That's because even if they aren't covered in sugar/chocolate straight out of the box, the kids will take care of that.

Also because breakfast is the most important meal of all.

<font color=skyblue>You really have no idea how ridiculous that sounds, I'm afraid. Denmark's taste for chocolate still contains the changes that were derived from Spain's original attempts to make it not only better tasting to Europeans, but also cheaper due to the expense of shipping additives from the New World.

Most of the world buys chocolate from Africa because it is cheaper, but the only good source of real cocoa comes from regions no further than 15 degrees from the equator, and those are called criollo beans. They are the most expensive and the most nutritious of all the several varieties that exist all across the world. However, they are only found in less than 10% of the world's production of cocoa. I am sure that even Denmark has found a way to keep cost down in production by cutting back on the good stuff and substituting junk in its place. </font>

So have you actually been to Denmark or tasted any of our chocolate or are you just making sweeping generalizations?

Our chocolate may not be made to the most ancient recipe, but for the most part it's a good bit darker than most factory-produced American or British chocolate.

A Europe of Two Flavors

For quite some time, the Eurocrats have devoted their attention to the chocolate issue and have made suggestions as to what does and what does not merit the label of 'Chocolate'.
According to this European guideline, chocolate producers are allowed to replace a part of the cocoa butter by vegetable fats (up to 5 %). The exact quantity has to be made clearly legible on the packaging and the use of galam butter and palm oil are viewed as acceptable substitutes.

Any vegetable fat must come exclusively from tropical origin - production of these fats by enzymatic methods is not allowed. By using these fats, the cost of chocolate production can be reduced by about 10%.

Of course, this leads to the use of these substitutes by the big industrial groups. The Belgians and the French are not happy with this situation. The traditional chocolate makers, who strive to maintain the good taste and high quality of their product, are front runners of the opposition movement.

Today, seven European countries (United-Kingdom, Denmark, Sweden, Ireland, Finland, Austria and Portugal) are taking advantage of a temporary loophole in the guidelines.
In their own country, they may sell chocolate products, even if they contain higher amounts of vegetable fats than the allowed limit. For the present they are not allowed to export this so-called chocolate to other European countries who swear by authentic chocolate.

The European parliament wants to introduce a quality label for chocolate that does not allow these substitutes.

By order of the European parliament, a committee has been set up to investigate the impact of all these guidelines on the cocoa producing countries (often developing countries) who depend on the export of cocoa. This investigation will take place once the guidelines are in force.

This was the situation as at July 1999, and the committee is still working on it!

http://www.trendychocolate.com/nl/choco_tips_gui.asp

<font color=skyblue>Hey!!...machinehead saved me from having to find something in writing to use as a defence to my post!

And by the way, the darkness of the chocolate does not make for a better chocolate.

Sorry to be so anal about this. I did an 11 page report on it that took me an entire semester of studying, all of which had to be referenced from professional sources. I know quite a bit about what I am talking about.</font>

I was curious as to who was right because both of you couldn't be so I had a look around. As it turns out Denmarks chocolate isn't considered real chocolate by most of Europes standards, it seems to be equivalent with British chocolate. ;)

I must disagree, the darkness of a chocolate is ENTIRELY the definer of quality. It needs to be so dark that it's slightly bitter and so dark that it's hard to the point where it snaps, and where it doesn't start to melt in your pocket in the summer heat.

That's what darkness does to a chocolate, and that is the point at which it is perfect.

And, uh, Machinehead, you've found a nice article and all, but I'm from Denmark, and I've been to Britain, and I can taste the difference. There's also the whole point of lumping an entire country's chocolate under one label, because every country that produces crappy, half-butter, half-milk chocolate is bound to have one or two little corner stores where they make their own chocolate so dark that a Goth would worship it. And every country where they make decent chocolate, there's bound to be some crappy budget chocolate on the shelves anyway.

Honestly, find some Anthon Berg and find some Cadbury, if you tell me that's the same quality, or in any other way "equivalent," I'm going to tell you to get your taste buds examined.

Or if you can't find quality like Anthon Berg, try some Tom's.

I've yet to try chocolate from any major American or otherwise non-Scandinavian source which has been up to scratch when it comes to chocolate quality. Marabou doesn't count as US, mind, seeing as how it was Swedish before Kraft bought it.

I'll also note that I've done my research on the subject a good while back, too, the average cocoa percentage in chocolate is higher in Scandinavia than in the US and UK, according to what I dug up. And yes, I still maintain that, short of common sense things like keeping pollutants and chemicals out, darkness is the only definer of chocolate quality.

Belgian chocolate is the only thing i buy sometimes, their famous pralines, or bonbons, all other is crap as far as i'm concerned, and it has the right colour to go with it too. :D

<font color=skyblue>Like Johnny said, Belgian chocolate is my favorite that I can buy, but I am waiting for the day that I can have some French chocolate from one of those online stores that I have in my favorites folder.

Purple...your post is a chocolate swirl of sticky confusion. The darkness has little importance if the bean that it comes from is an inferior product. You are absolutely wrong when you use the word entirely, and you are showing me that you have no idea what you are talking about. You can have all the forestero beans you desire and never know what real chocolate is. Not all cocoa beans are created equal. The guys in Africa who supply most of the world with their product do not properly harvest nor care for the beans and overcooking them is used as a patch on the problem because the beans come to the manufacturer too raw sometimes. Forestero beans will never beat Criollo in quality. There is a middle ground, a bean that is a hybrid of the two. Its called the trinitario, and is used to "cut" the amount of criollo used as well as to "up" the level of quality in the forestero.

As a shamless plug to a store I love, Godiva Chocolates never use African beans, and guarantee that their product is made with the Central American criollos and trinitarios.

However, what I am really fired up about is how you have decided to work in the Denmark chocolate is better than American chocolate because hell, I'll even agree to that and I've never had your chocolate...I know how inferior our crap is to the European stuff. So my question is, why are you wasting time writing up a worthless point as though you were disagreeing with somebody? Trying to score what point or two you can?

I tell you what, which company in Denmark is it that you are so in love with? Find out what beans they use. If it is what I suspect, then I have proven my point and you cannot argue past it. If they indeed use criollo beans in their production and never the forestero, and you can show me that in official writing, I'll place my first online chocolate order from that company that and post my invoice on this thread to prove I did it. I have been holding out on making such an order because I have been trying to decide which company in France I wanted to go with. You're saying that I should go with Denmark for my money's worth.

</font>

[ 03-19-2007, 10:54 PM: Message edited by: Larry_OHF ]

<font color=skyblue>I should have made this point before now, but obviously this idea that you present has a flaw in its design. My article is cited as being found in a peer-reviewed journal which universities accept as valid sources when essays are required for coursework. I know of no professor that would allow me to use yahoo news as a source. Where did yahoo come up with those ideas, and were they ever printed in a real peer-reviewed journal or were they the ramblings of some crazy doctor who thinks himself an expert, but could not get printed in any valid resource?</font>