Tag Archives: production

Walgreens: My Unlikely Source Of Chocolates*

About The Taster

It is not a secret to those who know me well that I love chocolate. I specially enjoy super dark, extremely bitter (70-90%) Cacao bars. I also like—the unfortunately less nutritious—white chocolate products. I regularly buy white chocolate bars or bon bons from local grocery stores. Yet, my finest inclinations—as a chocolate taster—are always in favor of the darkest, unsweetened, highly concentrated cacao bars. 
 
According to content learned in Harvard University professor Carla D. Martin’s class Chocolate, Culture, and the Politics of Food, I am a hypertaster or someone who has “more papillae that are very closely arranged and smaller” (Martin, 13). This can make me an unreliable taster, and it probably explains my experience with tasting food—I always sound either very excited or really disgusted about flavors in contrast to most of my friends, who seem balanced in their perception of taste. Regardless of the odds, I continue to be their main “adviser” on good local restaurants. This is probably due to my “passionate” approach, which grabs their interest. 

Why Walgreens? 

I regularly walk to a nearby Walgreens drugstore to get my prescriptions (see fig. 1 and fig. 2). It was not until joining professor Martin’s class that I paid attention to their chocolate section. It actually happened around Valentine’s, when most of us (particularly females) are targeted with advertisements and offers of candy and chocolates. Very curious—recalling our class’ discussions—I explored these isles at the store and I found—not surprisingly—an “avalanche” of well known chocolate brands (like Lindt, Cadbury, Nestle) lying next to the candy section (see fig. 4).
Fig. 1. Walgreens drugstore at Vermont Avenue and 6th Street, Los Angeles, California.

Fig. 2. Pinned location of Walgreens at Vermont Avenue and 6th Street, Los Angeles, California. 

Walgreens was founded in 1901 by Charles R. Walgreens in Dixon, Illinois. He started Walgreens as a “50 feet by 20 feet” (“Our Story”) drugstore, which later developed into a giant chain of pharmacies, and successfully expanded across the United States. In the Walgreens website, its motto reads, “A history of our company: How a neighborhood drugstore became America’s most trusted pharmacy… and changed the shopping habits of a nation” (“Our Story”) That seems consistent with the Walgreens of today, which steadily renovates its inventory to offer beauty, household and even grocery products (see fig. 3).
Fig. 3. Walgreens’ online shopping portal.

The Walgreens Experience

So, who goes to Walgreens for chocolates? Is it just me? Highly doubtful! I visit the store at least once per month. Since last Valentine’s their chocolate supply was re-stocked. I was shocked to see some of the brands that professor Martin reviewed in class (i.e. Endangered Species Chocolate) at my local Walgreens. Their wide list of product categories, makes Walgreens a good candidate for casual grocery and retail shopping. And when it comes to chocolate and candies, I am not alone. The day that I chose to take pictures for this assignment, I had to move aside several times to let other shoppers shop, and to let their children run wild over the candy section. 
 
It is perhaps its versatility—as business scholar Katy Mullis suggests in her paper A SWOT Analysis of Walgreens in the Competitive Pharmacy Marketplace—what keeps the retailer thriving. Mullis describes the advantage of their extensive product selection, “The company strives to offer a merchandise mix in line with this focus, providing customers with one-stop stopping for not only prescription drugs, 6 but also over-the-counter-drugs, health care products, grocery selections, gifts, holiday and seasonal items, and one-hour photo developing” (Mullis, 5-6). Walgreens—based on Mullis’ work—holds strongly as a convenience market. People go there to order prescriptions, and spend no less than fifteen minutes waiting for them to be ready. This gives the company a tremendous advantage to sell more than just pharmaceutical goods. I personally buy candles and incense at Walgreens since 2015—and now, I additionally buy their chocolates and wine. 

Judging The Book By Its Cover 

Although Walgreens sells a great variety of chocolates, it is not a specialty shop for cacao products. It conveniently stocks brands that are popular and generally available in other food markets. Therefore, I was not expecting to find fancy delicacies there—and none else should. It would be an exception from their purchasing habits if it ever happened. Nevertheless, their chocolate selection is sufficiently versatile—considering that Walgreens is primarily a pharmacy, and not a grocery chain like Ralphs or Gelson’s.

 Fig. 4. Walgreens’ “Chocolate-Candy” section at a Walgreens store in Los Angeles, California.

The chocolate bars sold at Walgreens range from low to very good quality—as far as branding and taste. Some of their prevalent brands were mentioned at professor Martin’s class: Hershey’s, Cadbury’s, Nestle, Lindt, etc. It is uncommon to see organic products there (I did not find any at all), or certified products in general. But sometimes random supplies make it to their shelves and one stumbles upon a deliciously crafted chocolate bar.
 
With this research in mind, I selected and purchased a few items that attracted me. Recalling the chocolate tasting activities performed by professor Martin, I bought two of the Endangered Species Chocolate brand. I also picked the Chili and White Coconut—of course—bars from Lindt and a few others, nicely appealing (presentation-wise and content-wise). Notwithstanding, I avoid Hershey’s and Cadbury’s almost all the time. I feel that they make products that are so sweet and “distressed” that I am unable to taste any real chocolate in them. 

Tasting And Researching Chocolate 

My “repertoire” consisted of the items shown below (see fig. 5). Fig. 5. Chocolate Tasting Selection.

The description of the products in the picture is the following (in random order):
  • 1 Damak Fine Chocolate with Pistachios bar by Nestle, $2.89 / 2.80 oz.
  • 1 Damak Dark Chocolate with Pistachios bar by Nestle, $2.89 / 2.80 oz.
  • 1 Dark Chocolate Cranberry Almond with Blood Orange Flavor bar by Brookside, $3.89 / 3.17 oz.
  • 1 Dark Chocolate With Sea Salt & Almonds bar by Endangered Species Chocolate, $4.29 / 3 oz.
  • 1 Dark Chocolate With Cranberries & Almonds bar by Endangered Species Chocolate, $4.29 / 3 oz.
  • 1 Excellence Chili Dark Chocolate bar by Lindt, $2.50 / 3.50 oz.
  • 1 Excellence White Coconut White Chocolate bar by Lindt, $2.50 / 3.50 oz.
The results of the experiment produced the following graph, showing percentages (fig. 6):
 
Fig. 6. Measuring Chocolate Tasting Results.
  • The tastiest bar: Endangered Species Chocolate’s Dark Chocolate With Sea Salt & Almonds.
  • The best deal: Lindt’s Chili Dark Chocolate.
  • The worst product: Nestle’s Damak Dark Chocolate with Pistachios.
The worst tasting experience corresponds to Nestle’s Damak series. Professor Martin remarked during her lectures about processing chocolate, that over-conching can result in a “flat, lifeless” (Martin, 56) and dull product—which was evident when tasting the Damak series. In regards to Brookside’s Cranberry Almond Dark Chocolate with Blood Orange Flavor, I was dazzled by its fancy name and its presentation. Beautifully enclosed in a delicate foil envelope, it featured sketches of almonds, cranberries and an orange tree etched in silver color over a dark red background (see fig. 7). Whereas its base cacao mix did not feel over-conched or poorly processed, the presence of so many strong flavors (orange, almonds, cranberries) created an ambiguous taste that did not impress my palate, so I classified it as too busy. 
 
Decidedly, my preferred choice became the Endangered Species’ Dark Chocolate With Sea Salt & Almonds. It has a sharp, lively, delicious chocolate presence along with salty, crispy notes of sea salt and almond chunks. The only downside of this brand is that it is pricey—looking at the cost and its net weight. However, all of its certifications and its quality make it seem worth the investment. Regardless, certifications should be interpreted with caution—according to professor Martin’s research titled The Bitter and Sweet of Chocolate in Europe, co-authored with Kathryn E. Sampeck—because often they result in misguided efforts that do not really support cacao farmers as they claim to, and that benefit primarily “wealthy consumers” (Martin and Sampeck, 52) frequently halting “innovation by prioritizing consensus among participating companies and incentivizing only baseline standards adherence, ultimately becoming part of the problem” (Martin and Sampeck, 52). The problem—in this case—refers to the ever-growing poverty in many cacao-producing nations, and in the difficulties experienced by cacao farmers to sell their raw materials and to collect their earnings afterwards, whether they participate or not in certification programs.
Fig. 7. Brookside’s Refined Cranberry Almond With Blood Orange Bar.
 
In the next section are the details about the ratings from the chocolate tasting experiment. 

Observations From The Experiment

Nestle’s Damak Fine Chocolate with Pistachios:
  • Milk Chocolate
  • Mild taste, almost like candy
  • Burnt garlic after taste
  • Cacao: regular (non specified)
  • Certifications / Program: SadeOfset
  • Caloric Information: Yes
  • Rating: 3/10
  • Presentation: 2/5
  • Price: 2/5
Nestle’s Damak Dark Chocolate with Pistachios:
  • Dark Chocolate (55%)
  • Soil-like taste, almost like dirt
  • Bitter after taste
  • Cacao: regular (non specified)
  • Certifications / Program: SadeOfset
  • Caloric Information: Yes
  • Rating: 3/10
  • Presentation: 2/5
  • Price: 2/5
Brookside’s Cranberry Almond Dark Chocolate with Blood Orange Flavor:
  • Dark Chocolate
  • Fruity flavor, citric
  • Mildly bitter
  • Cacao: regular (non specified)
  • Certifications / Program: Smartlabel
  • Caloric Information: Yes
  • Rating: 7/10
  • Presentation: 5/5
  • Price: 4/5
Lindt’s Excellence White Coconut:
  • White Chocolate
  • Fruity, coconut
  • Sweet
  • Cacao: regular (non specified)
  • Certifications / Program: N/A
  • Caloric Information: Yes
  • Rating: 8/10
  • Presentation: 5/5
  • Price: 5/5
Lindt’s Excellence Chili Dark Chocolate:
  • Dark Chocolate (47%)
  • Spicy, chili
  • Sweet
  • Cacao: regular (non specified)
  • Certifications / Program: N/A
  • Caloric Information: Yes
  • Rating: 9/10
  • Presentation: 5/5
  • Price: 5/5
Endangered Species’ Dark Chocolate with Sea Salt & Almonds:
  • Dark Chocolate (72%)
  • Sharp, salty and crunchy
  • Just perfect
  • Cacao: Fair Trade, Non-GMO
  • Certifications / Program: Fair Trade, NON GMO Verified, Certified Gluten-Free, Certified Vegan
  • Caloric Information: Yes
  • Rating: 10/10
  • Presentation: 4/5
  • Price: 3/5
Endangered Species’ Dark Chocolate with Cranberries & Almonds:
  • Dark Chocolate (72%)
  • Fruity, spicy and crunchy
  • Just perfect
  • Cacao: Fair Trade, Non-GMO
  • Certifications / Program: Fair Trade, NON GMO Verified, Certified Gluten-Free, Certified Vegan 
  • Caloric Information: Yes
  • Rating: 9/10
  • Presentation: 4/5
  • Price: 3/5
These are certifications reported by the products:
Contents (fig. 8):
  • Kosher, Dairy
  • Fair Trade
  • NON GMO Verified
  • Certified Gluten Free
  • Certified Vegan
Fig. 8. Product Certifications. 
Packaging (fig. 9):
  • SadeOfset
  • Smartlabel
  • PCW Certification

Fig. 9. Packaging Certifications.
 
A curious detail revealed by the experiment, was the ubiquity of packaging certifications. Almost every chocolate product at Walgreen’s shelves displayed one or more packaging certification logos—even when the product itself was not certified. This proves that consumers are not only interested in eating well: they are also concerned about the impact that the products they consume have in the environment. Hopefully, consumers will succeed in voicing their interest to chocolate manufactures and cause them to buy more certified raw materials, and to support standardized certification programs. 

Putting It All Together 

Shopping at Walgreens for chocolates was quite an experience. If it was not because of taking professor Martin’s class, it would have likely skipped it. Yet, her class succeeded in making me a more conscious food shopper. I feel now compelled to read food labels and to check for certifications, which—other than USDA Organic—sounded irrelevant to me before enrolling in Chocolate, Culture and the Politics of Food. Understanding the difference between Fair Trade, USDA Organic and other classifications does make a difference in the “wholesomeness” and perception of a product. I am specially keen about the complex chain of connections that begins at a chocolate farm and ends on the hands of the consumer. I “pledge” to use more discernment in my future purchases by supporting transparent, environmentally and socially conscious chocolatiers.
 
An additional takeaway from professor Martin’s class—which becomes obvious while shopping for groceries—is that sugar and chocolate are quasi inseparable. Often, they are displayed in contiguous shelves, so that it is hard to define where the candy ends and the chocolate begins—this was the case at Walgreens (and many other stores). Perhaps, the subliminal reason for this is that most chocolate products nowadays are so overwhelmingly processed that—as author Samira Kawash puts it in her Candy: A Century of Panic and Pleasure book—there is an “ancestral” link between them: 

“The ancestral relation between candy and today’s ultraprocessed foods is a compelling reason to look a little more closely at the rise of the candy industry and the controversies and worries that accompanied it. The story of candy in America is a story of how the processed, the artificial, and the fake came to be embraced as real food. And it’s also the story of how it happened that so much of what we call food today is really candy.(Kawash, 26)

What Kawash suggests has been historically documented and marked by the evolution of the advertisement and media. Today’s most renown chocolate brands in America (i.e. Hershey’s) produce hyper-processed, hyper-sweetened chocolate goods. There is almost no difference between eating these chocolates and eating pure candy. But there is new is hope for a positive change that arises from consumer awareness. We—as consumers—can and are transforming the current food market. The dangers of sugar addiction and chemical processing are being exposed, and food shoppers are turning to natural alternatives. We are all hopeful about the rise of healthier and tastier food (and chocolate) that—most definitely—will lay in the hands of our millennials! 
*Disclaimer: This essay is drawn from a personal experience. Therefore, it is written in First-Person.

Works Cited

Faith, Arleena. Brookside’s Refined Cranberry Almond With Blood Orange Bar. 2017.

Digital photograph. Los Angeles, California.   

Faith, Arleena. Chocolate Tasting Selection. 2017. Digital photograph. Los Angeles,

California. 

Faith, Arleena. Measuring Chocolate Tasting Results. 2017. Digital graph. Los Angeles,

California.

Faith, Arleena. Packaging Certifications. 2017. Digital collage. Los Angeles, California.

Faith, Arleena. Product Certifications. 2017. Digital collage. Los Angeles, California.

Faith, Arleena. Walgreens’ Chocolate-Candy Section. 2017. Digital photograph. Los

Angeles, California.

Kawash, Samira . Candy: A Century of Panic and Pleasure. Farrar, Straus and Giroux,

2013, New York, Print. Apr. 2017. 

Martin, Carla D. (2017). Lecture 4: Popular Sweet Tooths and Scandal [PowerPoint

presentation]. Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Martin, Carla D. (2017). Lecture 12: Psychology, Terroir, and Taste [PowerPoint

presentation]. Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Martin, Carla D., and Kathryn E. Sampeck. “The Bitter and Sweet of Chocolate in

Europe.” Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts. 2015. Print. 2017 May 2.

Mullis, Katy. “A SWOT Analysis of Walgreens in the Competitive Pharmacy

Marketplace.” College of Health and Human Sciences Oregon State University, Corvallis,

Oregon. 2006. Web. 2017 April 20. http://www.teschi.edu.mx/TESCHI-web/TESCHI-papelera/%20cevm/diapositvas/Anexos%20Modelos/Anexos%20Modelo%20Empresa/DAFO/A%20SWOT%20Analysis%20of%20Walgreens.pdf

“Our Past.” Walgreens, 2017. Web. 2017 April

28, https://www.walgreens.com/topic/history/ourpast.jsp

“Shop” Online shopping portal. Chicago: Walgreen Co., 2017. Walgreens. Walgreen

Company. 2017. Web. 2017 April 28.

