Chocolate

Chocolate (pronounced chok-lit (U) chaw-kuh-lit, chok-uh-lit, chawk-lit)

(1) A preparation of the seeds of cacao, roasted, husked, and ground, often sweetened and flavored, as with vanilla.

(2) A beverage made by dissolving such a preparation in milk or water, served hot or cold.

(3) A sweet (sweetmeat (archaic), lolly or candy) made from such a preparation or an individual piece of this sweet.

(4) In the spectrum of commercially produced or described colors, a moderate to deep brown color.

Circa 1600: From the Mexican Spanish chocolate, from the Nahuatl (Aztecan) chocola-tl (chocolate) or cacahua-tl (chocolate, chocolate bean); the -tl meaning "water".   It’s thought the first element might be related to xocalia (to make something bitter or sour from xococ (sour; bitter)).  It was made with cold water by the Aztecs, whereas the Conquistadors mixed it with hot, hence the suggestion the European forms of the word might have been influenced by Yucatec Maya chocol (hot).  It was brought first to Spain in the 1520s and, predictably, spread quickly to the rest of Europe, gaining great popularity by the seventeenth century thought originally as drink made by dissolving chocolate in milk or water, the solid forms now familiar coming later.  The standardization in spelling must have come later because in an entry in his diary on 24 November 1664, Samuel Pepys noted “To a Coffee-house, to drink jocolatte, very good.”

There are those who contest the orthodox etymology, asserting that the Nahutal words upon which it depends didn’t exist in the language until the mid-eighteenth century.  The dissenters prefer chicolātl, a survivor in several modern Nahuatl dialects, as the original form, the chicol- element referring to the specially shaped wooden stick used to prepare chocolate.  Semi-solid forms were on sale by the 1640s in the form of a paste or cake made of ground, roasted, sweetened cacao seeds, the recognisably modern product, described as “chocolate candy" and later just “chocolate” widely available in the later nineteenth century, “chocolate milk” recorded since 1845.  Chocolate chips became available in pre-made form for the consumer market in 1940, having for some time been supplied in bulk to manufacturers for products such as chocolate chip cookies.  Use to describe a color, a dark reddish-brown, dates from 1771 in the forms “chocolate” and “chocolate-brown”.  The adjectival use in the sense of "made of or flavored with chocolate" is attested from 1723.  Although chocolatey (made of or resembling chocolate) apparently can’t be found in print before 1922 and choclatiness seems not to exist although chocolateness is used in commerce, often by specialised retailers which is a bit more imaginative than the eighteenth century “chocolate dealer” and it spawned variations such as chocorama, and chocology.  Devotees are said to be chocophiles while those who cheerfully admit an addiction are chocoholics.  The specialised occupation of chocolatier (maker of chocolate confections) was noted in French in 1865 and such jobs still exist.

In praise of dark chocolate

Made from cocoa solids, sugar and cocoa butter and without using milk, dark chocolate is rich, the degree of bitterness determined by the percentage of cocoa in the mix.  There’s no exact definition of how much cocoa needs to be present for a chocolate to be defined as dark with products available ranging from 50 to over 90%, the most popular being in the 70 to 80% range.  Nutritional content varies greatly because that’s determined by the quantities of cocoa butter and sugar used.  A 70% mix is a high-fat food, a 20g serving (six small squares in most blocks) contains just over 8g of fat, of which 5g is saturated and it’s high in sugar, with around 6g per 20g serving.  The off-set is that it’s a good source of fibre and protein, with approximately 2g of each per 20g serving.  By comparison, an 85% mix is higher in fat but lower in sugar, the protein and fibre content just a little higher and the salt content is negligible although there are variations with added sea-salt.

Lindsay Lohan slicing her chocolate birthday cake.

Although it should never be a high proportion of any diet, dark chocolate does offer some nutritional benefits, being naturally high in iron, magnesium, copper and manganese.  Iron is important in the production of red blood cells which carry oxygen around the body while copper triggers the release of iron to form haemoglobin, the platform which contains the oxygen.  Magnesium ensures the parathyroid glands work normally to produce hormones important in bone health and helps create and activate enzymes, including those which break down food.

