cacao. Please see above. --Vince | Talk 03:05, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Cacao refers to the tree itself and can also be used to describe the raw beans (which are actually its seeds). Once we process the seeds in the usual manner - fermentation, roasting, alkalizing, etc. - we have Cocoa. Simply put, Cocoa is cooked, Cacao is raw. Far from a mere typographical error, "cacao" and "cocoa" refer to two very different types of product. --24.82.92.62 (talk) 07:28, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Cacao is powder from the bean and is raw or less processed than cocoa. Cocoa is basically the highly heated version of cacao (heating probably reduces enzyme count and lowers overall nutritional value). The article should be updated to make this distinction. Sources:
https://nuts.com/healthy-eating/cacao-vs-cocoa
https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/cacao-vs-cocoa
https://www.foodmatters.com/article/raw-cacao-vs-cocoa-whats-the-difference
--Psyden (talk) 17:38, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

What is a nib?

Is nib a general term for a type of seed or piece of seed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eraticus (talk • contribs) 07:09, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

A nib is piece of seed, usually roasted so it is edible. --Vince | Talk 00:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

True Hot Chocolate?

Eh? This seems mildly POV, I think some explanation by what "true" means in this context would be useful. Does it mean that the word "hot chocolate" was first used to describe a white chocolate (cocoa butter) drink? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.120.99.194 (talk • contribs) 01:01, 1 June 2005 (UTC)

I was redirected from Xocoatl, but the information I was looking for - about the original drink - is not on this page in any detail. Why redirect from a term that refers to something different without providing details of what the redirect applied to? -- Ammi 13:35, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

The page you want is Hot chocolate. Should the redirect be changed? Rmhermen 16:19, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I think some of the confusion here arises from a difference in British/American English. In Britain, a "hot chocolate" drink such as Cadbury's Drinking Chocolate would never be sold as "hot cocoa". Hot cocoa in the UK is a different drink, made directly from powdered cocoa, which generally needs to be sweetened by adding sugar. As the hot chocolate article points out, the terms "hot chocolate" and "hot cocoa" are used interchangeably in the US, even on the packaging of brands such as Swiss Miss. Mtford 10:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Is Cadbury's Drinking Chocolate just hot cocoa with sugar added? --Gbleem 02:17, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Quality of the article

I reorganised all discussion concerning the expansion of the article and its quality under this headline. I still support nomination for article improvement drive. --Chino 05:02, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Article improvement drive?

Should we nominate Cocoa for article improvement drive? Cocoa is a very important commodity with an enourmous global market and important role in the national economies of many countries. It has a rich and interesting history, numerous uses and interesting chemical composition. It is also familiar to a very large proportion of people likely to read English Wikipedia. IMHO none of these facts are adequately represented in the article. --Chino 18:18, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Let's nominate it! -Pgan002 17:58, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Very little on chemical composition

Can someone that is good at it, write a section about cocoa's chemical composition? It's not even mentioned that it contains small ammounts of caffeine. thhx --Fs 11:23, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Delisted GA

Hi. I have removed this article from the Wikipedia:Good article listing due to the following:

• No references. One of the GA criteria is that a reference section must be provided. Inline citations are preferred but not required. When this issue has been addressed, please feel free to re-nominate. Thanks! Air.dance 04:06, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Health benefits

Perhaps along with its chemical composition, some information regarding cocoa as an antioxidant source (three times as much as red wine apparently), along with recent studies that have shown cocoa to be beneficial to the health?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.213.7.130 (talk • contribs) 12:14, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• I'm not sure if the antioxidant information is even relevant to the Health Benefits section. Antioxidants are a heavily overhyped marketing gimmick. At best, it's far too early to say if increasing your antioxidants is even effective for anything (plenty of research says no). It's not as simple as saying "more = good". Relevant info: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antioxidant#Health_effect 63.225.137.32 (talk) 21:15, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

• Can someone explain to me why green tea and black tea are mentioned in this section? Jlaramee 20:59, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Consumption per-capita figures are outdated