“Walgreens.” Online map. Los Angeles: Google Inc., 2017. Google Maps. Google

Maps. 2017. Web. 2017 April 28.

Walgreens. 2017. Photograph. Google Maps. Google, Inc. Web. 2017 April 28. 

Advertisements

Does Good Chocolate Exist: an analysis of vertical product differentiation in the market for chocolate

The candy aisle in CVS features a colorful selection of sweet confections ranging from caramels to sour gummy candies. Of course, the most prominent appearance in the confectionery aisle is chocolate – chocolate in fact makes up more than 60% of US confection sales (National Confectioners Association). Within the chocolate category there is further variation in brand, flavor, and quality – marked by differences in prices. In the field of industrial organization (how firms make decisions), we call variation in a category of product that cannot be objectively determined as qualitative difference, horizontal differentiation. Variation that can be objectively determined as qualitatively specified is called vertical differentiation. Chocolate products exhibit both forms of differentiation – it is impossible to agree on the qualitative difference between one brand’s milk chocolate bar and dark chocolate almond bar (horizontal differentiation), but everyone can agree that a craft designed chocolate bar is qualitatively better than a generic Hershey’s bar (vertical differentiation).

In fact, the difference between chocolate candies and chocolate has become a source of great debate of recent, with eleven food producing associations, including the Chocolate Manufacturers Association, the Grocery Manufacturers Association, the Snack Food Association, and the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, petitioning the FDA to expand the definition of chocolate to include products that use vegetable oils and fats instead of cocoa butter – products which currently must be called “chocolatey” or “chocolate-flavored” (May, 1). The debate speaks to an issue central to the commercial world of chocolate: what makes chocolate, chocolate, and what makes some chocolate objectively better than others? The factors that horizontally differentiate chocolate products simply cater to different tastes, and effectively offer separate subproducts. The vertically differentiated spread however, is more interesting because its factors are significantly more nuanced and shed critical light on the global chocolate industry. This paper will first discuss the chocolate industry’s vertical differentiation strategies, and then critique the assumption that more expensive chocolate is ethically and qualitatively better.

So what goes into the rise in price (upwards of double) from CVS’s chocolates in the candy aisle to those in the “premium chocolates” section just around the corner? First, we see a simple disparity in packaging. The recognizable brown and white Hershey’s bar, orange and yellow Reese’s Peanut Butter Cups, and colorful assortment of M&Ms is contrasted with the sleeker look of the premium chocolate bars. These bars are, impressively, all colored darkly, with gold lettering, or in the case of Ferrero Rocher individually wrapped in gold foil. Many of the bars are described with catch phrases, also in gold lettering, signaling to consumers that their products are superior to classic chocolate candies – Lindt’s “Excellence”, and Chuao’s “Gourmet Handcrafted Chocolate”.

image5

(The candy aisle  in Harvard Square CVS, showing Hershey’s Kisses and Reese’s Pieces in foreground)

image6

(Landscape layout of Hershey’s chocolate bars in candy section)

image1

(Premium Chocolates section around the corner from the candy aisle, notice gold lettering and clean portrait orientation of chocolate bars)

 

Brand/Product Name Price per ounce ($/oz) Motto/Catchphrase Additional Points
Hershey’s 0.47 Made with farm fresh milk “Cocoa is rich in antioxidants”
Reese’s (Hershey) 0.54 Filled with Reese’s peanut butter n/a
M&M’s (Mars) 0.53 Chocolate candies n/a
Lindt 1.14 Excellence, gourmet chocolate “Exotic Fruits” collection
Endangered Species 1.00 Indulge in a cause nonGMO, Fair Trade, gluten free, vegan
Ferrero Rocher 1.05 A tempting combination Individually wrapped in gold foil
Ghirardelli 1.14 From bean to bar Encourages use in cooking with recipes
Chuao Chocolatier 1.89 Gourmet handcrafted chocolate Chef name, master chocolatier’s message

 

Another tactic to show higher quality visually is the inclusion of diagrams, graphics, and special messages on the back of the bars. Ghirardelli bars include a four panel description of the production process “from bean to bar”, claiming that the company’s ability to control each of the steps causes their chocolates to have “ultimate quality”. Every Chuao chocolate bar is detailed with both an autograph from a particular chef, assumed to be involved in the specific flavor of chocolate bar, and a message from the “master chocolatier”. In comparison, the cheaper chocolates have essentially no additional information about the product – the classic Hershey’s Bar simply says “made with farm fresh milk”, Reese’s cups are “filled with Reese’s peanut butter”, and M&Ms are simply described as “chocolate candies”. The most subtle difference in packaging style is likely the orientation of the bar – while the candy chocolate bars are typically oriented landscape (so that when you read the front, the bar is wider than it is tall), whereas every bar in the “Premium Chocolate” section is oriented portrait (so that it is vertically longer than it is wide).

Beyond the fancy packaging, the most expensive chocolates justify their higher prices with claims to better ingredients. On each of the higher end chocolate brand’s websites, stress the importance of using “superior ingredients” in their chocolates. Asides from claiming that the ingredients selected for their chocolates are better than those used in cheaper chocolates, premium chocolates are marketed as having ingredients specifically selected from specific regions around the world. This is especially true for Craft Chocolates, a category of chocolates too luxurious to be included even in the premium chocolates section in CVS. Potomac chocolates for example, which sell at a whopping $5.11 per ounce, are sold in bars horizontally differentiated according to cocoa bean source. Consumers are essentially paying the extra dollars to taste specific regional cocoa beans in their chocolate.

Screenshot 2017-05-05 at 3.59.08 PM

Potomac chocolate bars differentiated according to source of cocoa beans (https://www.potomacchocolate.com/shop/ )

Some chocolates, including Endangered Species chocolate, also adhere to specific dietary demands by highlighting the use of gluten free or vegan ingredients. Although these specifications don’t objectively imply a change in quality of the product, they do appeal to consumers who have specific diets and can afford specific diets.

The final factor that plays into the quality difference across chocolates is the process of chocolate production. As aforementioned, Ghirardelli is especially proud of their control on the entire chocolate-making process “from bean to bar”, so much so that they include a diagram of it on each chocolate bar. The claim here is the same as with many craft chocolatiers – that with the ability to control each step, from roasting the beans, to grinding, to milling, and conching, comes the opportunity to create both a unique and elite product. Although not necessarily a factor into the flavor of the product, many premium chocolates also boast ethically sourced ingredients, organically farmed ingredients, and environmentally conscious processes. Frequent appearances include the simple use of the phrase “ethically sourced ingredients”, Fair Trade certification, nonGMO certification, and USDA Organic. Endangered Species chocolate is not only a brand that displays all of the above certifications, but is also a brand completely devoted to environmental conservationism – particularly the preservation of endangered species, as its name suggests. The company pledges to donate 10% of net profits from its chocolate sales, and each chocolate bar is dedicated to an endangered animal, including interesting information about the animal and its status. The video below describes the process of Endangered Species’ involvement in aiding the recovery of endangered species around the globe.

Though again, saving endangered species has no direct effect to the quality of the chocolate, it adds a side value to the product, so that consumers willingly choose to pay more for the double benefit of chocolate and saving endangered animals.

As presented, there are myriad factors that play into the price spread across chocolates of assumed differentiated quality. We will now evaluate these factors in order to cement whether the most expensive products are justifiably priced as better products than generic chocolate candy bars.

The most noticeable difference between cheap and pricier chocolates, at first glance, is packaging. Aesthetically packaging is obviously a marketing tactic, and to some degree, consumers are paying for a prettier box around the chocolate, with better sounding catchphrases. Although the flowery language may not actually provide useful information about the product, this kind of product differentiation could in fact be an effective method to signal, in an effort to combat market information asymmetry. Information asymmetry is an economic concept describing a transactional state where one or more sides of the transaction is not fully informed about the transaction or product – a market inefficiency that could result in no transactions taking place, even though the buyer and seller could feasibly form an agreement if the necessary information was fully disclosed. Signaling is a strategy that the supplier can utilize to signal to consumers that their product is in fact a high quality product – advertising, for example, signals to consumers that a firm is well-established enough to even afford advertising, and by extension their products must be trustworthy (Investopedia, 1). In the market for chocolate, unless consumers choose to try all chocolate products that exist on the market and determine, by tasting, which products are in fact the best (which is unlikely – consumer behavior tends to favor revisiting familiar products), it is up to chocolate makers to accurately reveal their value to consumers. Spending extra money per bar of chocolate to decorate the bar with fancy text, textured paper, diagrams, and heartfelt messages from the makers of the chocolate signals to chocolate buyers that these products took more effort, money, and care to create, and that thus they must be better than the less-aesthetically wrapped chocolates.

A second claim held by many of the most expensive chocolate brands is superior or specific ingredients. In terms of ingredients, the cheaper chocolates are surprisingly not particularly different from expensive chocolates, when the cheaper chocolate is simply chocolate. However, when a Hershey’s bar adds some peanut butter and becomes a Reese’s Peanut Butter Cup, suddenly ingredients like partially hydrogenated vegetable oil make an appearance – an ingredient which “distorts cholesterol levels, encourages obesity, causes inflammatory conditions, and can even be a cause of infertility” (Collier, 1). Contrarily, expensive brands have significantly shorter ingredients lists, and maintain healthier ingredients even when the flavors become more complicated; for example, Lindt truffles use vegetable oil, but avoid refined or hydrogenated oils. From a health perspective then, plain chocolate (milk or dark) is generally as healthy in cheap chocolates as in expensive chocolates when eaten in moderation, while the chocolates in the more interestingly flavored category are definitely healthier in expensive brands.

The focus on specific sourcing of cocoa beans is a particularly nuanced strategy for vertical differentiation of chocolate. The theory that contextualizing a food infuses the food with another layer of flavor is part of the “psychology of taste” discussed by Carla Martin in her April 19th lecture. In this lecture Martin described the particular contextualizing of a food’s origin as Terroir, or “the set of special characteristics that the geography, geology and climate of a certain place, interacting with the plant’s genetics, expressed in agricultural products”, or simply a “sense of place” (Martin, 4/19). Terroir is a legitimate factor that affects flavor, and products that are able to bring out the Terroir in the chocolate by single-sourcing, simplifying other ingredients or simply bringing the cacao source to attention arguably do in fact offer a unique (and justifiably more expensive) product. There is however an important caveat to the use, or abuse, of Terroir.

Social activist Bell Hooks writes of the problem of “Othering” in Western consumer culture in his work “Eating the Other”, a concept that can absolutely be related to many food industries in the US, including the chocolate industry. In her work Hook describes the use of ethnicity as spice – “when race and ethnicity become commodified as resources for pleasure, the  culture  of  specific  groups,  as  well  as  the  bodies  of  individuals,  can  be  seen  as constituting an alternative playground where members of dominating race […]  affirm  their  power-over  in  intimate  relations  with  the  Other.” (Hooks, 2). For the most part chocolate companies seem to be able to utilize Terroir without objectifying foreign culture, but the line between an appreciation for source and the commodification of other cultures is grey and difficult to clearly draw. It is important that chocolate firms don’t simply repeat the chocolate industry’s historical trend of cultural appropriation, slavery, and exploitation, by commodifying a region of the world and its inhabitants as a flavor.

The final category of factors that seem to affect chocolate quality is the use of ethically and environmentally conscious processes. The goals behind certifications like USDA Organic, Fair Trade and other ethical trade certifications are generally ethically fantastic goals, like environmental conservation and the abolition of child slavery in cacao farms. However the efficacy of each certification is not always straightforward. In an April 5th lecture Carla Martin described a list of problems with Fair Trade, including problems with product quality, issues with corruption and favoring richer farmers, harming farmers who don’t have access to Fair Trade, and ethical questions in marketing (Martin, 4/5). Other trade organizations like Direct Trade and the organizations to which Endangered Species Chocolate donate face similar critiques. In addition, a Fair Trade and USDA Organic certification does not necessarily imply that the entire product is completely fairly traded and organic, because they allow products to have categoric certifications with certain percentages of fairly traded or organic ingredients. These certifications then, don’t necessarily imply that a product is 100% ethically, environmentally, and economically conscious. Regardless of actual effect, products marketed as being certified by one or more of these organizations appeal to the goodwill of consumers, and take advantage of a “feel good” factor in consumer “taste” preferences.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, not all of the factors assumed to boost chocolate products’ value are as ethically conscious or environmentally helpful as they seem to be. However, in general, high-end chocolates are in fact healthier and better quality products, and are signaled as such with more extravagant packaging, leaving cheaper chocolate confections to rely on consumer familiarity to continue to sell. At first glance, attention to details in production processes, Terroir, and side goals (like animal and environmental concerns) seem to simply be added to “spice” up products; which would be horizontal differentiation and not justifying of higher prices. However there is some backing to added value in elements of taste idolized by haute cuisine, like Terroir and a sense of doing good in the world. Ultimately, prices are determined by consumer demand, and it seems consumers are becoming increasingly excited buyers of premium chocolates, as demand for premium chocolates is currently growing at 11% – the largest sector of growth in the confection market (Zhang, 1). Although preferences for the chocolate we find in the candy aisle will likely always exist, and the quality and ethical concern of the best chocolate is not quite perfect, the increased awareness for issues in the chocolate industry and higher expectations for product quality reflected in this consumer sector growth is encouraging. Chocolate can only get better.

Sources Cited

Collier, Andrew. “Deadly Fats: Why are we still eating them?”. Independent UK. 9 June 2008. Web. 05 May 2017. <http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/healthy-living/deadly-fats-why-are-we-still-eating-them-843400.html&gt;

Hooks, Bell. “Eating the Other: Desire and Resistance.” Black Looks: Race and Representation. PDF. 1992.

Investopedia. “Signaling Approach”. Investopedia. Web. 05 May 2017.<http://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/signallingapproach.asp&gt;

Martin Carla. Lecture. April 5, 2017. Chocolate, Culture, and the Politics of Food. Harvard University.

Martin, Carla. Lecture. April 19, 2017. Chocolate, Culture, and the Politics of Food. Harvard University.

May, Cybele. “Hands off my chocolate, FDA!” Los Angeles Times. 19 April, 2007. Web. 05 May 2017. <http://www.latimes.com/la-oe-may19apr19-story.html&gt;

National Confectioners Association. “Data & Insights”. Web. 05 May <2017. https://www.candyusa.com/data-insights/>

Zhang, Yu. “5 Facts About the Chocolate Industry.” Reynolds Center. National Center for Business Journalism, 12 Oct. 2016. Web. 05 May 2017. <http://businessjournalism.org/2016/10/5-facts-about-the-chocolate-industry/&gt;.

An Interview with a Chocolate Lover: Issues within the Chocolate Industry Revealed

Curious about people’s relationship with chocolate, I interviewed a young female adult about how her relationship with chocolate has changed from childhood into adulthood. The interviewee has never learned about chocolate, but she alludes to various historical, economical, and social issues within the chocolate industry throughout the interview. Specifically, she raises ethical issues about cacao farming practices, and explicates how business transactions harm chocolate producers. The interviewee is a college-educated individual, and demonstrates significant knowledge about these issues presumably because of her enrollment in a course about the sociology of food. Based on her responses in the interview, it is clear that this course changed her relationship with food and influences her current food decisions. Through the interview, the interviewee illuminates glaring issues within the chocolate industry related to the production of cacao, exploitation of cacao farmers, and chocolate advertising. First, she raises issues that about the production of cacao by demonstrating awareness about the economic difficulties cacao farmers face, and by discussing logistical issues about certifications that attempt to combat those economic issues. Second, in describing her chocolate preferences and perceptions, she alludes to issues regarding chocolate marketing strategies, and demonstrates the immense influence that chocolate advertisements hold over consumer purchasing decisions.