A long known benefit of dark chocolate is as a source of antioxidants and flavanols, helpful in maintaining vascular endothelium function (the cells that line the insides of blood vessels) which reduces the risk of cardiovascular disease.  Because of the density, the concentration of these phytonutrients is actually higher than in blueberries and pomegranates, fruits recommended as sources of antioxidants.  There may also be some neuro-protective effects, offering some protection against Alzheimer’s disease but the research is far from conclusive although there does seem to be a small anti-inflammatory effect which helps those with digestive conditions such as inflammatory bowel syndrome.

However, like the much-quoted, but often misunderstood, findings about the health benefits from drinking red wine, there’s nothing from any research to suggest a heavy consumption of dark or any other chocolate is anything but bad.  All the research seems to say is that if one is going to eat chocolate, dark is preferable and consumption should be no more than 20g (typically six small or two large squares, depending on the cut of the block) no more frequently than daily and only as part of a balanced diet.  As a general principle, the darker the better so a chocolate with 90% cocoa offers more benefits than one with less, remembering the flavored products (orange, caramel, raspberry et al) will be higher in sugar.

Ghirardelli Intense Dark 92% Cacao Chocolate.

Making dark chocolate is a relatively long process.  Cacao beans are picked when ripe, cleaned and left to ferment for two to nine days, using naturally present yeasts or a yeast-based starter, depending on bean and manufacturer.  The beans are then covered by banana leaves or put in wooden sweating boxes, temperature, humidity and aeration all adding to the flavor.  Once fermented, the beans are dried and roasted, using a process not greatly different from that used for coffee, this darkens them to a rich brown, enhancing the depth and complexity of the flavor and aroma.  The roasted beans are winnowed (removing the bean’s outer shell, or hull) and the inner bean (or nibs) are then ground or milled at high pressure to produce the cocoa mass (known also as chocolate liquor) and cocoa butter.

The cocoa mass and cocoa butter are then mixed with sugar, producing a paste for conching (a sequence of rolling, kneading, heating and aerating the mixture under heat until it becomes smooth and creamy).  The longer the conche, the smoother will be the chocolate so some premium products can be conched for a week whereas dark chocolate for cooking or the industrial production of food will be processed for only a few hours.  Once conched, a stabiliser such as soy lecithin is added, along with any additional flavors, such as sea salt or vanilla, after which the mix is tempered, a process in which chocolate is brought slowly to the necessary temperature before being poured into molds.  Once cooled, it’s then in its final form: stable, solid and edible.

Foodies, noting the intensity, suggest Cabernet Sauvignon works best with the darkest of dark chocolate, recommending Grenache, Malbec, Merlot, Tawny Port, Shiraz and Zinfandel for anything with a cocoa content under 75%.

There are many spreadable cheeses and those nutty and dense which combine well with chocolates up to 80%.  For the darkest strains, triple cream or blue cheeses work best but, of course, blue cheese goes with anything.

Winds of change

The noun xocolatophobia describes the exceedingly rare condition in which a patient displays an irrational or disproportionate fear of chocolate.  There are even product-specific instances of the syndrome, the authoritative PhobiaWiki listing M&Mphobia (also known as Mumuphobia and Moukaimouophobia) while noting "not much is known about this phobia".  There’s little to suggest the mental health community has devoted much attention to M&Mphobia and the condition has never appeared in the American Psychiatric Association’s (APA) Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM).  It’s speculated that M&Mphobia may be linked to the anthropomorphism Mars Wrigley use in their marketing material and perhaps even related to achondroplasiaphobia (fear of little people).  Mars Wrigley appears never to have addressed the issue but in early 2022 did announce a “multi-pronged approach” to "creating a world where everyone feels they belong and society is inclusive", the first innovation a makeover for each of the colorful M&M characters.  The manufacturer indicated the changes were to give each of the six characters a "fresh, modern take" on their traditional look and "more nuanced personalities to underscore the importance of self-expression and power of community through storytelling."