The consumption per-capita figures that state that Belgium is the highest are substantially outdated (10 years old). In addition, the reference is for cocoa beans per-capita, which isn't made clear in the article, nor is that number very relevant as no individual is consuming whole cocoa beans (some country could be consuming large amounts of cocoa butter but barely any cocoa powder, while another could be doing the reverse). The only related recent figures on consumption per capita that seem to be commonly used and referenced elsewhere are the chocolate consumption per-capita. These figures are much higher of course (as chocolate is not just cocoa), with Switzerland showing the highest most recent figures. The source of these figures come from the International Confectionery Association, although obtaining that report directly to verify them has a cost of 150 euros associated with it. In any case, these refer to chocolate which is a different article, so I suggest the consumption per-capita phrase be removed from the article as it's outdated, more recent data doesn't seem to be readily available, and finally cocoa beans per-capita isn't a particularly useful number. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.84.9.2 (talk • contribs) 21:04, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Graph in trading section

I have removed the graph from the trading section. The graph is copyright of our company and is used here without permission, and although the image has been cropped of any identifying attributing text (there should be a footer and header to the graph), it is still clearly our graph. I previously tried to attribute it properly, but another user removed the attribution - presumably the attribution broke some sort of commercial rule.

I am not sure how to go about getting this removed from the image database. I would be happy to replace it with a better quality image providing it is permissible to keep the image complete and uncropped, thereby including our company name. Could anyone advise as to the best way to proceed? Thanks. Ivorpeksa 13:24, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank-you for letting us know about the copyright violation. I have tagged the image for speedy deletion. An administrator should see it and delete it soon unless there is an objection. I doubt there will be since there was little information about the source of the image. --Gbleem 07:13, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the help. Ivorpeksa 11:47, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Relationship with drug making

Isnt there a relationship with cocoa leaves in making cocaine and the uses of cocoa leafs in pain treatment, I'm not sure of this but I do belive I'm in the right topic. If you could add some information on this I'll try to help too. THX:D —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.120.224.24 (talk) 18:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC).

No there isn't. Cocaine comes from the Coca plant, while Cocoa comes from the Cacao tree. They're two different plants. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.219.221.178 (talk) 20:55, August 23, 2007 (UTC)

Effects of Cocoa on Males

I've recently encountered a strange circumstance whereupon I asked a co-worker if he had a somewhat sour aftertaste on the back of his tongue after consuming chocolate, as I had just eaten some and could taste this sourness. He said yes, and stated that this was a frequent occurrence in males, but never in females. Now I'm curious to see if this has ever been documented or researched, and if it truly applies as directly as it was implied. Are the taste buds setup differently for males than for females? Are there other males here that have experienced such an aftertaste, or females who have never had such an aftertaste? 72.38.69.66 (talk) 20:06, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

If you do a little research on sour and bitter tastes, it seems that a small portion of the human population gets these two tastes mixed up - taste buds confusion. I don't think it is relegated only t males. Even sour and sweet can become confused, depending on your diet. Cheers, Imataloss 10:48, 5 July 2013

Flavoring wine with cocoa

If one would utilize cocoa to flavor wine, like a Port Wine, would you mix with a refined sugar before adding? The sugar would be required in order to remove the bitter flavor of the cocoa and enhance the flavor of the wine. Does anyone have any experence with utilizing cocoa to flavor wine? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.208.144.68 (talk) 13:37, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

That is a ratafia de chocolat; see Chocolate liqueur. --Una Smith (talk) 16:30, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved ÷seresin 08:31, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

---

Cocoa → Cacao bean — Give article an unambiguous name and put a dab page at the ambiguous base name. Una Smith (talk) 18:04, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

• Cocoa (disambiguation) → Cocoa

After discussion on this talk page (above) and on Talk:Theobroma cacao, the article formerly at Cacao was moved to Theobroma cacao and a disambiguation page was moved to Cacao. Many incoming links to Cacao intend the cacao bean, the main topic of this article. Currently, Cacao bean is a redirect. --Una Smith (talk) 18:04, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose it should be Cocoa bean. 76.66.202.108 (talk) 20:18, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

  Oppose? Ah, I see. The proposal is to move this article to Cacao bean, a synonym of Cocoa bean. Does it matter which synonym is the page name? Both are unambiguous. --Una Smith (talk) 20:20, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

