For this blogpost, I was curious to explore the idea of terroir as it pertains to chocolate. “Terroir” is, literally, the French word for soil or land and can be defined as “the conditions in which a food is grown or produced and that give the food its unique characteristics.” [i] According to Kristy Leissle, “cocoa beans, like wine grapes, produce distinct flavors depending on strain and terroir, and showcasing that flavor is the goal of single origin chocolate.” [ii]
Of course, as discussed throughout our chocolate class (Karla Martin, personal communication) the final taste of chocolate is determined by many factors. The taste can be influenced by the type of cacao and where it is grown but can also be influenced by the type of cacao tree, how the cacao beans are fermented and dried and how it is processed. How is it roasted? Is it conched and for how long? Are other ingredients added? A description of the kinds of factors that influence chocolate flavor can be found here: [iii] But despite those questions, I was curious to explore what differences we would taste in chocolate bars whose beans were sourced from different countries.
So I took myself off to Whole Foods in Dedham – one of the largest Whole Foods I have ever visited. There I faced an enormous and bewildering display of chocolate: 3 full banks of shelves – ½ of an entire aisle – entirely devoted to chocolate, none of it mass market. I employed the following criteria to restrict my choices:
- Must be at least 70% chocolate
- No added ingredients other than sweetener, vanilla, emulsifier
- Package must state the cacao is sourced from a certain geographic area.
I ended up with 7 bars of chocolate to taste, from 6 different areas: Ghana, Dominican Republic Madegascar, Tanzania, Haiti, and Ecuador. Only one was made in the country of origin. The others were produced in Germany, Massachusetts, Belgium, and Switzerland.
What I found at Whole Foods bears out Leissle’s statement that even though the majority of the world’s cocoa comes from West Africa, most single single origin chocolate bars are sourced from other regions. She suggests that this is likely because the quality of West African chocolate is often not high. The one bar I found from West Africa was from Ghana. Ghanaian chocolate, which is regulated by a national Cocoa Board is considered the best of the West African chocolate. (Leissle). Tight regulation may be the reason that it is higher quality, but it can also make it difficult for manufacturers to source enough chocolate from Ghana to create single-origin bars. Another issue with West African chocolate is that it is often tainted in the public mind by allegations of child and slave labor, which could affect sales.
Interestingly, all of these chocolates bore a special certification of one kind or another, indicating that the buyer was not just buying chocolate to eat, but also contributing to social good with the purchase. Certifications included Fair trade, Fair for life, direct trade, whole trade. As Ndongo S. Sylla suggests in his critique of Fair Trade, it is as if “poverty itself has become a commodity. Through this label, it is the idea and the approach that are being sold…The irony is that the new advocates of the poor unknowingly work for the rich, being themselves part of this category.” [iv] The packaging suggests that with your purchase you have become a “compassionate consumer” as Martin and Sampeck [v] label it, and so you can feel good about yourself because you are meeting the needs of others when you spend your money, often justifying a higher price. Of course, one doesn’t know how much of that premium actually reaches the farmer. It’s almost a side benefit to one’s good work in buying the chocolate, that it may also be delicious.
All but two of the bars were organic, and this also seems to play into the idea of doing good with your dollars. The packaging materials themselves are organic-looking/earthy-crunchy with non-shiny paper and arty graphics. Julie Guthman, in her history of the development of organic salad mix (“yuppie chow”), says “eating organic salad mix connoted a political action in its own right, legitimizing a practice that few could afford.”[vi] This notion of eating as a political action could also be applied to organic chocolate. However, as Williams and Eber point out in Raising the Bar [vii], organic chocolate isn’t necessarily the best chocolate. Furthermore, organic certification is an expensive proposition for a small cocoa farmer because the land must come out of production for 3 years and getting a certificate costs money. The premium that organic chocolate can demand tends not to come to the farmer. Furthermore, much cocoa actually is in essence organic, though not certified as such, because many farmers cannot afford pesticides. So how much good are you really doing by buying organic chocolate?
For this project, I convened an after-dinner tasting panel of 3 foodies: myself (a prolific cook-gardener), my friend Emily (an artist/social worker who generally prefers milk chocolate to dark chocolate), and my husband John (a field engineer by day and musician/poet in the off hours). We discussed a common convention of tasting, guided by Barb Stuckey’s article on How the Pros Taste. [viii] She suggests the importance of using other senses in tasting, such as sight, smell, taste, and texture or mouth feel. We placed each sample on a white plate to judge the the color, slowly sniffed it to sense the aroma, snapped it with our teeth to judge crispness, and then placed it on our tongue to savor slowly and see what flavors emerged. We sampled in order of lightest (70%) to darkest (85%). After sampling each, we took a look at the package to see what information we could glean. Our method of palate cleansing after each taste was perhaps unorthodox, but delicious: water, plain crackers, and red wine that had been aged in bourbon barrels.