Before evaluating the historical, economic, and social issues within the chocolate industry revealed by the interviewee, it is necessary to explain the similarities between cacao and coffee bean production. The interviewee learned about coffee production in a course at a prestigious university, so this section purposes to provide legitimacy to the issues she raises about cacao production by emphasizing that the coffee and cacao industries experience the same problems, thereby qualifying her arguments about coffee production as applicable to cacao production as well. First, the working and economic conditions of coffee and cacao farmers are almost identical. Most coffee farmers produce beans on small, family-owned farms, and live in poverty.[1] Coffee farmers typically rely on bean sales as their primary source of income, but it is extremely volatile because it responds to any fluctuation in bean market prices and sales.[2] Second, coffee farmers can obtain Fair Trade and Organic Certification. Fair Trade promises the same benefits to coffee farmers as it does to cacao farmers, including minimum price premiums, social development, better labor rights, and long-term trading partnership.[3] Third, a large gap exists between coffee producers’ farming practices and coffee consumers’ purchasing decisions. There are stark differences between farmers that produce specialty coffee, and farmers that produce conventional, non-certified coffee. Demand for specialty coffee is on the rise because consumers, particularly those that identify with the ethical eating, Slow Food Movement, are willing to pay more for certified, eco-friendly coffee.[4] Higher quality coffee beans are sold at a higher price in the market, but most coffee consumers are unaware of the implications of their coffee-purchasing decisions.[5] Lastly, similar to the chocolate industry, a few select big coffee companies – less than 10 – control more than half of the coffee market.[6] These similarities are important to recognize, as the interviewee recalls this knowledge in the interview, and subsequently reveals that the economic and social issues afflicting coffee farmers and production are the same issues that exist in relation to cacao farming and production.

coffee beancacao bean

Image 1: Coffee Bean                                                                             Image 2: Cacao Bean

The interviewee brings attention to the importance of the raw coffee bean product to the existence of the entire coffee industry. Through this observation, she emphasizes the complete disconnect between coffee production and coffee consumption, revealing that the same issue exists within the chocolate industry. The interviewee comments, “without the farmers, you wouldn’t have the product. They’re the ones creating the base product to make coffee. They’re often the most forgotten. That’s like with any food product.”[7] This remark deserves close evaluation, as it perfectly describes the fragmented functioning and separateness of the different sectors of the coffee industry, also applicable to the chocolate industry. With that remark, the interviewee astutely explains that these complex industries rely wholly on the raw product, the bean, and without which, coffee and chocolate might not exist. This comment is interesting because it offers a simplistic vision that connects the necessity of the raw product to the consumer industry miles and miles away. This perception also illuminates how coffee and chocolate consumers are highly unaware of the implications of their purchasing decisions on the economic livelihood of the producers. Pictured in images 1 and 2 are a coffee and cacao bean, respectively (Image 1 and 2). These visuals purpose as a reminder to consumers that the coffee they drink from Starbucks, or Lindt chocolate they eat from their local supermarket, are products that begin with coffee and cacao beans, harvested and cultivated by farmers. Production and consumption are inherently connected, however, farmers are often naïve about the final product and consumers are often uneducated about the raw product process, both of which exacerbate the separateness between different players within the coffee and chocolate systems.

USDA organic labelImage 3: USDA Organic Certification Label

The interviewee discusses logistical issues with the Fair Trade and Organic Certification protocols, revealing that these labels harm rather than benefit cacao farmers and production. Fair Trade, Organic, and Direct Trade certifications share a common goal to compensate cacao farmers that produce their beans in adherence to specific environmental and social standards at a higher price than the conventional market offers.[8] The United States Department of Agriculture divides organic products into three categories, “100% organic,” “organic,” and “made with organic ingredients,” where each category is defined based on strict agricultural practice regulations.[9] Agricultural products that adhere to these standards are labeled with the “USDA Organic” logo, pictured in Image 3 (Image 3). In viewing this image, it is apparent that the USDA Organic label is not informative, as the certification seal does not specify whether the product is made with 100%, 95%, or at least 70% organic ingredients. The lack of information on this label raises questions about the authenticity of these certifications, and how organic certification guidelines are monitored. In probing about her knowledge regarding Organic Certification, the interviewee says “there are requirements…You can still use pesticides, but [the farmers] use “organic” or “natural” pesticides that are “better” for the environment…I know there are loopholes in the organic certification process.”[10] Here, the interviewee identifies the major criticisms of the USDA Organic Certification process in relation to cacao farming and production practices, alluding to claims of product quality issues and loose surveillance of organically certified cacao farmers’ adherence to USDA guidelines.[11] As revealed through her remarks, the vagueness of this label generates confusion among consumers. Furthermore, these observations illuminate the need for tighter institutional regulation of USDA Organic protocols, both for the benefit of consumers – ensuring that cacao farmers are following certification standards, guaranteeing that consumers are purchasing actual organic cacao – and for the benefit of the producers – that they are properly compensated for producing cacao beans using environmentally-friendly farming practices.

The interviewee circles the debate about the effectiveness of Fair Trade certification’s impact on cacao farmers’ economic situation through her advocacy for Fair Trade coffee bean farming and production. Similar to organic certification, Fair Trade certification encourages sustainable farming practices, while also promoting social welfare and establishing long-term trading partnerships.[12] In explaining the benefits of Fair Trade for coffee farmers, the interviewee says, “the farmers work long, laborious hours and they don’t get paid very well unless they are in the Fair Trade system…more money goes to the farmer when it’s a Fair Trade transaction.”[13] Through this comment, the interviewee reveals two similarities between coffee bean and cacao production that are problematic for the farmers. First, she describes the difficult working conditions that coffee bean farmers endure, such as long and physically fatiguing hours, and subsequently suggests that the farmers are underpaid considering their strenuous working conditions. She alludes to a prominent issue that cacao farmers face in that they are not properly compensated for their grueling laborious efforts, and that their contributions to the chocolate industry are severely under-valued. Second, she asserts that Fair Trade certified coffee farmers are more economically stable than non-certified coffee farmers, referencing minimum price premiums and prompt payments promised by Fair Trade to certified farmers. This suggests that consumers perceive Fair Trade as an impactful certification that improves farmers’ economic situation. However, in reality, there is no strong evidence that the Fair Trade system is effective in combatting farmers’ economic crises, particularly that of cacao farmers.[14] This misconception is problematic, as consumers’ might purchase Fair Trade products hoping to improve farmers’ income situation, unbeknownst to the faults of Fair Trade.

The interviewee explicates that some of her food decisions are based on the ethicality of food production practices, but names high prices of Fair Trade and Organic products as a barrier that prevents her from always purchasing certified products. In regards to the cacao industry, attempts to improve the ethicality of cacao farmers’ working conditions by consumer advocacy groups more often than not fail.[15] Chocolate consumers are often uneducated about the complexities of the chocolate industry, making it difficult for consumers to grasp how their purchasing decisions impact the economic and/or social situation of cacao farmers. Therefore, consumers cannot be responsible for initiating change of the exploitative economic and social conditions endured by cacao farmers. Surprisingly, the interviewee demonstrates a deep consciousness about the relationship between production and consumption, explaining that she became a vegetarian because “I don’t like the treatment of farm animals on conventional farms…Also, I don’t like the growth hormones and antibiotics.”[16] This reasoning suggests that she chooses the type of food she consumes based on the ethicality of food production practices. She further explains that she prefers to consume organic food, as “It’s more environmentally friendly.”[17] Again, she adopts an ethical argument to support her preference to consume organic over conventional farm products. However, she subsequently mentions that she does not always purchase certified Organic or Fair Trade products because they are “more expensive.”[18] This confession reveals a common misconception among consumers that certified products are always more expensive, which is false, as Organic and Fair Trade farming practices can actually cost the same or less than conventional farming practices.[19] Through her remarks, it is clear that the interviewee is a conscious consumer, as she chose to become a vegetarian because of inhumane treatment of animals on conventional farms, indicating her care for ethical farming and production practices. However, her perception that Organic, Fair Trade, and Direct Trade products are more expensive than non-certified products alludes to major critiques of certification organizations, commonly accused of corrupt practices and falsely promising cacao farmers fair payment. Through the interviewee’s comments, she illuminates a significant issue that Organic, Fair Trade, and Direct Trade are actually more harmful than beneficial to cacao farmers’ economic and social conditions.

woman eating chocolate     Image 4: Gender in Chocolate Advertisement

Through the interviewee’s description of her chocolate perceptions and preferences, she reveals an issue rarely addressed, that of the immense control chocolate advertisements exercise over consumer choice. Chocolate advertisements commonly portray chocolate as an aphrodisiac, and as a luxurious product, through women’s sexuality.[20] Image 4 exemplifies this theme, as it pictures a woman, seemingly wearing no clothes, holding a piece of chocolate to her lips, with a seductive facial expression (Image 4). The image portrays chocolate as a desirable food through the sexual presentation and nature of the woman. The brightly colored lipstick brings focus to her lips, and accompanied by the sensual facial expression, the ad attempts to associate chocolate with love and romance. Furthermore, the woman is highly manicured, adorned with extravagant accessories, which contributes to the depiction of chocolate as a decadent and highly valuable product. Several times throughout the interview, the interviewee references chocolate as a “luxurious item.”[21] This association of chocolate with luxury precisely demonstrates the strong influence of chocolate advertisements, such as image 4, on consumers’ perceptions of chocolate. When prompted to reflect about chocolate advertisements, the interviewee pauses and appears puzzled, admitting a moment later that she only notices chocolate ads around Valentine’s Day.[22] Again, this emphasizes the effectiveness of chocolate marketing strategies to portray the product as an aphrodisiac, as consumers evidently associate chocolate with romance and love. The combination of a presumably seduced woman and a chocolate product, exampled in Image 4, contribute to this representation of chocolate as desirable. Most importantly, the interviewee illuminates that consumers are highly unaware of two issues related to chocolate marketing. First, the strong influence chocolate ads possess in forming their perceptions of chocolate, and second, the exploitation of female sexuality to deliver this specific representation of chocolate products. Based on the interviewee’s susceptibility to the impact of chocolate advertisements on her perceptions, and her unawareness of gender exploitation that litters these ads, it suggests that the chocolate industry should be taking action to enforce regulations that will reduce the influence of chocolate marketing on consumer perceptions and regulate chocolate marketing content.

Trader Joe's dark chocolate bar     Image 5: Trader Joe’s Dark Chocolate Product

The interviewee’s description of her chocolate preferences further demonstrates consumer susceptibility to the influences of chocolate advertisements. The interviewee reveals she favors dark chocolate, offering “I buy it at Trader Joe’s…I like the pure flavor of their products.”[23] First, Trader Joe’s is a grocery store that advertises the sale of organic, natural, fresh food at low prices. Second, recall that the interviewee prefers organic food, but high prices prevent her from purchasing organic products. Keeping these two pieces of information in mind, the interviewee’s comment suggests that she purchases chocolate at Trader Joe’s because it is both organic and affordable. In addition to these conscious reasons, the packaging of the chocolate may also contribute to the interviewee’s decision to purchase dark chocolate bars from Trader Joe’s, though she is unconscious of this influence. Image 5 exemplifies a dark chocolate bar product sold at Trader Joe’s, one that the interviewee might encounter (Image 5). This package exercises marketing strategies to influence consumer choice by emphasizing a high cacao content of “61%,” indicative of pure chocolate. Additionally, printing “Imported from Belgium” carries connotations associated with Europe, such as fantasy and romance. Lastly, the package pictures a crown, presumably representative of chocolate’s historical association with royalty in Europe. This suggests to the consumer that the chocolate is luxurious and highly valuably, and implies that the chocolate will taste rich and pure. All of these elements on the package impact the consumer’s decision to purchase that product by manipulating her perceptions, thereby prompting the consumer to imagine the chocolate will taste special over other chocolate products. Similar to an issue already discussed, the interviewee reveals that consumers are naïve to chocolate marketing strategies, and make unconscious purchasing decisions based on the effectiveness of chocolate ads and their ability to influence consumers’ perceptions and taste preferences of chocolate.

The interviewee reveals major historical, economic, and social issues that persist within the chocolate industry through her comments about coffee production, and in describing her chocolate perceptions and taste preferences. Historical issues, such as the under-recognized efforts of cacao farmers and their contributions that permit the existence of the chocolate industry – i.e. they provide the raw product to make chocolate – are evidently issues that exist within the coffee industry as well. Economic issues, such as volatile income and impoverished livelihoods, partially the fault of certification organizations like Organic and Fair Trade, are also issues within both the cacao and coffee industries. Lastly, social issues related to the use of sexualized images of women to control consumers’ perceptions and taste preferences of chocolate are seemingly unnoticed by consumers. This is problematic in that consumers are unaware that these ads contribute to the proliferation of stereotypical gender roles, and in that consumers are also unaware that they possess little agency in their chocolate purchasing decisions.
[1] Christopher Bacon, “Confronting the Coffee Crisis: Can Fair Trade, Organic, and Specialty Coffees Reduce Small-scale Farmer Vulnerability in Northern Nicaragua?,” World Development 33 (2005): 497-511.
[2] Joni Valkila, “Fair Trade Organic Coffee Production in Nicaragua – Sustainable Development or a Poverty Trap,” Ecological Economics 68 (2009): 3018-3025.
[3] Valkila, “Fair Trade organic coffee.”
[4] Julie Guthman, “Fast Food/Organic Food: Reflexive Tastes and the Making of “Yuppie Chow,” in Food and Culture, ed. by Carole Counihan and Penny Van Esterik (New York: Routledge, 2013), 496-509.
[5] Ibid.
[6] Bacon, “Confronting the Coffee Crisis.”
[7] Anonymous, interview by Ashlee Korsberg, April 24, 2017.
[8] Carla Martin, “Alternative trade and virtuous/localization/globalization” (lecture, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, April 5, 2017).
[9] “USDA Organic Labeling Regulations,” USDA, accessed April 30, 2017, https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=c4e0df8f46a4f4b6f56d80be31f95ed3&rgn=div6&view=text&node=7:3.1.1.9.32.4&idno=7.
[10] Anonymous.
[11] Martin, “Alternative trade.”
[12] Ibid.
[13] Anonymous.
[14] Ndongo Samba Sylla, “On the Inequalities of the International Trade System” and “The Fair Trade Universe,” in The Fair Trade Scandal: Marketing Poverty to Benefit the Rich, translated by David Clement Leye (London: Pluto Press, 2014).
[15] Carla Martin, “Modern day slavery” (lecture, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, March 22, 2017).
[16] Anonymous.
[17] Ibid.
[18] Ibid.
[19] Martin, “Alternative Trade.”
[20] Emma Robertson, “A deep physical reason’: gender, race and the nation in chocolate consumption,” in Chocolate, women and empire: A social and cultural history (Oxford: Manchester University Press, 2009), 18-63.
[21] Anonymous
[22] Anonymous.
[23] Anonymous.

References

Anonymous. Interview by Ashlee Korsberg, April 24, 2017.

Bacon, Christopher. “Confronting the Coffee Crisis: Can Fair Trade, Organic, and Specialty Coffees Reduce Small-scale Farmer Vulnerability in Northern Nicaragua?.” World Development 33 (2005): 497-511.

Guthman, Julie. “Fast Food/Organic Food: Reflexive Tastes and the Making of “Yuppie Chow.” In Food and Culture, edited by Carole Counihan, and Penny Van Esterik, 496-509, New York: Routledge, 2013.

Martin, Carla. “Alternative trade and virtuous/localization/globalization.” Lecture at Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, April 5, 2017.