The differences were subtle and many may not notice but the most commented upon was the green M&M trading her signature white go-go boots for a pair of "cool, laid-back sneakers to reflect her effortless confidence".  Brown, the other female M&M probably will also be breathing a sigh of relief because after strutting in stilettos since 1940, she gets a pair of more comfortable kitten-heeled pumps.  Further to empower feminist solidarity, Mars Wrigley confirmed the brown & green M&M’s combative days were over and they’re now card-carrying members of the sisterhood, “together throwing shine and not shade".  The changes were well received by some.  National Public Radio’s (NPR) political correspondent Danielle Kurtzleben (b 1983) seemed pleased the green M&M had been liberated from her white boots (with all that they imply) and discussed social reproduction theory, “how patriarchy and capitalism violently reinforce each other”, and what a sexy female M&M “says about gender as a construct”.

The other M&M characters also received slight adjustments to their personalities, notably the eternally morose orange M&M who, while still hardly ebullient, has learned to "embrace his true self, worries and all".  The orange M&M’s condition should now be considered cognizant of the latest edition of the DSM (DSM-5-TR, March 2022) which introduced the diagnosis of Generalized Anxiety Disorder (GAD).  Details of all the changes are available on a Q&A page on the Mars Wrigley website and Cathryn Sleight (b 1964, then Chief Growth Officer at Mars Wrigley) issued an explanatory press release:

"M&M’S has long been committed to creating colorful fun for all, and this purpose serves as a more concrete commitment to what we’ve always believed as a brand: that everyone has the right to enjoy moments of happiness, and fun is the most powerful way to help people feel that they belong."

It’s not the first time the characters have been adjusted.  Between 1976-1987 the red M&M was actually banished from the packet in reaction to public disquiet about a synthetic red dye (FD&C Red No. 2, also known as amaranth) used in the industrial production of food and linked to cancer in a 1971 Russian study.  Amararanth had been much used in the US, included in products as diverse as ice-cream and hot dog casings and although tests by the Food & Drug Administration (FDA) produced inconclusive results in humans, it was found the dye caused malignant tumors in female rats.  The FDA thus concluded amaranth could not be presumed safe for human consumption and in 1976 issued a ban.  Red M&Ms had never actually been colored using the agent but, aware of the controversy, the red M&M was removed from production, not returning until 1987 by which time the usual amnesia had overtaken the land.

The FDA however continued to review red dyes and in January 2025 issued a bulletin banning FD&C Red No 3 (Erythrosine) from foods, dietary supplements and ingested medicines sold in the US.  To permit an orderly transition, the agency set 1 January 2027 as the date by which it must be removed from food while the pharmaceutical industry was granted a further twelve months; any products imported into the US also be subject to the new edict.  In advising the new regulation the FDA noted: “Evidence shows cancer in laboratory male rats exposed to high levels of FD&C Red No.3” although it added: “Importantly, the way that FD&C Red No. 3 causes cancer in male rats does not occur in humans.”.  That caveat however does affect the agency’s testing protocol which is based on the “Delaney Clause” (a 1950s amendment sponsored by New York Democrat Congressman James Delaney (1901–1987)) which states the FDA cannot classify a color additive as safe if it has been found to induce cancer in humans or animals.

Curiously, FD&C Red No. 3 has been banned from use in cosmetics (notably lipstick) for almost four decades while still being allowed in foods and ingested medications, an apparent anomaly which has seen much lobbying from groups such as the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) which organized the a petition calling in the ban and that for forty-odd years the food and pharmaceutical industries have been able to continue using the stuff is a testament to the quality (and doubtlessly the largess) of their lobbyists.  According to Food Scores (a database compiled by the Environmental Working Group (EWG)), some 3000 foods are known to contain Red No. 3 and the newly mandated “…consistency between what we put on our skin and what we put into our mouths” was welcomed.  It may also be an example of the anticipation the new administration which takes office on 20 January 2025 will be Trump 2.0 and not Trump 1.1, Donald Trump’s (b 1946; US president 2017-2021; president elect 2024) incoming head of the Department of Health and Human Services, Robert F Kennedy Jr (RFK Jr, b 1954) having already flagged he intended to follow Australia, Japan and the EU (European Union) in restricting the use of the dye to products such as leather or fabrics.  RFK Jr’s interest in the matter extends also to limiting the way highly-processed, high-sugar, “empty calorie” foods are made attractive to children, bright colors a trick the business has for decades been exploiting.  As well as the nutritional concerns, such foods have been linked with childhood obesity and behavioral issues.