Divine 70% “Intensely Rich” chocolate. Ghana
Color: very dark brown. Aroma: rich and lovely. Snap: Nice, crisp.
Savoring notes: we found it sweet but not overly so. Delicious. You could taste the vanilla. It melted slowly with a lingering flavor and was very smooth. John, our poet, said he could taste the savannah. The finish was very earthy. However, at the end it felt a bit chalky and dry, as if it sucked the moisture out of one’s mouth. We decided to call this kind of finish “sere.” “Sere” is defined as dry or arid. [ix]
Judgment: We all liked this chocolate very much at first taste, though we weren’t fond of the sere finish.
Ingredient %: 70% cacao. 19g fat, 11 g sugar. Ingredients: cocoa mass, sugar, cocoa butter, sunflower lecithin, vanilla.
Certifications: Non gmo project, halal, fairtrade.
Price: $3.00 for 3.5 oz. (It was on sale; normally $3.99).
Other Notes: Divine is made with cocoa beans from a co-op of small-holder farmers in Ghana and is produced in Germany. The package is decorated with Adinkra symbols which are traditional West African motifs. The inside of the package congratulates the buyer for supporting cocoa farmers and displays the photograph of an individual cocoa farmer and tells her story. It also displays the AYA symbol, representing Endurance and Peaceful Coexistence. It feels like you are invited into the community of cocoa farmers by purchasing this chocolate.
Taza Chocolates 70% stone ground chocolate. “perfectly unrefined” Dominican Republic
Color: less dark and rich looking than the Divine. Aroma: less intense than Divine, but nice. Less crisp than Divine.
Savoring notes: Tasted sweeter than Divine and the initial taste was less intense at the start. Not buttery and smooth but textural, (unsurprising since it is stone ground and unconched.) Very pleasant to savor, though the texture was distracting. Overall a simpler taste than the Divine. The finish was also less dry (sere) at the end.
Judgment: We all thought this chocolate was o.k., but not a favorite, mostly because of the grittiness and lack of complexity.
Ingredient %: 70% cacao. 14 g. fat, 11 g. sugar. Ingredients: organic cacao beans, organic cane sugar, organic cocoa butter, organic vanilla beans.
Certifications: USDA Organic, non GMO project, Gluten Free, Vegan, Direct Trade
Price: $4.75, 2.5 oz.
Other notes: Packaging is simple non glossy paper, quite attractive. It makes a big point of being unrefined and minimally processed with bold flavor and texture. It is made in Somerville, MA
Madecasse, Madagascar. 70% heirloom Madagascar cocoa, “bright with a fruity finish.”
Color: not as dark as the first two. Aroma: strong, rich and deep. You could almost taste the chocolate as you smelled it. A reasonable snap.
Savoring notes: A bit granular. Not as smooth as the divine. Lingering, complex flavor. Our poet musician called it “beautiful birds” and then described the taste as “symphonic” and “well-orchestrated.” The finish had a little vanilla, it was luscious all the way through, and there was no chalky dryness or “sere” quality at the end.
Judgment: Our favorite so far.
Ingredient %: Fat 16 g, Sugar 10 g. Ingredients: cocoa beans, sugar, cocoa butter, sunflower lecithin, natural vanilla.
Certifications: Fair Trade, Fair for life.
Price: $4.50 for 2.64 oz.
Other notes: The packaging is lovely. Simple yet colorful with a drawing of an opened cocoa pod (revealing the white flesh and the cocoa beans), nestled with leaves, cocoa beans and pieces of chocolate bar. On the back, a map of Africa/Madagascar and the story of the chocolate. Madecasse was started by peace corps volunteers in Madagascar who decided to make chocolate “as a vehicle for social impact.” This bar is not only sourced from Madegascar, it is made there. More than some of the other packaging, this bar seemed to stress the deliciousness of the chocolate, as much as their mission.
Whole Foods 72% “Tanzania Schoolhouse Project Cacao.”
Color: quite dark, as dark as the divine chocolate. Aroma: rich. Bite: soft.
Savoring notes: Smooth and delicious. No “sere” finish at the end. We couldn’t say exactly what we were tasting…just that it was delicious.
Judgment: The favorite of Emily, the person who typically doesn’t like dark chocolate. John and I still preferred Madecasse, though we did enjoy this bar.
Ingredient %: 17 g fat and 10 g of sugar. Ingredients: Organic chocolate liquor, organic cane sugar, organic cocoa butter. No lecithin and no vanilla.