Martin, Carla. “Modern day slavery.” Lecture at Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, March 22, 2017.

Martin, Carla. “Race, ethnicity, gender, and class in chocolate advertisements.” Lecture at Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, March 29, 2017.

Robertson, Emma. “A deep physical reason’: gender, race and the nation in chocolate consumption.” In Chocolate, women and empire: A social and cultural history, 18-63, Oxford: Manchester University Press, 2009.

Sylla, Ndongo Samba. “On the Inequalities of the International Trade System” and “The Fair Trade Universe.” In The Fair Trade Scandal: Marketing Poverty to Benefit the Rich, translated by David Clement Leye, London: Pluto Press, 2014.

U.S. Government Publishing Office. “USDA Organic Labeling Regulations.” Accessed April 30, 2017. https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=c4e0df8f46a4f4b6f56d80be31f95ed3&rgn=div6&view=text&node=7:3.1.1.9.32.4&idno=7.

Valkila, Joni. “Fair Trade Organic Coffee Production in Nicaragua – Sustainable Development or a Poverty Trap.” Ecological Economics 68 (2009): 3018-3025.

Image sources

Image 1: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Coffee_Beans_Photographed_in_Macro.jpg

Image 2: https://pixabay.com/en/photos/cocoa/

Image 3: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:USDA_organic_seal.svg

Image 4: https://www.flickr.com/photos/orofacial/8219609037

Image 5: https://chocolateihaveknown.wordpress.com/category/acquired/trader-joes/

 

 

A Food for the People: The Evolution of Chocolate through the Industrial Revolution

If the average person today were to be asked to imagine “chocolate”, their first thought might be a common product from one of the few major companies (e.g. a Hershey’s bar). But that person would likely also think of two, four, ten more examples of chocolate confections. The chocolate world is truly massive today, in volume and variety. Furthermore, chocolate is not a uniformly priced product, with clear hierarchies in different products under the chocolate umbrella, most clearly defined by differences in companies (A Lindt Truffle is considered across the consumer pool to be a better product than a Hershey’s Kiss). Yet chocolate was for centuries a food that looked very different from what it is today, and one consumed as an integral part of mesoamerican culture. The journey of chocolate through history is a transformation that intersected with a range of socioeconomic systems and changes. Specifically, we will see that the industrial revolution directly set the stage for the global commercialization of chocolate, and was the catalyst for shifting chocolate in the European market as a luxury good to one accessible to all consumers.

Cacao was likely first consumed as a food object before 400BCE by the Olmec civilization that preceded the Mayan civilizations, and residues of cacao were found in Mayan vessels dating back as early as 250AD (Martin, Lecture 1). According to Mayan hieroglyphs cacao was processed into drinks and used in a variety of functions – wedding rituals, burial rituals, as an energy snack for warriors before battle – and there was certainly a special place for early “chocolate”. Cacao beverages were not a snack for the general populace, and the notion that they were reserved for the elite carried into its early use in Europe. Coe writes that prior to the mid 16th century, “chocolate drinking […] in both pre-Conquest Mesoamerica and in Europe was the costly prerogative of the elite” (Coe, 377). Yet it was enormously popular amongst the rich and comfortable, so that even today we find remains of pots, cups, and saucers specifically and ornately designed for chocolate beverages. The following video shows the restoration of an entire kitchen dedicated to chocolate, in the Hampton Court Palace. In the video food historian Marc Meltonville remarks, “The thing about chocolate, is that it was absolutely the luxury item for Georgian England. If you could afford chocolate, you were something special.” We see in this video the wealth attached to chocolate consumption in the ornateness and specificity in the items designed for chocolate during the 1700s.

Up until the Industrial Revolution starting around 1760, chocolate beverages continued to be consumed by the economically comfortable. Chocolate was “taken” like a daily medicine to help digestion and combat alcohol’s effects, and was especially popular among the clergy (Coe, 432). After the Industrial Revolution however, we see a clear shift in who and how chocolate is consumed. Sugar, which had a industrialization history similar and tied closely with chocolate’s, grew from a luxury or medicinal good to be used sparingly by the rich, into a necessity of the masses. We find in Mintz’s narrative of sugar’s history, the “opening up of mass consumption [of sugar], from about 1800 onward. During the period 1750-1780 every English person, no matter how isolated or how poor, and without regard to age or sex, learned about sugar. Most learned to like it enough to want more than they could afford. After 1850, as the price of sugar dropped sharply, that preference became realized in its consumption. A rarity in 1650, a luxury in 1750, sugar had been transformed into a virtual necessity by 1850.” (Mintz, 148). Over the same period of time, chocolate underwent the same shift from luxury/medicinal use to average consumptive use, via several important developments.

The first update to chocolate’s consumption was the improvement of medicinal procedures replacing the Galenic system of humors and temperaments. With the appearance of modern medicine, chocolate was deemed no longer a medicinal product – freeing its consumption as a leisure food to be eaten however and whenever people wanted. Therefore and “concurrent with these changes, the per capita consumption of chocolate, which had been fairly constant for centuries, shot up dramatically; this was coupled with an equally enormous upsurge in the intake of sugar, since the principal destiny of this new, solid chocolate was in the manufacture of confectionery and desserts.” (Coe, 500-501). Furthermore, the appearance of this “solid chocolate” as a product was a major step towards chocolate’s mass production. Specifically, in the year 1828, Johannes Van Houten’s invention of the “Dutch” process to refine cacao butter into an even less fatty cocoa powder allowed chocolate to be mass produced in the shape it is known today. In Coe’s words, “Van Houten’s invention of the defatting and alkalizing processes made possible the large-scale manufacture of cheap chocolate for the masses” (Coe, 503). Solid chocolate was simply easier to manufacture at large amounts, and additionally easier to consume.

However, at the conception of Van Houten’s method, chocolate was still produced using human body strength. Below is an image depicting the mass labor needed to separate the fat from cacao nibs, in Van Houten’s factory.

FullSizeRender

The industrial revolution provided the solutions to the limitations of human power that had prevented a product that could be easily sold on a large scale, to be produced on a large scale. The two most important innovations that came with the industrial revolution were mechanized grinding and milling, which efficiently separated the necessary parts of cacao and reduced particle size for optimal chocolate production (Martin, Lecture 3). After these initial developments that jump-started mass chocolate production, we see an exponential growth in further innovations and production of chocolate. In 1847, Joseph Fry began selling the first chocolate bars for general consumption, but by 1868 Cadbury had greater success with “Cadbury’s Cocoa Essence” and holiday chocolate boxes. In 1879, Lindt’s conching process brought further smoothness and quality to chocolate, more efficiently (Martin, Lecture 3).

The ease with which chocolate could be mass produced was tied with reduced cost of production. These reduced costs in turn carried into cheaper prices for chocolate, and the extending of the consumer market into all socioeconomic classes. Below is an early advertisement for a Cadbury chocolate product.

ae2dab20dff860dfc4c186d6924a7853

The target audience for this advertisement is clearly not the rich elite – the ad features an older commonly dressed man whose chocolates have fallen because of wind, and children gather around to steal the fallen chocolates. The message of this poster is the popularity of the chocolates with people of all ages. The intended consumer for Cadbury’s chocolates is clearly very different than the Mayan consumers of chocolate, or of the royal consumers in Georgian England. This global shift in consumption patterns is really a reflection of food production changes in general over the same period as illustrated by Jack Goody. He writes, “industrial decadence, whatever its consequences for the haute cuisine […] has enormously improved, in quantity, quality, and variety, the diet of the urban working populations of the western world.” (Counihan, 72). The development of industrial processes made chocolate production more efficient and cost effective, fundamentally changing the nature of chocolate and making it the widely accessible food it is today. Though arguments of quality/variety degradation always arise with mass produced products, the shift of chocolate as a food for the rich to a food accessible to virtually all people is both undeniable and unignorable as a major part of the food market.

Sources Cited

Coe, Sophie D., and Michael D. Coe. The True History of Chocolate. New York: Thames and Hudson, 2013. IBook.

Counihan, Carole, and Penny Van Esterik. Food and Culture: A Reader. New York:    Routledge, 2013. Print.

Martin, Carla D. “Lecture 1: Mesoamerica and the ‘food of the gods’.” Aframer 199x. CGIS,   Cambridge, MA. 1 Feb, 2017. Lecture.

Martin, Carla D. “Lecture 3: Popular sweet tooths and scandal.” Aframer 199x. CGIS,   Cambridge, MA. 22 Feb, 2017. Lecture.

Mintz, Sidney W. Sweetness and Power: The Place of Sugar in Modern History. New York: Penguin, 1985. Print.

Cadbury. “Cadbury’s Chocolates.” Image. Pinterest. 10 Mar. 2017.

Early Cocoa Press, Van Houten Factory, Amsterdam, 1828. Nederlandse Cacao Vereniging. Image.

Historic Royal Palaces. “The making of the Chocolate Kitchen” Historic Royal Palaces. Online video clip. YouTube. 3 Sep, 2014. Web. 10 Mar. 2017.

Industrial Progress: How the industrialization of chocolate morphed function and accessibility

Throughout its history, chocolate has maintained a relatively stable existence in terms of its functions and production.  While there have been periods of change, there have also been long stretches of time where chocolate use stayed consistent.  For example, in Mesoamerica from as early as 1800 BCE to as late as 900 CE chocolate was consumed as a beverage and used in a variety of religious ceremonies (C-Spot).  However, when brought to Europe in the early 1500s, chocolate went through a period of rapid change. Most significantly, chocolate’s industrialization led to a change in its accessibility, highlighting how advancements in production methodology and advertising of chocolate altered its social standing and class function.  Through careful examination of key events in the industrial timeline of chocolate, four stages can be identified that each show a transition in the industrial development, ultimately linked to societal structure and function.

Starting in the 16th and 17th centuries, chocolate was introduced to Europe as a drink for the aristocracy.  Over these two centuries, chocolate served a variety of functions, of which some are no longer recognized in modern society.  In 1556, the earliest recipe for chocolate was documented in Spain.  This recipe, collected by a lieutenant of Captain Hernán Cortés, relates how the cacao beans are ground into powder, mixed with water until foamy, and then stirred with gold or silver spoons until drunk.  This was an especially common recipe in Mesoamerica.  The entry then declares that this drink is the “most wholesome and substantial of any food or beverage in the world…whoever drinks a cup of this liquor can go thru a whole day without taking anything else even if on a cross country journey” (C-Spot).  This account clearly relates cacao’s function as a hearty beverage with a substantial amount of nutritional value.  However, the function of cacao changes in the 1580s when it contributes to the humoral theory of medicine in that its “hot” nature combats poison, alleviates intestinal discomfort, and cures a variety of other ailments (Coe 122).  This functional form sticks with chocolate into the 1600s where its increasing demand eventually leads to European plantations in the Caribbean that operate to ensure a steady supply of cacao for the European elite.  In fact, the elite were so floored by chocolate that in 1657 the first chocolate house was established in London (C-Spot).  These houses were the cultural and political hub for society’s elite (Coe 223).  To get a historical and social sense of a chocolate house in England, this article by Dr. Matthew Green published in The Telegraph is quite informative. Dr. Green does a great job of capturing the sophisticated nature of these houses, particularly those of the super elite on St. James Square.

In the 16th and 17th centuries, chocolate was served to the elites of Europe in a variety of functions ranging from a medicine to a simple, yet powerful, beverage.  However, as the 18th and 19th centuries approached, a more transitional period of chocolate began to take form, in which production was industrialized and the final product was made more accessible to the middle class.  Starting in 1764, the first power machinery was used in chocolate production, in the form of a grist mill, used to grind cacao beans by Baker’s Chocolate in Dorchester, Massachusetts (Coe 227).  Baker’s Chocolate was founded on the pillars of purity of product, mass production, money-back guarantee, and affordability (C-Spot).  These pillars emphasize the shift from the chocolate drink as an item of the elite to a mass produced and advertised product accessible to a range of social classes.  This evolution of chocolate manufacturing continued in 1828 when Coenraad Johannes van Houten received a patent for his screw press, used to separate fat from the roasted cacao beans (C-Spot).  This method was an inexpensive way of removing fat and leaving behind a cake that could be ground into a fine powder (C-Spot).  Later call the Dutch Process, it was promoted by van Houten as “for the rich and poor – made instantly – easier than tea” (C-Spot).  It was even thought of as a more suitable chocolate for women and children as this process removed the bitterness found in untreated cacao (C-Spot).  The last industrial innovation of note was the first mass-marketed chocolate bar produced by Fry’s Chocolate.  In 1847, Francis and Joseph Fry were able to perfect the chocolate mixture in a moldable form, thus forming the first bar (Coe 241).  As can be seen in the advertisement below, Fry’s Chocolate consumption was directed at children due to its sweeter taste, and thus more accessible when compared to the 16th and 17th centuries.

Frys_five_boys_milk_chocolate
Fry’s Chocolate Advertisement

Following the development of the Fry’s chocolate bar, many chocolate companies began to follow suit by creating chocolate treats that could be mass produced and bought by the public.  This was a time in which “industrial decadence”, or the ability for food to be produced on an industrial level, greatly improved the quality and variety of diets for the middle and working class population (Goody 72).  This statement holds true for chocolate production.  In fact, the time stretching from the mid-1800s to the early 1900s was a period marked by innovation and branding of different forms of chocolate delights.  Below, one can find a timeline of the most popular brands of chocolate introduced during this period.  These brands still exist today and mark the beginning of a period of refined

Slide1
Timeline of Chocolate Brand Introduction

and obtainable chocolate for all social classes.  There are a few events deserving specific attention as they highlight the theme of chocolate industrialization and its effects on accessibility, mass marketing, and mass production.  For example, in 1875, Daniel Peter and Henri Nestlé created milk chocolate using Nestlé’s powdered milk, creating a sweeter chocolate to be enjoyed by a wider range of people (Coe 247).  Other similar advancements include, Rudolph Lindt’s conche machine in 1879, which created a smoother sensory experience and the invention of the Toblerone in 1908 as a different approach to chocolate involving a mold and filling (Coe 247, 248).  These developments, along with the introduction of a variety of chocolate products, ushered in an era of mass production and accessibility.

 

The last stage of chocolate industrialization is the current one.  While the bars and candies discussed above still exist today, there is now a distinction between this “grocery store chocolate” and fine chocolate made by the chocolatier.  This term is used to describe a person that uses fine chocolate to create unique creations using machinery but also hand production (Martin, Lecture 4).  An example of this process is seen at Taza Chocolate factory in Somerville, MA.  Below is a video of their production process, which highlights their hands-on and “bean to bar” practice.  It appears that this distinction between fine

and “grocery store” chocolate has arisen due to a change in consumers’ preference for sustainable and fair trade foods.  While people occasionally love to get their hands on a Milky Way, many consumers are attracted to the idea of a pure chocolate bar whose ingredients can be traced throughout the entire production process.

Over time, the function and accessibility of chocolate has shifted to mirror the industrial aspects of its production.  When first introduced to Europe, chocolate was produced in colonialized islands and intended as a drink for the elite, while also serving a purpose in the medical world.  In the 18th and 19th centuries, chocolate underwent a transitional period where industrialization was introduced in the form of mass production and advertising, thus making chocolate accessible to all classes.  This period was followed by a rapid expansion of the chocolate industry where chocolate was consumed in solid form and constant advancements were made to appeal to the variety of tastes craved by consumers.  Finally, today, we still enjoy a variety of mass produced chocolate candies, but now we strive for a bar crafted with sustainability, purity, and fairness in mind.