  Google Books: "cacao bean" 837 hits, "cocoa bean" 1177 hits. Moving the article to Cocoa bean is fine by me. --Una Smith (talk) 20:27, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

  The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The World Cocoa Foundation

I removed the information about the World Cocoa Foundation. It was not cited, and I do not trust the source. This information was put here by the National Confectioners Association, a trade organization that exists to promote sales. All the information about the World Cocoa foundation came anonymously form the IP address 65.205.46.162, which, according to WHOIS is owned by the National Confectioners Association. The edits in question are:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cocoa&action=historysubmit&diff=84110472&oldid=84107473
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cocoa&action=historysubmit&diff=259583329&oldid=258419780

As for the World Cocoa Foundation itself, I can't find any credible sources that say anything about them. The members of the World Cocoa Foundation include Nestle, Cargill, ADM, Hershey, and pretty much every chocolate seller you can think of. I suspect that the World Cocoa Foundation is nothing more than astroturfing PR. And it's been up here on Wikipedia for three years. 75.119.6.53 (talk) 00:37, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

The above was written by me. I thought I was logged in but I was not. Also, here's a link to the World Cocoa Foundation's members page. http://www.worldcocoafoundation.org/who-we-are/members.html Gnebulon (talk) 00:41, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for cleaning that up in the article, and for explaining. --Una Smith (talk) 02:17, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Harvesting

It's not clear whether the poorer orange/red pods are over or under ripe compared to the desired green pods. There are no citations so I can't check up. So, if the pod is orange,do you wait a bit or is it too late? Anyone know?Chaotic Doire (talk) 16:34, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

The old version of the article's Harvesting section was very inaccurate. (Green pods are unripe, they usually mature into yellow. Red pods tend to orange when ripe. No data on "desirability" of either.) I've revised it and given references. -R. S. Shaw (talk) 00:13, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Cacao vs cocoa

From Arthur W. Knapp's

• Cocoa and Chocolate: Their History from Plantation to Consumer at Project Gutenberg:

Cacao or Cocoa?

The reader will have noted above the spelling "cacao," and to those who think it curious, I would say that I do not use this spelling from pedantry. It is an imitation of the word which the Mexicans used for this commodity as early as 1500, and when spoken by Europeans is apt to sound like the howl of a dog. The Mexicans called the tree from which cacao is obtained cacauatl. When the great Swedish scientist Linnaeus, the father of botany, was naming and classifying (about 1735) the trees and plants known in his time, he christened it Theobroma Cacao, by which name it is called by botanists to this day. Theo-broma is Greek for "Food of the Gods." Why Linnaeus paid this extraordinary compliment to cacao is obscure, but it has been suggested that he was inordinately fond of the beverage prepared from it—the cup which both cheers and satisfies. It will be seen from the above that the species-name is cacao, and one can understand that Englishmen, finding it difficult to get their insular lips round this outlandish word, lazily called it cocoa.

In this book I shall use the words cacao, cocoa, and chocolate as follows:

Cacao, when I refer to the cacao tree, the cacao pod, or the cacao bean or seed. By the single word, cacao, I imply the raw product, cacao beans, in bulk.

Cocoa, when I refer to the powder manufactured from the roasted bean by pressing out part of the butter. The word is too well established to be changed, even if one wished it. ....

Chocolate.—This word is given a somewhat wider meaning. It signifies any preparation of roasted cacao beans without abstraction of butter. It practically always contains sugar and added cacao butter, and is generally prepared in moulded form. It is used either for eating or drinking.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ishi Gustaedr (talk • contribs) 15:57, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Untitled (weights)

(moved from the top of the page)

The following passage is partially wrong: "Cocoa pods weigh an average of 400 grams (0.88 lb) and each one yields 35 to 40 grams (0.077 to 0.088 lb) dried beans (this yield is 40–44% of the total weight in the pod)." The yield represents 40% of the fresh seeds weight not of the total weight inthe pod(at least according to not 15 cited below the article). I dont know how you go about modifying this so I will not try and will let somebody in the know do it. 81.108.141.130 (talk) 16:32, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Untitled ("winkle"?)

When the article mentions cacao as currency the word "winkle" finishes the sentence. Is this vandalism or no? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.46.49.81 (talk • contribs) 18:24, 11 April 2014 (UTC)