Certifications: vegetarian, USDA organic, Kosher, Whole trade
Price: $6.00 for 3.5 oz.
Other notes: Somehow we didn’t expect this to taste good – perhaps because it seemed to be more about supporting Tanzanian schoolhouses and doing “good works” and less about the chocolate. And perhaps because it was made by the big business of Whole Foods. The packaging wasn’t as appealingly earthy/arty as the others. It was glossier, with photographs of Tanzanian people and cocoa trees rather than compelling graphics. This bar is made in Belgium. We were also surprised to find that we didn’t miss the vanilla in this bar. Interestingly, the Tanzania schoolhouse Project website link which describes their charitable projects makes no mention of this chocolate. The packaging also doesn’t indicate what amount of proceeds are donated to the project. My cynical side thinks Whole Foods may be using the Tanzanian project as a marketing tool, since there is so little transparency about what they are really doing in Tanzania.
Apotheker’s “classic dark”, bee-sweetened 76% chocolate, Dominican Republic.
Color: This chocolate was the darkest so far. Aroma: wonderful – very rich. Bite: very soft.
Savoring notes: The honey taste was predominant at first and the chocolate tasted very different from the other ones. Although the texture was not smooth, it was enjoyable, more so than the grittiness of the Taza. The taste felt slow to open up, perhaps because it was less sweet, but when it did open was nice. The honey taste lingered throughout and the finish had no “sere” at all. This was definitely a different kind of chocolate and we found it enjoyable.
Ingredient %: 18 g fat, 6g of sugar. Ingredients: Organic Cacao liquor, organic cacao butter, organic raw honey, sunflower lecithin, organic vanilla beans.
Certifications and claims: direct trade, family owned, gluten, dairy and soy free, single origin, biodynamic, hand-crafted.
Price: $6.50 for 2.5 oz.
Other notes: The package graphics and the name hint at being like something from an apothecary or a general store, like it might be good for you. It has an old-fashioned, early 20 century look that might draw you in on the basis of sentimentality. It also proclaims in large letters that it is organic raw honey sweetened – so it can draw in people who are drawn to health foods. This bar is made in Dorchester, MA by a husband/wife team who also make soaps, hot cocoa, and bee-sweetened mallows. This was our second bar made with Dominican cocoa and quite different from the first.
Taza “perfectly unrefined” 84% Dark chocolate, sourced from Haiti.
Color: quite dark. Aroma: very earthy and perhaps a little sharp. Bite: hard but not crisp
Savoring notes: Like the other Taza bar, this was granular, but the texture was almost sandy. It had a very earthy taste, very simple, almost primitive. Emily commented that it was more like a food than a dessert. It finished with a fruity taste.
Judgment: We loved the flavor that opened when we savored a piece of this bar, but we were put off by the grittiness.
Ingredient %: 13 g fat, 6 g sugar. Ingredients: cacao beans and cane sugar
Certifications and claims: organic direct trade, non gmo, gluten free, dairy soy and vegan free
Price: $7.50 for 2.5 oz.
Other notes: the packaging of this bar is similar to that of the Taza Dominican bar. It is also made in Somerville. The package makes note that Taza is the first U.S. chocolate maker to source certified USDA organic cacao from Haiti.
Alter Eco, “dark blackout” 85% dark chocolate, from Peru.
Color: quite dark. Aroma: strong and vegetal, reminiscent of tobacco. Snap: crisp.
Savoring notes: The flavor was very slow to open – perhaps because it had less sugar. The taste was a little acidic. The texture was smooth, waxy at the start. It had a chalky, “sere” finish.
Judgment: Meh. We didn’t care for this chocolate very much.
Ingredient %: 22 g fat, 6 g sugar. Ingredients: cacao beans, cocoa butter, raw sugar, vanilla beans
Certifications: USDA Organic, Fair trade, gluten free, non gmo.
Price: $3.99 for 2.82 oz.
Other notes: packaging is the least glossy of all – very recycled looking. There is a lot of comment on the inside of the packaging about their mission: sustainability, replacing coca crops with cacao crops and the importance of cocoa cooperatives and a Carbon Zero reforestation project, along with photographs of people who are presumably cacao farmers. Clearly the intent is to let you know that by buying this chocolate you are doing good. Too bad we didn’t like the taste of it.
Last thoughts on this experience
We were all surprised by how interesting – and enjoyable – it was to use so many senses in experiencing each chocolate bar. Taking the time to savor revealed so many nuances. Emily, who prefers milk chocolate, actually enjoyed most of the bars when she took the time to smell and consider each sample and slowly let it melt in her mouth. We found ourselves with questions about the reasons for the differences in taste: what was due to how the chocolate was processed, how much was terroir, how much was the power of suggestion in packaging, how much was due to the percentage – or type – of ingredients.