 

 

Picture and Video Source:

Fry’s Chocolate Advertisement:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/73/Frys_five_boys_milk_chocolate.jpg

Taza Chocolate Video:

https://vimeo.com/33380451

Timeline:

Made in PowerPoint with dates extracted from C-Spot’s Concise History of Chocolate

Works Cited:

“A CONCISE HISTORY OF CHOCOLATE.” The C-spot. Web. 08 Mar. 2017.

Coe, Sophie D., and Michael D. Coe. The True History of Chocolate. New York: Thames and

Hudson, 2013. Print.

Counihan, Carole, and Penny Van Esterik. Food and Culture: A Reader. New York:    Routledge, 2013. Print.

Green, Dr. Matthew. “The Surprising History of London’s Lost Chocolate Houses.” The Telegraph. Telegraph Media Group, 13 Dec. 2013. Web. 08 Mar. 2017.

Martin, Carla D. “Lecture 4: Popular Sweet Tooths and Scandal.” Aframer 199x. CGIS,   Cambridge, MA. 22 Feb. 2017. Lecture.

Can a Hershey’s Bar be “Simply” Chocolate?

Image 1: A Bag of Cheetos Highlighting the Preference for Non-Processed Foods

As seen in Image 1, buzzwords such as “natural”, “preservative free”, “homemade” are often used in advertisements when referring to food goods. There is a growing preference in today’s society for foods that are produced the “natural way, without preservatives or industrialized processing (Murdoch and Miele 2002). But simultaneously, people seem more and more distant from the actual processes their food undergoes during production. An example of this phenomenon is the contemporary understanding of chocolate in our culture: although people prefer “wholesome” ingredients, many consider a chocolate bar to be a single ingredient in itself or a basic unit of food. In contrast, other similarly produced goods—like a finished apple pie or a can of fruit—are viewed as comprising of many parts and steps.

In order to better understand contemporary understandings about food production, I interviewed eight of my classmates about their experiences with chocolate, specifically trying to uncover their conceptualizations of a Hershey’s chocolate bar. It is worth noting that my small-n sample of eight friends is not stratified nor representative of any larger body of people. However, the sample itself—eight college students from middle class backgrounds—can offer insight into the way that such a demographic might conceptualize chocolate and trade. These conversations revealed to me a focus on processed or non-organic products, but a lack of awareness regarding the actual processes of production and social and economic consequences of international companies like Hershey’s.

The Global Production of Hershey’s Chocolate: The Process and its Consequences

While my friends—specifically those who have not taken this class—may be unaware of the process that goes into the production of a single bar of chocolate, it is nonetheless extensive. The transformation from “bean to a Hershey’s bar” spans multiple continents, starting in the cacao plantations of West Africa, where 68.1% of the world’s cacao beans are grown (Lecture 15). Seen in Image 2, the cacao beans  are removed from their pods, fermented, dried, and roasted so that just cacao nibs remain.

Image 2: Dried cacao beans displayed in their pod husks

These nibs are then shipped to Hershey’s manufacturing plants in Pennsylvania, Illinois, and Mexico where they are ground down into cacao liquor and pressed to create cocoa powder (Hersheys.com). This powder is then combined with a variety of different ingredients like cacao butter, powdered milk, and flavors to create the enormous selection of candy bars that Hershey produces.

The process of Hershey’s production also includes communities around the globe, influencing local social and economic forces. On the one hand, industrialization and globalization can generally be considered a good thing. The largest positive impact globalization of the food industry had was the reduction of starvation across the globe through the larger supply of food, which directly lowered the prices (Regmi et al.). When the processes of preservation, mechanization, retailing, and global transportation were newly discovered, the total volume of available food increased enormously (Lecture 12). Today, industrialized production of ingredients—like Hershey’s chocolate—allow for foods to travel far past their previously restrictive borders.

But there is also a darker side to the changes in the food production industry. As Lauden describes, the changes in production have led to the availability of “fresh” foods, but also a cultural tendency to overlook the processes that led to the creation of each component of the ultimate outcome (Lauden). The same concept applies to the production of Hershey’s chocolate: while many might think of chocolate as an ingredient or a “staple” food, the realities of its production include the myriad ingredients and steps listed above.

Though the consumer may think of a Hershey’s chocolate bar as a component of a recipe or a basic Halloween candy, each step in the process of its production involves individual people and their communities. Hershey’s has been under fire for its use of illegal child labor and was even the focus of a national campaign against child labor named Raise the Bar (Bloxham). Furthermore, Hershey’s and other multinational food conglomerates have been criticized for their transnational investment in poor countries. These corporations are able to fix prices below the countries’ equilibrium level and push out local corporations and therefore harm foreign economic development (Wimberley).

Surpassing typical evaluative processes, the Hershey’s brand has become so ubiquitously associated with chocolate that a change in recipe that drastically altered the final product didn’t stop consumers from defining the bar as “chocolate.” In 2007, The Chocolate Manufacturers Association, which Hershey’s is a member of, began lobbying the U.S. Food and Drug administration to allow the substitution of real chocolate ingredients like cocoa butter and sugar for “safe and suitable vegetable fats and oils” (including partially hydrogenated vegetable oils”(Bragg). Though this legislation did not pass, Hershey’s still takes many shortcuts today. The Mr. Goodbar, one of Hershey’s products made with vegetable fat substitutes , is labeled as “made with chocolate” in order to bypass the F.D.A. regulation.

Image 3: Hershey’s Mr. Goodbar displaying “Made with Chocolate”

But how does a typical consumer think about Hershey’s chocolate? Does the consumer consider the process of production when they think about which bar of chocolate to buy? Or even how they define chocolate itself?

What is Hershey’s Chocolate?: Analysis of Interview Results

Note: See Appendix for Interview Questions

Perhaps unsurprisingly, the students I interviewed seemed unaware of the process of production that goes into a Hershey’s chocolate bar. But they also did not know the basics of chocolate as a produced good. Said one student: “I don’t know what is in a bar of chocolate. The same thing that’s in chocolate? Like, chocolate?” Here we can see the blurred line between a “bar of chocolate” and its ingredients, as the two separate concepts seem merged into one idea of “chocolate.” A different student avoided listing what chocolate is made out of, and instead focused on what chocolate means to them. “I’m not really sure what chocolate is to me,” they said. “I guess it’s like, a cake or frosting or something. Or I guess it’s something you buy for Christmas or Valentine’s Day.” Like the previous quote, this excerpt reveals the student’s conception of chocolate as a facet of a greater experience, like an ingredient in baking or an aspect of a tradition. Instead of thinking about each step that goes into making chocolate, the student imagines chocolate to be a finished product, ready to be used for further production.

When differentiating Hershey’s chocolate from chocolate more generally, students most focused on the brand and its cultural significance. When asked what Hershey’s chocolate means to them, one student said: “Hershey’s is, like, the all-American chocolate bar. It’s the most simple chocolate I can think of.” This quote shows the connection of chocolate to its greater social meaning, in this case as a facet of what it means to be an “American” given the significance of Hershey’s in American culture. The individual’s description of the chocolate bar as the “most simple” of its kind might even strike a student in our class as humorous, given that Hershey’s contains the smallest actual amount of chocolate out of any major brand. Similarly, another student seemed convinced by more by Hershey’s branding than its actual use of chocolate in production. Hinting at the lack of actual chocolate in the bar, the student said: “Hershey’s doesn’t even taste that good. It just gives me that feeling that eating chocolate gives me so I keep on eating it when it’s around.” This quote further suggests that Hershey’s has developed a brand name that labels its “chocolate” to be a finished product in and of itself.

When specifically asked about the ingredients in a Hershey’s chocolate bar, students had more varied answers. Many seemed aware that the chocolate bar is not entirely “wholesome” or “natural,” but few could explain why. Linking it to the broader movement towards “natural” and “local” foods, one student said: “[Hershey’s is made of] chocolate and milk fat and probably something poisonous to me that we won’t realize is carcinogenic for like a million years. Although maybe I just am thinking that because Hershey’s is a giant corporation.” Although this student could not think of specifics, they realized that there were different products that ultimately go into the production of a Hershey’s bar. Their use of buzzwords like “corporation” and “carcinogenic” may illuminate a negative perspective of processed foods that is seen in the media.

The same student reported buying Hershey’s within the past week, and at a frequency of approximately once a month. Though this discrepancy between purchasing behavior and sustainable thinking might seem surprising to some, a survey by Vermeir and Verbeke on such a behavioral gap found that many young people exhibit little intention to buy sustainable goods if an alternative is perceived as much more widely attainable (Vermeir and Verbeke 2006). I believe that it is likely that Hershey’s universal availability and the lack of attention paid to chocolate and consumer responsibility allows people to continue to buy the chocolate with relatively little consumer guilt.

Another student mentioned a trip to Hershey, Pennsylvania during which they visited the company’s “Chocolate Lab” and watched “chocolate being made.” Further conversation revealed to me that the Hershey’s factory walks its visitors through the a much-briefer process of chocolate production—starting with examples of cacao pods and progressing straight to vats of swirling melted chocolate and Hershey’s kisses and bars prior to packaging.

Image 4: “ Liquid chocolate in a vat at the Hershey’s Factory”
Image 5: Hershey’s Kisses coming out as finished products

Rather than discuss the process of production, Hershey suggests to its visitors that cacao pods are somehow transformed into bars of chocolate. This student reported feeling “connected” to the end product as a result of their visit, and feeling as though the chocolate bar was simply made of “chocolate.”

In conclusion, modern understandings of a Hershey’s chocolate bar suggest that there is still a large gap between the starting blocks of a processed food, the supply chain, and the finished product. People today may be starting to realize this and thus have created movements such as Fair Trade USA and Direct Trade, but many more consumers continue to overlook basic processes of production. The branding of Hershey’s—from its logo to its factory tour—works to continue the image of a chocolate bar as fundamentally “chocolate,” preventing its customers from questioning its production practices. As one student said: “Hershey’s reminds me of Coke. It’s not the best chocolate I could buy, but it’s the easiest one to think of when I imagine chocolate.”

Work’s Cited

Bloxham, Eleanor. “Chocolate and child labor a hurdle for Hershey”. Fortune Magazine, November 2012. http://fortune.com/2012/11/16/chocolate-and-child-labor-a-hurdle-for-hershey/

Bragg, Lynn M. “Chocolate Manufacturers Association Stakeholder Letter”. Chocolate dasManufacturers Association, April 2007. http://web.archive.org/web/20071202030257/http://www.chocolateusa.org/pdfs/CMA-stakeholder.pdf

Lauden, Rachel. “A Plea for Culinary Modernism: Why We Should Love New, Fast, Processed Food”. Gastronomica. Winter 2001. http://www.jstor.org.ezp-   prod1.hul.harvard.edu/stable/pdf/10.1525/gfc.2001.1.1.36.pdf?acceptTC=true&jpdConfirm=true

Levenstein, Harvey. “Revolution at the Table: The Transformation of the American Diet” Oxford University Press, 1988. Pg 31-32

Murdoch, J. & Miele, M “‘Back to Nature’: Changing ‘Worlds of Production’”. Sociologia. Ruralis. December 2002. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1467-9523.00119/abstract

Regmi, A. & Gehlhar, G. “Processed Food Trade Pressured by Evolving Global Supply Chains”. USDA Economic Research Service. . http://www.personal.psu.edu/faculty/r/2/r2w/AGBM420/Readings/W10-12%20Vertical%20price%20variation/ImperativesForSCManInProcessedFoodFeb05.pdf

Vermeir, I & Verbeke, W. “Sustainable Food Consumption: Exploring the Consumer ‘Attitude –                                                                       Behavioral Intention’ Gap”. Journal of Agricuultural and Environmental Ethics. April                                                                                 2006 http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10806-005-5485-3

Wimberley, Dale W. “Effects of Foreign Investment, Exports, and Economic Growth on Third World Food Consumption”. Oxford Journals, 1992 – http://sf.oxfordjournals.org/content/70/4/895.short

Multimedia Sources Cited

Image 1: “A Bag of Cheetos Highlighting the Preference for Non-Processed Foods”             http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/61NzIC4cXsL._SL1000_.jpg

Image 2: “Dried cacao beans displayed in their pod husks”            http://howardcocoacompany.yolasite.com/resources/image.jpeg

Image 3: “ Hershey’s Mr. Goodbar displaying “Made with Chocolate”                http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/81bOiZjzD3L._SL1500_.jpg

Image 4: “ Liquid chocolate at the Hershey’s Factory”            https://darkcargo.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/p1000029.jpg

Image 5: “Hershey’s Kisses coming out as finished products”            http://a.abcnews.go.com/images/GMA/ht_kiss_0057_090213_ssh.jpg

Appendix: Interview Questions

  1.       When you think about chocolate, what first comes to mind?
  2.       What are three ways that you might experience chocolate in everyday life?
  3.       Do people around you ever talk about chocolate? What do they say?
  4.       How often do you eat chocolate?
  5.       More specifically, how often do you eat Hershey’s chocolate?
  6.       What do you think of when you think about a Hershey’s chocolate bar?
  7.       Do you prefer chocolate on its own, or as a flavor or ingredient?

European vs. American Tastes and Trends: Comparing Cardullo’s and CVS’s Chocolate

Chocolate is a delicious commodity enjoyed throughout the world.  However, chocolate tastes and consumption patterns vary from region to region.  For example, chocolate produced for Americans is often made very sweet, contains less cacao and cocoa butter, and many times becomes an impulse buy or guilty pleasure.  Chocolate is also heavily marketed towards children in the United States, and most of the chocolate consumed by Americans is from Big Chocolate companies such as Hershey.  However, in many European countries, chocolate is often more luxurious and rich, is complemented with a variety of fruity and spicy flavors, and is marketed more towards the adult population.  In addition, European chocolate is often more expensive given its target audience and higher cacao content.  It is important to note that each country within Europe makes chocolate slightly different and has its own unique consumption trends, but in general, most European chocolate is made with more sophistication and higher quality ingredients when compared to American chocolate which is often heavily corporatized and mass-produced.  The differences between American and European chocolate are so stark that we can even witness them when comparing the chocolate found in international stores in the United States to the chocolate sold in American grocery stores.  For the purposes of this paper, the chocolate sold in Cardullo’s and CVS will be compared and contrasted in order to demonstrate the differences between European and American chocolate.  It will be argued that variations in ingredients, target audiences, and packaging are what influence and distinguish European and American chocolate tastes, advertising, and consumption trends.

Cardullo’s is a gourmet shop in Harvard Square that sells food ranging from fresh deli meats to jams to dried pasta.  Many people, including myself, believe that the store is meant to be reflective of a European shop or cafe because the store sells mainly imported brands and gives off an international vibe with its rustic and crowded interior.  What is interesting is that the only thing I have ever purchased from Cardullo’s has been chocolate, and when I revisited the store this past week I realized why: their chocolate selection is outstanding!  Moreover, four out of the five times I bought chocolate from Cardullo’s, the chocolate wasn’t even for me, it was meant to be a gift for someone else.

When I think about why I chose Cardullo’s for the chocolate gifts, it was because I wanted my present to feel unique, luxurious, and thoughtful.  I was not about to buy someone special a plain Hershey’s bar or a bag of Reese’s.  I knew that Cardullo’s sold European chocolate brands and felt that European chocolate was high quality.  I feel that this is a common perception, that European chocolate is more luxurious and better than American chocolate.  This bias may be based on the idea that European chocolate often contains more cacao and cocoa butter than American chocolate, which is considered a sign of quality.  This is because the United States only requires its chocolate to contain 10% cacao, while in Europe to be considered “chocolate”, a bar must be at least 20% cacao (Gourmet Boutique).  Many argue that American chocolate producers care more about cost than quality when it comes to their chocolate which is why they use lower quality ingredients and mass-produce their chocolate unlike many European companies (Alberts and Cidell, 224).  American chocolate companies using less cacao in their bars dates back to the beginnings of the Mars Company.  Frank Mars tried several times to create a popular chocolate bar and eventually ran himself into debt (Brenner, 53).  However, once he and his son invented the Milky Way in 1923 (which is chocolate nugget covered in a thin layer of chocolate) the company’s costs of production fell drastically because the bars contained less cacao (Brenner, 54-55).  The bars immediately became popular because they were larger and cheaper than the other current chocolate bar at the time, Hershey’s (Brenner, 55).  It was partially Mar’s usage of a cheaply made filled bar that led other American chocolate producers to try to use less cacao in their bars.  The fact that the Hershey company mass-manufactured and got people habituated to milk chocolate with less cacao may be another reason why Americans accept chocolate with a lower cacao content today.

Getting back to the matter at hand, the imported chocolate at Cardullo’s did contain a significant amount of cacao, the lowest cacao content I saw being 23% in a standard chocolate bar.  Most of the imported European chocolate also highlighted the cacao percentage on the front of their packaging, which is something I do not recall being included on most American-produced chocolate wrappers (see Figure 1 below).  This marketing tactic enables European chocolate producers to tout the high levels of cacao they are using (Wolke).

Figure 2: Cardullo’s chocolate selection (left) vs. CVS’s selection (right)
Figure 1: European Chocolate Wrappers with Cacao Content on the Front vs. An American Hershey Bar

I remember that selecting the chocolate gifts at Cardullo’s was extremely difficult because of the wide variety of chocolate brands and flavors they sold.  On one occasion, I had trouble deciding and ended up buying five bars each with a different flavor: chili with cherry, dark milk, 88% dark, orange, and sea salt caramel.  Upon revisiting the shop, I re-discovered some of these specific chocolate bars whose brands were Chocolat Bonnat (France), Valrhona (France), and Dolfin (Belgium).  What enticed me about these particular bars were their intriguing flavors, some of which I had never seen before.  Most of the flavors in Cardullo’s chocolate include nuts, spices, or fruits, which is actually common for European chocolate and contrasts with American chocolate which is usually complemented with caramel, nugget, and other sugary fillings.  These more savory flavors used in European chocolate tie back to the Mesoamerican origins of chocolate.  In fact, several scholars believe that “Europeans developed a taste for Indian chocolate, and they sought to recreate the indigenous chocolate experience” (Norton).  These scholars also claim that this “cross-culturalization of taste” led Europeans to develop an appetite for spices and vanilla (Norton).

I also chose the bars because they had intricate and fancy wrappers that made the chocolate look expensive.  These fancy wrappers are probably a marketing ploy, again to promote the perception that European chocolate is higher in quality and more glamorous.  This perceived quality is also probably factored into the price of the chocolate because the chocolate bars were not the cheapest.  The price of chocolate sold at Cardullo’s ranges from $5-$65 with the pricier chocolate items being gift baskets and large boxes of chocolates.  To me, the prices are justified by the fact that the chocolate is imported and because of the customer base of the shop.  Whether Cardullo’s intends to attract older people or not, their clientele is mainly working men and women and arguably international students.  It is understandable that middle aged and older people visit this store: they can afford the food and have more singular tastes.  It is also interesting to note that chocolate is mainly marketed towards adults in Europe which may be why it is more expensive and takes on a more sophisticated look (Graham).

European chocolate has not always been luxurious or marketed in this way, especially in France.  Today, France creates some of the most artistic, romanticized, and well-known chocolate in the world, but this was not always the case (Terrio, 10).  Until the 1970s, French confections were very traditional and quite plain.  But towards the 1980s, French chocolatiers wanted to re-brand their chocolate and make it more of a specialty item.  In order to do this, they began distinguishing themselves from pastry makers and confectioners, created a new taste standard for bitter dark chocolate, worked with the government and local authorities to establish themselves, and looked to the past to make sure their chocolate had cultural authenticity and didn’t appear mass-produced (Terrio, 12-15).  Finally by 1990, French chocolatiers were being recognized as craftsmen and artisans for their authentic and creative work.  The French chocolatiers were ultimately able to establish themselves because they placed a tremendous amount of time and effort into making small-batch chocolate which contrasted the mass-production and lower quality work conducted at larger chocolate factories and companies at the time (Terrio, 30-35).  Nowadays, there are several fine French chocolate makers such as Valrhona and Bonnat.

Some of my concluding observations about Cardullo’s were that the store mainly sells its chocolates in single bar form as compared to in bulk, but also sells several chocolate confections such as bonbons and truffles.  During my revisit, I also made sure to check the sugar content, fat content, and cacao content of many of the bars in the shop in order to compare them to the chocolate bars in CVS.  Finally, on my way out, I asked an employee what chocolate he preferred, European or American.  He quickly replied, “European of course!  It is much more creamy and rich, and I am pretty sure it doesn’t contain weird ingredients like those used in Hershey’s”.  Another employee chimed in saying, “It is definitely the smoothness that distinguishes the two”.  This smoothness probably derives from the European’s use of extra cocoa butter, or can be attributed to the fact that Europeans (especially the Swiss) prefer smoother chocolate so they conche their chocolate for longer (Presilla, 126).  Studies have found that American chocolate companies typically conche their chocolate for 18-20 hours, whereas Western European chocolate companies conche for 72 hours (Alberts and Cidell, 222).

Now onto CVS.  CVS is a large drug store chain that offers everyday use items from beauty supplies to medications to snacks.  When it comes to chocolate, American CVSs have a surprisingly decent selection.  However, most of the chocolate sold is from Big Chocolate brands such as Mars, Nestle, and Hershey, which can be found in most convenience stores.  CVS also carries some semi-luxurious brands such as Lindt and Godiva (both European brands), but on a small scale.  Walking down the candy aisle at CVS was a much different experience than at Cardullo’s.  For one, I actually felt quite overwhelmed by the bright packaging of the chocolate (a common color theme was using yellow or red).  I also noticed that most of the chocolate brands used animated lettering on their wrappers.  This eye-catching color scheme and lettering clearly contrasted Cardullo’s calm and intricate chocolate packaging and is most likely to attract children (see Figure 2 below).  To reiterate, in the United States, chocolate companies often target children in their advertisements.  As a side note, chocolate marketing towards children is actually a highly controversial topic, as it takes advantage of children’s developmental vulnerabilities and may be contributing to the childhood obesity epidemic (Martin).

cardullos vs cvs
Figure 2: Cardullo’s chocolate selection (left) vs. CVS’s selection (right)

Moreover, just like at Cardullo’s, the price of the chocolate at CVS is probably influenced by its targeted population and the type of people who visit the store.  Since American chocolate is mainly marketed to children in the US, and CVS seems to be a weekly stop for the average person, it makes sense that their chocolate prices are extremely reasonable, ranging from $1-$15.  This affordability allows the chocolate to be an impulse or everyday purchase.  Another thing that somewhat differed between Cardullo’s and CVS chocolate was its placement in the store.  The Cardullo’s chocolate was on the wall sort of close to the register as was the CVS chocolate, but CVS also had a row of chocolate bars right under the register to entice impulse buyers.  Chocolate is considered to be more of a guilty pleasure or impulse purchase in America versus in Europe where people eat chocolate more regularly.  This is because in Europe chocolate is viewed as a food rather than an indulgence (Alberts and Cidell, 224).  This is also revealed in reports showing that Europeans consume about half of the world’s chocolate whereas the United States only consumes about 20% (CNN’s “Who consumes the most chocolate?”).  This trend is possible because many European countries consume more chocolate per capita than the US (see Figure 3 below).  Furthermore, in CVS the chocolate treats were mainly in bar form, were often sold in bulk, and did not come in luxury forms such as bonbons or truffles, again speaking to the target audience’s tastes and trends.  This yet again reveals that American chocolate producers value cost over quality.

consumption
Figure 3: Top 20 Chocolate Consuming Nations (2012)

Finally, when examining the nutrition labels, it was evident that the chocolate in CVS contained more sugar, less fat from cocoa butter, and less cacao altogether.  For example, a Cadbury Milk Bar from Cardullo’s contained 23% cacao, while a Hershey’s Bar from CVS only contained 11%.  What was even more striking was when comparing the same Cadbury Milk Bars, an imported one from Cardullo’s and one from CVS, the nutrition facts and packaging were not equal (see Figure 4 below for a video of a family comparing the British Cadbury bar to the American one).  It is also interesting to point out that the chocolate sold at Cardullo’s was mainly dark chocolate while CVS was capitalized by milk chocolate.  This may be because children prefer sweeter milk chocolate to bitter dark chocolate which is a more acquired taste, or that dark chocolate is truer to the origin of chocolate which is why it is produced more often for European audiences.  Regardless, this finding is not a coincidence in that Americans prefer lighter milk chocolate and Europeans prefer darker chocolate (Presilla, 119).

Figure 4: Video of a Family Trying a Cadbury Milk Bar from the UK vs. the US

In summary, I found Cardullo’s European chocolate and CVS’s American-produced chocolate to be radically different.  What I discovered was that European chocolate contains more cacao, is occasionally complemented with unique spices and flavors, has more sophisticated packaging, and targets a more mature population.  Moreover Europeans tend to prefer dark chocolate and consume chocolate more regularly than Americans.  On the other hand, American-produced chocolate is sweeter with less cacao and more sugary fillings, utilizes bright and animated wrappers, is often mass-produced, and is marketed more towards children.  With these differences in ingredients, packaging, and target audience, it is no wonder that European and American chocolate tastes, consumption trends, and advertising differ.

For added entertainment, click on this link to see a video of two British boys comparing American and British chocolate bars: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cyD74bJJOTk

Works Cited:

Alberts, Heike C., and Julie L. Cidell. “Chocolate Consumption Manufacturing and Quality in Western Europe the United States.” Geography (2006): 218-226.

Brenner, Joel Glenn. The emperors of chocolate: Inside the secret world of Hershey and Mars. Broadway, 2000. 48-55.

Graham, Caroline. “Too Sweet, Too Cheap and Full of Ghastly Chemicals – Why Even Americans Can’t Stand American Chocolate.” Daily Mail. Associated Newspapers Ltd., 21 Nov. 2009. Web. 29 Apr. 2015. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1229924/Too-sweet-cheap-ghastly-chemicals–Americans-stand-American-chocolate.html.

Martin, Carla. “Race, Ethnicity, Gender, and Class in Chocolate Advertisements.” Class. Harvard University, Cambridge. 1 Apr. 2015. Lecture.

Norton, Marcy. “Tasting Empire: Chocolate and The European Internalization Of Mesoamerican Aesthetics.” The American Historical Review 111.3 (2006): 660-91. Web. 29 Apr. 2015. http://ahr.oxfordjournals.org/content/111/3/660.full.pdf html.

Presilla, Maricel E. The New Taste of Chocolate. Berkeley, California: Ten Speed Press, 2001. 119, 126.

Terrio, Susan Jane. Crafting the culture and history of French chocolate. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2000. 1-40.

“Who Consumes the Most Chocolate?” CNN. 17 Jan. 2012. Web. 2 May 2015. http://thecnnfreedomproject.blogs.cnn.com/2012/01/17/who-consumes-the-most-chocolate/

Wolke, Robert. “Chocolate by the Numbers.” The Washington Post. 9 June 2004. Web. 2 May 2015. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A24276-2004Jun8.html

Images Cited:

Figure 1: My personal IPhone at Cardullo’s and CVS

Figure 2: My personal IPhone at Cardullo’s and CVS

Figure 3: http://www.confectionerynews.com/Markets/Interactive-Map-Top-20-chocolate-consuming-nations-of-2012 (Accessed May 1, 2015)

Figure 4: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0cgDAQXZ-LA (Accessed April 29, 2015)

Positive Change or Propaganda? The Barry Callebaut Cocoa Horizons Project

Chocolate is one of the most popular snack and dessert foods in the world. Just as commonly as chocolate is consumed, many of the issues facing the chocolate supply chain tend to be overlooked and neglected. Even though the industry revenue exceeds $100 billion per year, some of the major issues include poverty among cacao farmers, older and less productive cacao trees, minimal training in best agricultural practices, little access to fertilizers and proper equipment, and exploitative and child labor (Martin, 2015; Cocoa Initiative, 2011; Leissle 28). In addition, many cacao farms are remote and thus far from learning centers, and most still use old-fashioned and non-modernized agricultural methods (“Hershey’s Cocoa Sustainability Strategy”). At the same time, cacao is an important crop to many countries such as Cote d’Ivoire, where over 50% of household incomes come from cocoa products (Cocoa Initiative, 2011). Many chocolate companies have attempted to combat these issues through goals of corporate responsibility. Yet, with so many individual chocolate companies processing their own chocolate, it can be very hard to effect solutions to problems experienced by each. One approach to solving this dilemma and increasing transparency in the chocolate supply chain is to resolve issues at the level of business-to-business chocolate producers whose goods penetrate a large share of the chocolate market. Barry Callebaut is one such company with the means and resources to implement change even in the most remote of the cacao-growing regions. Though some elements of Barry Callebaut’s mission to improve the chocolate supply chain come across as propaganda, the company is in a strong position to implement progress and has already done a measurable amount.

The Barry Callebaut Group is a business-to-business company based in Zurich, Switzerland and is the world’s largest chocolate supplier. According to their company website, they have a 40% share of the industrial chocolate market and sell 1.7 million tons of chocolate per year. In addition, they claim that 20% of the chocolate and cocoa products sold worldwide contain Barry Callebaut inside (“Barry Callebaut at a Glance”). Realizing the power of their position in the industry, the company has created and participated in several initiatives to spearhead change and sustainability in chocolate production.

This pie chart illustrates where the world's supply of cacao originates.  As you can see, Ivory Coast is the largest producer of cacao in the world.
This pie chart illustrates where the world’s supply of cacao originates. As you can see, Ivory Coast is the largest producer of cacao in the world.

In 2012, Barry Callebaut launched the Cocoa Horizons initiative, a ten-year mission to promote close cooperation between Barry Callebaut personnel and cacao farmers in Cote d’Ivoire, which produces around 37% of the world’s cacao supply (Leissle 22). Recognizing that many farmers live in regions where they cannot access training centers, this project is designed wrap up the company’s mission of sustainability into a package that can be delivered to even the most remote of cacao farms. In order to do this, Barry Callebaut created the Cocoa Horizons Truck, powered on solar energy, which travels through Cote d’Ivoire educating cacao farmers and children, delivering healthcare, and even providing entertainment. The Cocoa Horizons project serves as a means to carry out three company missions outlined on their website: refining cacao quality, increasing pay to farmers, and improving farmer quality of life.   The first prong of their mission, improving cacao quality, seeks to address some of the most prominent issues facing cacao farming today, such as “depleted soil, poor farming practices, aging trees and aging farmers” (“Callebaut – Growing Great Chocolate”), which have led to a decrease in the productivity of cacao farms.   Barry Callebaut has sought to create and manage farmer field schools to teach farmers of participating cooperatives how to properly manage soil, care for trees, ferment beans, and so on. Part of their plain to improve cacao quality also includes building tree nurseries for newly planted cacao trees, so that they can ensure the future productivity of cacao. The second part of the strategy is to pay cacao farmers fair prices, so that they are not underpaid, living in poverty, and mistreated by profit-seeking middlemen. Barry Callebaut partners directly with farmer cooperatives so they can ensure money reaches the farmers themselves: “This direct partnership enables us to introduce good agricultural practices, work together on crop quality, and of course, buy the cocoa beans directly from the cooperatives, thus supporting farmers to make a better income from cocoa,” (“Callebaut – Growing Great Chocolate”). Finally, the third component of their strategy is to better the quality of life for cacao farmers through healthcare and education. Barry Callebaut has made an effort to distribute mosquito nets, vaccines, and medical kits to cacao farms. In addition, they has focused a lot of energy on establishing schools in West Africa to educate children living in cacao farming regions and spread awareness about issues surrounding exploitative child labor (“Callebaut – Growing Great Chocolate”).