There are many avenues for further investigation. For instance, we could compare a number of different chocolates sourced from one region (if we could find them). We could compare chocolates produced with different methods – for instance a variety of unconched chocolates. We could investigate the claims different companies make about bettering the lives of farmers or the environment or contributing to other good causes. How much do they actually do and contribute and how much of the lingo is an attempt to reel in the compassionate consumer by convincing them they are doing good with their consumer dollars? I look forward to exploring these ideas in future tastings with friends.
[i] Dictionary.com, http://www.dictionary.com/browse/terroir.
[ii] Leissle, Kristy, “Invisible West Africa: The Politics of Single Origin Chocolate,” Gastronomica: The Journal of Food and Culture. 2013. 13:3, pp, 22-31.
[iii] Chocolate Review, Chocolatereview.com.au, accessed May 9, 2017.
[iv] Sylla, Ndongo S., The Fair Trade Scandal: Marketing Poverty to Benefit the Rich. 2014. Athens, Ohio University Press.
[v] Martin, Carla D. and Kathryn E. Sampek, The Bitter and Sweet of Chocolate in Europe. Doi: 10.18030/SOCIO.HU.2015EN.37.
[vi] Guthman, Julie, “Fast Food/Organic Food: Reflexive Tastes and the Making of “Yuppie Chow” in Counihan, Carole and Penny van Esterik, ed., Food and Culture. 2013. New York: Routledge.
[vii] Williams, Pan and Jim Eber, Raising the Bar: The Future of Fine Chocolate. 2012. Vancouver, BC: Wilmor Publishing Corporation.
[viii] Stuckey, Barb, “How the Pros Taste,” in Taste What You’re Missing: The Passionate Eater’s Guide to Why Good Food Tastes Good. 2012. New York: Free Press.
[ix] Mirriam Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sere, Accessed May 9, 2017.
A shared aim — with two approaches
Given the variety of labels that make different social, ethical or environmental claims about products, there is often confusion about what exactly ethical trade is, and how it differs from products that are described as 'fairly traded', and/or carry the FAIRTRADE mark.
Ethical trade and Fairtrade have distinct origins, but their approaches are complementary: both focus on helping make international trade work better for poor and otherwise disadvantaged people.
The ethical trade movement originated in the 1990s when campaigns and media exposés brought attention to the harsh conditions of workers producing clothes, shoes, toys, food and other consumables for multinational companies. Ethical trade involves retailers and brands taking a series of recognised steps to improve the conditions of the workers throughout their supply chains, wherever they are in the world.
The fairtrade movement originated in the 1980s to protect poor developing country farmers from low international market prices of commodities such as coffee, cocoa and tea. Products carrying the FAIRTRADE Mark help address the injustice of low prices by guaranteeing that producers receive fair terms of trade and fair prices - whatever the conventional market is. Producer organisations also receive a small premium for business or social development projects.
Ethical trade and Fairtrade: key differences
The FAIRTRADE Mark
Focuses on protecting workers' rights throughout the supply chain
Focuses on helping disadvantaged producers and workers in the developing world - eg, cotton, banana, cocoa and coffee farmers - take more control over their lives
Is about the behaviour of buying companies - retailers, brands and their suppliers - and the steps they take to ensure supplier companies respect workers' rights
Applies specifically to products, not companies
Does not depend on consumer awareness - that's why there is no recognised ‘ethically traded' label
Has widespread consumer recognition and a recognised label, the Fairtrade Mark
What are companies' responsibilities towards workers making garments using FAIRTRADE cotton?
The FAIRTRADE Mark for cotton was launched in 2006 and since then, the size of the market has grown rapidly, with retailers launching a growing variety of products bearing the mark. The FAIRTRADE mark applies very specifically to cotton growing, rather than other stages in the production process - for example garment manufacturing. It is up to all companies selling products made with Fairtrade cotton to take responsibility for improving conditions and promoting respect for the rights of all the workers involved throughout their supply chain.
We encourage consumers buying Fairtrade cotton products to also ask retailers how they are putting this responsibility into practice.
What about products that have a 'fairly traded' or 'ethical' label but that don't carry the FAIRTRADE mark?
An increasing number of companies are seeking to provide an ethical alternative for consumers, and who may describe their products (often clothes) as 'ethical' or 'fairly traded'. The standards and criteria for defining what is meant by ‘ethical' or 'fair' vary among all these companies. Some initiatives apply criteria that are similar - sometimes even more stringent - than those required for fairtrade certification, while others may not be so rigorous. Whatever the case, it would be unwise to accept any company's 'ethical' claims at face value.