The above image is of the Cocoa Horizons truck.  The sides of the truck open to become a stage where the Barry Callebaut representatives engage the cacao farmers.
The above image is of the Cocoa Horizons truck. The sides of the truck open to become a stage where the Barry Callebaut representatives engage the cacao farmers.

While the points listed above are all efforts that would vastly improve the current issues in the cacao supply chain, we must also consider the feasibility of such strategies, and whether claiming corporate responsibility is just a means to increase product sales. For example, the Cocoa Horizons promotional video is clearly intended to persuade the Barry Callebaut consumer that the company goals of enacting change are being upheld. In the video, a Barry Callebaut representative can be seen standing on a stage formed from the truck bed saying, “We’re going to have fun this evening. We’re going to sing and dance. But we’re also going to discuss good agricultural practices for growing cocoa,” (Barry Callebaut’s Cocoa Horizons Truck). The cacao farmers and their families appear to be completely captivated and enthralled by the various multimedia presentations in front of them, which include video material from a giant screen on the side of the truck, floor-to-ceiling information graphics posted on the walls of a tent, and an extremely emotive speaker. One farmer notes, “I was so concerned not to miss a single thing,” (Barry Callebaut’s Cocoa Horizons Truck). This kind of appreciation is strikingly similar to that shown by cacao farmers in the First Taste of Chocolate in Ivory Coast video. In the latter, a Metropolis TV representative gives chocolate to cacao farmers who had never tasted chocolate before. The farmers are then incredibly grateful for their first taste of chocolate and appreciate the final product of their labor on the cacao farm. Yet, the cultural exaggeration begins when the farmers proceed to ask questions about “white people” and claim that they will save the chocolate wrappers to teach children about chocolate (First taste of chocolate in Ivory Coast). While the video conveys these comments from the farmers in a serious manner, the farmers appear to be saying them lightheartedly, and almost seem to be sarcastic and self-aware, mocking the distance between themselves and the typical chocolate consumer. Because of this stark cultural hyperbole, it is clear that the filmmakers are trying to make the farmers look more isolated from the final product than they actually are. Similarly, the Cocoa Horizons truck video appears to be doing the same, and when filmmakers exaggerate the impact of the project, it begs the question of exactly how powerful the Cocoa Horizons project is.

Despite the clear setbacks of an overtly promotional video, the combination of a hands-on initiative, such as the Cocoa Horizons truck, working to improve cacao sustainability on behalf of a company with vast resources and large market share, has the potential to effect a great amount of change in the chocolate supply chain. Studies show that even bringing modernization and education alone to cacao farms can double both the income and the yields of the farm (“Hershey’s Cocoa Sustainability Strategy”). In addition, the numbers associated with the Cocoa Horizons project are significant. As of December 2014, the Cocoa Horizons truck has reached over 33,000 villagers in Cote d’Ivoire and driven over 10,000 kilometers since the start of its journey, and has helped establish 23 model farms and 550 farmer field schools (“Cocoa Horizons Truck Reaches 10000 km Milestone”). Again, despite the pitfalls of a promotional video that exaggerates cultural distances, we can see that Barry Callebaut truly is in a position to implement change in the chocolate supply chain, and has made positive progress in doing so.

Barry Callebaut has worked to improve the issues of a chocolate supply chain where cacao farms suffer from poverty, lack of training and education, minimal access to equipment, and labor concerns (Cocoa Initiative, 2011). Through the Cocoa Horizons initiative, Barry Callebaut takes their company goals on the road in a truck that visits the most remote and isolated of cacao farms. Even though the promotional video for this project raises concerns about propaganda and cultural exaggeration, the initiative has achieved measurable success in the two years that is has been active. As a business-to-business company with 40% of the market share of industrial chocolate and a name entrenched in a large portion of cocoa products, Barry Callebaut is in a strong position to implement change in the cacao supply chain.

References:

“Barry Callebaut at a Glance.” The Barry Callebaut Group at a Glance. Barry Callebaut Group. Web. <https://www.barry-callebaut.com/about-us/company-overview/barry-callebaut-glance&gt;.

Barry Callebaut’s Cocoa Horizons Truck – a Unique Concept to Bring Farmer Training, Education and Health to Remote Communities. Vimeo. Barry Callebaut Group, 2 Feb. 2014. Web. <https://vimeo.com/85716409&gt;.

Cacao Pie Chart. Digital image. Cocoa Initiative, 2011. Web. <http://www.cocoainitiative.org/en/documents-manager/english/13-cocoa-farming-an-overview-2011/file&gt;.

“Callebaut – Growing Great Chocolate.” Callebaut. Web. <http://www.callebaut.com/usen/growing-great-chocolate&gt;.

Cocoa Horizons Truck. Digital image. CandyUSA. Web. <http://www.candyusa.com/CST/CSTDetail.cfm?ItemNumber=10856&gt;.

“Cocoa Horizons Truck Reaches 10000 km Milestone.” Barry Callebaut. Web.<https://www.barry-callebaut.com/news/2014/12/barry-callebaut%E2%80%99s-cocoa-horizons-truck-reaches-10000-km-milestone-%E2%80%93-over-30000&gt;.

Cocoa Initiative. Cocoa Farming, An Overview: Cocoa Initiative, 2011. Web. <http://www.cocoainitiative.org/en/documents-manager/english/13-cocoa-farming-an-overview-2011/file&gt;.

First taste of chocolate in Ivory Coast. YouTube. VPRO Metropolis, 21 Feb. 2014. Web. <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zEN4hcZutO0&gt;.

“Hershey’s Cocoa Sustainability Strategy.” The Hershey Company, n.d. Web. <http://www.thehersheycompany.com/pdfs/21st_Century-single_page_final.pdf&gt;.

Leissle, Kristy. “Invisible West Africa: The Politics of Single Origin Chocolate.” Gastronomica: The Journal of Food and Culture 13.3 (2013): 22-31. JSTOR. Web.

Martin, Carla D. “Modern Day Slavery.” Lecture 15. Harvard University, Cambridge. 25 Mar. 2015. Lecture.

Homogeneity & Heterogeneity in the Chocolate Market: “Authenticity” and Pricing

Over the past decade, artisanal chocolate manufacturers have introduced bean-to-bar, single-source products in an industry controlled by a few large profit-maximizing players that produce low-price, commodity-like products. The established big chocolate players have sought to maintain the status quo of their manufacturing model, which for several decades has centered on delivering consumers mass-produced homogeneity in all aspects of the chocolate creation process from flavor to production to corporate responsibility to the final pricing of the product. While this model has proved successful for the long-standing big chocolate manufacturers, new entrants seek to distract from this model by providing a heterogeneous product that is homogenous only its location of sourcing. These new entrants attempt to confront the big chocolate model by appealing to consumers’ appetite for “authenticity” in terms of sourcing, manufacturing, social impact and taste. This new paradigm offers a means to preserve bean diversity, traditional production techniques, and wellbeing of bean environments, thereby generating sustainability, while nudging large manufacturers to adopt similar values lest they lose consumers that care about these aspects.

Differences in flavor priorities for big chocolate manufacturers and smaller, single-source producers influence the homogeneity and heterogeneity of taste in the final chocolate product sold to consumers. Single-source chocolate manufacturers seek to emphasize the native taste of the bean and the environment in which it is grown. Just like for high-end wine producers, the Terroir, or series of environmental and biological characteristics that impact the growth and characteristics of the plant itself and thereby the fruit’s taste, represents the most important priority for these bean-to-bar, artisanal manufacturers. In a random sample of 30 single-source chocolate manufacturers, one sees an emphasis on the local flavor of the bean itself and the bean’s area of origin. For example, LA Burdick states that its Single Source Dark Chocolate Bars, “allow a sampling of distinctive regional beans. From the fruity acidic notes of Madagascar, the earthly finish of Ecuador…Single Source Bars provide a world tour of regional chocolate individuality.” Furthermore, LA Burdick even mentions the word “terroir” in its description of chocolate sourcing. It writes, “When turned into chocolate, it is hard to overstate the effect of the ecosystem on the chocolate flavor (terroir). The flavors of these chocolates are deep, complex, long lasting and taste of everything surrounding the cacao trees.” Additionally, Ocelot Chocolate states its Single Origin Peruvian Bar is “Made with the ultra-rare Peruvian white cacao Piura Porcelana, which has been nurtured back from the brink of extinction.” Each of the 30 randomly selected single-source chocolate manufacturers emphasizes the nativity of the plant and bean’s surroundings. Bill Nesto, in highlighting the ability of single-source chocolate to bring out the bean and essence of the chocolate product itself, writes, “The smaller and more precisely delimited a chocolate’s origin is, the more opportunity there is for a producer to express its identity (135).” According to Nesto, the variability in cacao terroir and natural flavors represents heterogeneity that manufacturers should emphasize, not neglect or remove.

While single-source chocolate producers emphasize flavor diversity, big chocolate manufacturers perceive the importance and nature of flavor itself very differently. For example, nowhere on its bars or website does Hershey’s state the origin of the beans in its bar. When advertising its Milk Chocolate Bar, it simply writes, “Pure and simple. Nothing can take place of this classic.” It is ironic the company uses the words pure and simple since nowhere does the company describe the flavor of the bean itself, the core ingredient of traditional chocolate. Big chocolate manufacturers have centered their business model on developing manufactured flavors, which in many cases may veer far from the flavor of the cacao bean itself. In a marketing gesture, Hershey’s has led consumers to believe that the taste it manufactured in the lab is indeed the true taste of chocolate by using worlds like “pure” to describe it. Manufactured flavor represents a core product design decision on part of the big chocolate manufacturers. Joel Glenn Brenner in examining the history of Mars and Hershey’s writes that for Mars, “the process of manufacturing chocolate was gradually shifting form improvisation to exact science.” Later he writes, “Each [company’s] process produced its own unique chocolate flavor… (63).” He acknowledges that challenges exist in manufacturing chocolate taste since it is by nature a genetically complex plant. Brenner writes, “Chocolate is one of nature’s most complex flavors. So numerous are its properties that chemists have been unable to synthesize it despite decades of research (63-64).” When compared to apple flavor for example, he claims there are six times as many chemical components. This aspect of re-creating and synthesizing a taste is one woven into the very history of big chocolate manufacturers, such that created flavors become associated with brands. In addressing the flavor priority of big chocolate manufacturers, Kristy Leissle writes that these manufacturers were “more interested in selling flavor than lineage (22),” clearly the opposite of single-source producers’ priorities. Furthermore, Leissle writes how big chocolate marketing emphasized the site of manufacturing versus the site of where plant itself is grown. The plant enters into the process for big manufacturers just in the capacity of recreating several of its aspects, not in bringing out the true nature of the bean itself. Big chocolate manufacturers thus strive to develop a “perfect” homogenous flavor that they then market as “pure” versus bringing out the very heterogeneity and diversity of the beans themselves, an approach used by artisanal chocolate manufacturers.

The difference in heterogeneity and homogeneity of flavor represents one key way in which artisanal chocolate manufacturers seek to differentiate themselves to attract a segment of the chocolate-eating market that cares about the final product’s “authenticity.” The homogeneity-heterogeneity dichotomy however extends to the process and style of manufacturing as well. While big chocolate manufacturers emphasize standardization at every step of their process, artisanal chocolate manufacturers emphasize the diversity of production methods, as influenced by the source of the cocoa. For example, Taza Chocolate writes that its Mexicano Chocolate Disc is “stone ground chocolate inspired by Mexican chocolate making traditions, giving the chocolate a rustic, gritty texture.” The image below shows the back of a wrapper of a Taza disc product, with text highlighting the stone-ground methodology. Garibaldi Goods’ writes about its Palos Blanos, Bolivian Single Origin Chocolate Bar, “…the beans are then handsorted, roasted, crushed, sorted again, winnowed, conched and refined, aged, tempered, molded and hand-wrapped.” The methodology of manufacturing varies greatly for single-source chocolate manufacturers depending on the source of the chocolate bean and early traditions of chocolate creation in the areas. In this sense, even the chocolate manufacturing process exhibits elements of an “expanded terroir,” which would include the local styles of production.

Taza Chocolate Wrapper

Hershey’s and other big chocolate makers on the other hand rely on standardized, one-size-fits all processes that are designed to emphasize the sameness of each product created by factories versus heterogeneity in methodology as pursued by single-source manufacturers. Compared to the Taza wrapper seen above, the back of the Kit-Kat bar seen below, tells nothing of the production process of the chocolate bar. Michael D’Antonio writes that even in the early history of Mars and Hershey’s, standardization and mass production represented a priority. In the early years of these companies, the recipe of chocolate itself was altered based on its versatility in the production process. D’Antonio writes, “They would also discover that the method and recipe devised at the homestead could be adapted for mass production…Schmalbach’s mixture was easier to move through various processes—it could be pumped, channeled, and poured—and it required less time for smoothing and grinding. Hershey would be able to make milk chocolate faster, and therefore cheaper, than the Europeans (108).” In emphasizing the companies’ priority for mass production, D’Antonio further writes, “Instead of making hundreds of items at varying prices, Milton would produce huge quantities of a few varieties (121).” In this way, big chocolate manufacturers’ emphasis on mass production has led to more homogeneity in product lines and less tolerance for any type of variability in production, whether in speed of production, variety of distinct products generated or standardization of a given product itself. On the contrary, artisanal chocolate manufacturers today seek to emphasize heterogeneities in production process to provide consumers with a more “authentic” and genuine product. In expressing his desire to see more authenticity from production heterogeneity, Bill Nesto emphasizes the importance of the production process’ structure. He writes, “The more control man has over the entire chain of production from plant to product, the better man can preserve terroir (135).” In this way, he stresses the importance of genuine, uncorrupted bean-to-bar manufacturing processes in bringing out authenticity in the final product.

Kit-Kat Bar Wrapper

While product flavor and production process represent two ways in which homogeneity-heterogeneity dichotomies exist between large chocolate manufacturers and small single-source ones, the different approach the two segments have towards social impact is critical as well. Showing social cause can influence sales, Leissle writes, “West Africa bars can be successfully sold in the U.S.—provided the maker has already inspired trust with a clear statement of its social mission (29).” In examining the social missions of single-source chocolate manufacturers one sees great variability, influenced again by the environment where the cacao is grown. Single-origin chocolate producer Original Beans, which sources its beans from Eastern Congo directs part of its revenue towards preservation of habitats and projects its sourcing environment cares about. It writes, “Original beans have established nurseries, created training programmes and replanted forests in this war-torn area to help farmers rebuild their livelihoods. They are helping to protect Virunga National Park, Africa’s oldest nature and reserve and home of the last Mountain Gorillas on earth.” In this way Original Beans supports the local environment from where its chosen beans originate. Furthermore several single-source chocolate producers, such as Taza Chocolate and Mast Brothers Chocolate, have partnered with organizations, such as Maya Mountain Cacao Ltd, which teaches small farmers in Belize improved farming methods, provides them with microloans through Kiva to invest in their microbusinesses, and pays them higher rates for their products. Maya Mountain Cacao’s website states that it “connects smallholder farmers with the ultra-premium chocolate industry,” allowing buyers to connect with farmers growing the cacao. In this way, single-source chocolate manufacturers individually and collectively participate in a wide variety of diverse social impact pursuits, consequently offering heterogeneity in how chocolate revenues are utilized in protecting the local environments where farmers grow their cacao.

While single-source cacao takes this diverse approach to protecting local environments, big chocolate manufacturers invest in projects that help the farmers’ local communities but with the end-goal of maximizing their own profits and thus shareholder value. Hershey’s announced programs like CocoaLink, a mobile messaging service used to “deliver practical agricultural and social information to rural cocoa farmers in West Africa.” Though it may provide communication and information advantages to the farmers, it seems to serve Hershey’s interests to a greater extent, since Hershey’s would own a messaging platform connecting its cacao farmers and suppliers. Hershey’s does invest in projects such as the Mexico Cocoa Project designed to supply disease-tolerant cocoa trees to farms in Chiapas regions of Southern Mexico, but by nature of its business model, investments must be in the interest of providing returns to shareholders, who own the firm. In this way, the business model creates different incentives in social responsibility with big chocolate manufacturers utilizing projects towards the specific goal of helping societies benefit shareholders and with single-source manufacturers undertaking their various projects to provide social sustainability for all stakeholders’ benefit, including farmers and local wildlife. Crucially, while big chocolate manufacturers pool money from chocolate sales coming from all types of cocoa beans in the aggregate and then redistribute money to few large projects, single-source chocolate manufacturers individually invest in a large variety of small-scale, heterogeneous, social causes that are native to where each cacao bean and production process originates. They invest the sales from beans of a given location to the location itself. In this sense, single-source chocolate manufacturers social impact strategy offers more heterogeneity in social impact tied to the growing location whereas big chocolate manufacturer’s social investing strategy pools all in one fund then distributes to project with the homogenous goal of maximizing shareholder value.

The differences in homogeneity and heterogeneity between big chocolate manufacturers and single-source manufacturers across three areas of flavor, production technique, and social investing all necessarily lead to differences in prices consumer pay at the store. One can see this by examining pricing difference between a random sample of 30 chocolate bars that contain the worlds “single-origin” or “single-source” in their marketing and a random sample of 30 chocolate bars produced by the big chocolate companies and shelved at CVS as shown in the image below. The data I compiled on single-source bars, represented in the light-pink table below, shows a mean price of $10.87 and a median of $10.54 for single-source chocolate bars (normalized for 100g). The data I compiled on big chocolate mass-produced bars, represented by the light-purple table below, shows a mean of $2.75 and a median of $2.80 for mass-produced chocolate bars (normalized for 100g). The pricing differential is clearly visible with the mean price for single origin bars four times the mean price for big chocolate manufactured chocolate bars. Just as significant is the dispersion of pricing between the two samples. Single-source chocolate shows greater variability in pricing than mass-produced samples. Mass-produced samples are almost entirely concentrated between $2 and $4, or lower, whereas the single-source sample shows greater variability between $4 and $19, implying greater homogeneity in pricing for products created by big chocolate manufacturers and greater heterogeneity in pricing for products created by single-source chocolate producers.

Chocolate on Shelves at CVS

In assessing the difference in mean pricing between the two groups, the wedge represents the premium consumers pay for heterogeneity and “authenticity” over the homogeneity created by big chocolate producers. This wedge represents the three differences in flavor, production, and social impact methodologies, but also more, such as differences in labor practices and treatment of workers as indicated by Fair Trade and Direct Trade, a large topic, which due to special limitations here I have put aside. The pricing wedge is significant and very likely turns away those who have lower willingness to pay. However, if single-source chocolate manufacturers become successful in their marketing and awareness efforts, consumers may begin caring more about authenticity, such that they may pay more for it. In order to effectively transcend the current segmented market, momentum is needed on part of the single-source chocolate manufacturers to ensure that consumers’ appetite for their products grows, such that single-source producers can eventually reach a tipping point. Such momentum many even nudge big chocolate manufacturers to adopt similar practices. Reaching this point would challenge the existing big chocolate industry into becoming more “authentic,” emphasizing sustainable, heterogeneous differences in the product, its flavor, process, and its social impact versus emphasizing homogeneity in product creation.

Chocolate Pricing Density Chart

Single-Source Sample

Mass-Produced Chocolate Sample

Works Cited

Secondary Sources:

Brenner, Joel Glenn. (2000). The Emperors of Chocolate. New York, NY: Broadway Books.

D’Antonio, Michael. (2006). Hershey: Milton S. Hershey’s Extraordinary Life of Wealth, Empire, and Utopian Dreams. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.

Leissle, Kristy. (2013). “Invisible West Africa: The Politics of Single Origin Chocolate” in Gastronomica: The Journal or Food and Culture. Vol. 13, No. 3. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Nesto, Bill. (2010). “Discovering Terroir in the World of Chocolate” in Gastronomica: The Journal of Food and Culture. Vol. 10, No. 1. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Primary Sources: 

Garibali Goods. (2015). Online Store: Palos Blancos, Bolivian Single Origin Chocolate Bar. Santa Monica, CA.

The Hershey Company. (2015). Hershey’s Milk Chocolate Bar. Hershey, PA.

< http://www.hersheys.com/pure-products/details.aspx?id=3480&gt;.

L.A. Burdick Chocolate. (2015). Single Source Dark Chocolate Bars. Walpole, NH. <http://www.burdickchocolate.com/BurdickBars/single-source-dark-chocolate-bars.aspx&gt;.

Maya Mountain Cacao, Ltd. (2015). Impact. Toledo District, Belize. <http://www.mayamountaincacao.com/index.php?page=impact&gt;.

Ocelot Chocolate. (2015). Online Store: Single Origin Peruvian 75% Bar. Edinburgh, UK. < http://www.ocelotchocolate.com/shop-online/single-origin-peruvian-75&gt;.

Original Beans. (2015). Original Beans: Conservation. Amsterdam, The Netherlands. <http://originalbeans.com/conservation/&gt;.

Taza Chocolate. (2015). Online Store: Cacao Puro Chocolate Mexicano. Sommerville, MA. < http://www.tazachocolate.com/store/Products/CacaoPuroDisc&gt;.

World Cocoa Foundation. (2015). CocoaLink – Connecting Cocoa Communities. Washington D.C., USA. <http://worldcocoafoundation.org/about-wcf/contact/&gt;.

Image and Data Credit: All images used and primary data collected are my own.

Askinosie Chocolate: Fair and Direct without Labels

With the growing international popularity of chocolate, the number of chocolate companies has increased dramatically and the competition between each has become more and more fierce. Along with the growth in chocolate companies, the number of chocolate certification organizations has also increased, to a point where the numerous labels are confusing to the normal American consumer. Today, chocolate companies can choose from a wide array of certifications to apply for, including Fair Trade USA, Fairtrade UK, Fair for Life, Rainforest Alliance, Direct Trade, USDA Organic and more. A question we should consider is: are these fair trade certifications actually creating the social impact they say they are in the chocolate industry and around the world? In considering this question, we will take a look at the history and business of one craft chocolate company without any certifications – Askinosie Chocolate. Askinosie Chocolate, through their direct relationship with farmers, is able to have a sustainable impact on the chocolate growing community and their own local community while maintaining the high quality of its products, without the distraction of any third-party certifications or labels.

The term “fair trade” was defined by the international Fair Trade Federation in 2003 and is as follows: “Fair Trade is a movement promoting trading partnerships based on dialogue, transparency and respect, and that seeks greater equity in international trade. It contributes to sustainable development by offering better trading condition to, and securing the rights of, marginalized producers and workers.” (Witkowski) In order to achieve its goals, the Fair Trade movement relies on secondary organizations, such as the International Fair Trade Association, Fair Trade Federation, or Ten Thousand Villages, to implement an auditing system for supply chains to ensure they meet the standards. However, the goals of Fair Trade are broad and vague, and the standards of each Fair Trade organization can vary widely. For example, Rainforest Alliance, a non-profit, claims to certify fair trade products, but does not include standards for compensating producers above market price and in actuality has worked closely with Kraft and Chiquita, big food corporations, which may lead to competing interests (Witkowski).

According to a 2009 study, fair trade consumers tended to value universalism, for example unity with nature and protecting the environment, as well as self-direction, or freedom and control over their own individual decisions, more than non-consumers of fair trade products (Doran). This study demonstrated that the values the fair trade movement promotes are important to a sizeable number of consumers. However, whether or not purchasing all products certified by a certain “fair trade” label is productively achieving those values is a question for further research.

A sample of different fair trade certifying organizations

As the market for fair trade products has grown, it seems the way in which the original values have been manifested have changed, and not necessarily for the better. Because of the numerous fair trade certifications and the incongruent nature of their standards and information provided to consumers, consumers should question the true value of any fair trade certified product they choose to purchase (Ballet). The case of Askinosie Chocolate is an exemplary model for transparency and social impact in the chocolate industry today.

Askinosie Chocolate was founded in 2006 by Shawn Askinosie, originally as a new hobby to replace his stressful criminal defense lawyer day job. Like some of the big chocolate companies today, for example, Hershey’s, Askinosie Chocolate started out as a family business. Shawn began by making chocolate in his office kitchen, perfecting recipes with his wife, and then managing the business side with his high school aged daughter. As the company grew, it made a noticeable effort to maintain the personal touch in their products, as evidenced through the personal stories of Shawn’s family members who are involved in the business as well as their business practices.

One major practice that sets Askinosie Chocolate apart from its bean-to-bar competitors is their commitment to direct trade with farmers. Unlike its competitors, Askinosie Chocolate has not sought fair trade certification or established a third party organization to certify its direct trade practices. In fact, Askinosie Chocolate doesn’t use any type of certification for its cocoa or chocolate at all (their sugar, however, is certified organic). Shawn himself travels to the farm sites and establishes partnerships with farmers through acquaintances and business partners, and then evaluates the beans and the cacao farming process himself in person. By avoiding a broker/middleman, Askinosie Chocolate is able to incorporate their value of cooperation and transparency throughout their supply chain.

Askinosie Chocolate’s direct trade model is especially beneficial for the producers of cacao because producers are paid a higher price than the set fair trade commodity price as well as 10% of the company’s profits every year (Attoun). Because the beans are routinely tested before providing the bonus profits, the producers have an incentive to produce the highest quality cacao beans for Askinosie Chocolate. Instead of relying on a middleman to inspect quality, Askinosie Chocolate sends a company representative, often Shawn himself, to visit the sites and to meet the farmers while drawing up a contract and developing a partnership with them (“Askinosie Chocolate”).

Although fair trade programs originally set out to shorten the supply chain that causes brands profit disproportionately compared to farmers, in reality, fair trade itself has become a cumbersome instrument like those it has tried to change.

Cacao producing farmers often only get 3% of the profit from a chocolate bar

In contrast with fair trade certification programs, which often require the farmers and cooperatives to front a cost of anywhere between $2,500 – $10,000 for annual inspection and certification fees, the Askinosie Chocolate model doesn’t cost the farmers money because it is a business partnership (Tellman). The combination of these yearly fees as well as the fixed commodity price for fair trade chocolate inhibit small farmers from participating in the system and limit the impact of fair trade overall. Askinosie Chocolate on the other hand plays a role in each step of the supply chain, ensuring that the business runs smoothly and that the partnership with farmers is fair at every single step. From finding the beans, building partnerships, shipping the beans, and actually making the chocolate, Askinosie Chocolate personally touches each part of their production process.

Since the founding of the company, Askinosie Chocolate asserts that they have been “weaving social responsibility into everything we do” (“Askinosie Chocolate”), and that company value is evidenced by their numerous philanthropic ventures and careful business endeavors.

Beginning in 2009, Askinosie Chocolate started Chocolate University, an18-month program for local high school students to learn about the bean-to-bar company, beginning from the bar that is completed in their town and ending with a visit to Tanzania – a site of one farm where Askinosie gets their beans (“Askinosie Chocolate: Bringing”).

This program is a way for the company to empower the youth in the community to become global citizens while teaching them about the ethics of the chocolate business and experience first-hand the types of decisions chocolate companies may face, for example, choosing a farm at which to source cacao beans. Before the trip to a cacao source, students in the program research the needs of the community and raise funds in order to address those needs and create a social impact during their visit.

In addition to their community impact, Askinosie weaves their value of transparency into every part of their business. By creating personal connections with the farmers, Shawn is able to put a face to the product, and the company literally uses farmer’s faces as images on some of their products.

Askinosie Chocolate bars featuring images of actual farmers

The personal touch on the marketing of the chocolate bars indicates to consumers that there are real people behind the products they are buying, and tempt the already socially-minded consumer to purchase even more. In addition, Askinosie Chocolate claims that their products are “100% traceable”, and their website has a tool for consumers to input the identification code of their product to track where individual ingredients actually come from (“Askinosie Chocolate”).

Besides enriching the lives of consumers, Askinosie Chocolate takes care to also educate their farmers on their products. When Shawn visits farms to do yearly inspections, he will bring with him official sales numbers and even samples of the finished chocolate to allow the farmers to actually taste what their raw food product can create. By being transparent in their partnership with farmers and their relationship with consumers, Askinosie Chocolate is solving the problem fair trade certifications face today of unclear communication/information.

In conclusion, Askinosie Chocolate is able to have a sustainable impact on the cacao growing community through their equitable direct-trade relationship with farmers, and company value of transparency by foregoing cumbersome fair trade certification programs. In addition, Askinosie Chocolate empowers its own local community through its social initiatives, such as Chocolate University. However, the question of how to scale their impact remains. As we have seen with fair trade certification, although it began with ethical values and goals, as the programs expanded, the desire for profit and larger impact outweighed the earlier ideals and distracted the movement from its origins. The direct trade movement and the family owned craft chocolate business should also be aware of the potential dangers of scaling while still maintaining its product quality.

Multimedia Sources

Fair Trade Organizations: https://chocolateclass.files.wordpress.com/2015/05/ebc26-1411662799381.jpg

Shawn Askinosie: https://youtu.be/utic2PaXjwE

Chocolate Bar Infographic: https://nancydrew4613.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/screen-shot-2014-05-08-at-2-04-31-am.png

Chocolate University: https://youtu.be/zAbbzvrIKTk

Askinosie Chocolate Bars: http://www.marketsofnewyork.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/EJL-140219-1007-Askinosie-Chocolates-2014-02-19-at-00-00-00-600×400.jpg

Works Cited

“Askinosie Chocolate: Bringing The World Together One Bean At A Time.” Markets of New York City. N.p., 18 June 2014. Web. 05 May 2015. <http://www.marketsofnewyork.com/2014/06/askinosie-chocolate-bringing-the-world-together-one-bean-at-a-time/&gt;.

“Askinosie Chocolate.” Home Page. N.p., n.d. Web. 05 May 2015. <http://www.askinosie.com/&gt;.

Attoun, Marti. “A Chocolate Factory with a Higher Purpose.” The Christian Science Monitor. The Christian Science Monitor, 6 Nov. 2014. Web. 05 May 2015. <http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Making-a-difference/Change-Agent/2014/1106/A-chocolate-factory-with-a-higher-purpose&gt;.

Ballet, Jèrôme. “Fair Trade and the Depersonalization of Ethics.” Journal of Business Ethics 92.Supplement 2: FAIR TRADE IN DIFFERENT NATIONAL CONTEXT (2010): 317-30. JSTOR. Web. 05 May 2015.

Doran, Caroline Josephine. “The Role of Personal Values in Fair Trade Consumption.” Journal of Business Ethics 84.4 (2009): 549-63. JSTOR. Web. 05 May 2015.

Tellman, Beth. “Not Fair Enough: Historic and Institutional Barriers to Fair Trade Coffee in El Salvador.” Journal of Latin American Geography 10.2 (2011): 107-27. JSTOR. Web. 05 May 2015.

Witkowski, Terrence H. “Fair Trade Marketing: An Alternative System for Globalization and Development.” Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice 13.4, Globalization and Its Marketing Challenges (2005): 22-33. JSTOR. Web. 05 May 2015.