It says “2.5% fat free cocoa”. Seems to fit what I said pretty well, ie " doesn’t contain much (or any) of the non-fat cocoa solids" It is processed to enhance fruity, sour, sweet (1,2,3) and not cocoa (7).
You enjoy it and probably would whether it was called chocolate or not.
I like dark chocolate that is high in cocoa. Like this. High in cocoa, bitter, roasted; low in sour, fruity.
There is no accounting for taste.
How about you read the 47.3 min % cocoa of which 2.5% is fat free cocoa.
Why limit yourself to one type of chocolate when there is so much real stuff out there? No accounting for your attitude either.
LOL! If ever I have choc drinks, I make it with hot water and a little cream. I think people forget how much sugar is in milk. 250ml usually has around 12g. Doesnt take much to get it up there. I always used to be puzzled about why my BGL would go up if I had store bought coffee… bit of a no brainer in the end… milk. I don’t have it now unless its black with a small jug of milk on the side.
Got it?
Ruby chocolate is made from selected varieties of beans of Brazil Lavados, which have a natural red-pink colour? That part is not an invention, just selection.
The beans selected to produce the referenced pink colour of the ‘ruby chocolate’ product brand are processed slightly differently. IE to select the cocoa fats (cocoa butter), min 47.3%, and reduce the cocoa solids to a negligible quantity 2.5%.
Compared to regular quality dark chocolate which has approx equal quantities of cocoa fats and cocoa solids, EG cocoa fats 38.9%, cocoa solids 33.6% in one example.
The reference to the minimum trade standards for chocolate products sets a low bar for describing any product as chocolate. As most consumers are aware a product that is mostly sugar and milk fat solids can be legally sold as chocolate. So to can skim milk be sold as milk, although some say it’s not really milk, or is it?
A scan of the net confirms it is contentious whether ruby chocolate is a processed variation or a ‘pure’ type of cocoa. Reading @grahroll’s links was interesting but reading the comments to the Nest and Glo site was more interesting because it reflects the discussion that has evolved here.
‘He said she said this is that is’. Conclusion is it remains a niche product and unless one can ‘pick the bean’ with the ‘ruby flavour’ some will maintain it is fabricated, and even if it is a derived product others will maintain it is a pure cocoa product.
Without the secret recipe that debate will seemingly continue. If anyone has the secret recipe please post it; if not please defer until you can provide a peer reviewed source that authoritatively attributes it to one or the other camp. Neither marketing companies nor food critics qualify.
The closest I could find is this from wikipedia, bold added.
and also from that page (citations are included), It has been debated by chocolate experts whether ruby chocolate constitutes a new variety of chocolate or if it is a marketing strategy.[16] Kennedy’s Confection magazine editor Angus Kennedy disputes that ruby chocolate is a new fourth variety and compared the taste to a combination of white chocolate and raspberries.[17] The public interest of the chocolate variety has been linked to the popularity of the colour pink in marketing and on social media in the 2010s, a phenomenon that is referred to as “millennial pink”.[18]
In comparison google the origins of common hybrid products such as Kanzi apples. This patent service (it might take a bit to load followed by some minor nagware but seems otherwise innocuous) describes (click bait) the top 7 patented foods - all have something in common.
Is a product that was invented and patented a ‘real food product’? Lets leave that discussion for another topic.
I did read it but noted it separately because the rest is cocoa butter ie fat (and possible some fibre). That is why I originally excluded that ingredient, because I wanted to talk about cocoa as a flavour not generic cocoa solids which has several components. Cocoa fat has some flavour but it is not the flavour of cocoa, it mainly adds to the texture. I mentioned upthread the confusion in the industry caused by using ‘cocoa solids’ to mean various things and here we are stuck hip deep in that confusion.
How cool is it that the site you linked quantifies the content and the sensory experience so everybody can see the difference in the various styles of confectionary and why they are different. What they cannot do is explain why some like one style over another. And that is perhaps where we ought to leave it.
The favourite hot chocolate brand in our house is the Cadbury Instant Hot Choc Blend in the 6 packs. We like the taste better than the Cadbury Drinking chocolate cans
I prefer raw cocoa powder usually is better quality and no added or sugar or as you suggest just unsweetened cocoa powder like cadbury bournville
We’ve reviewed hot chocolates again to find out which ones are hitting the spot. What’s your preference?
Yes, I totally agree. When you use the high quality cocoa powder, the hot chocolate is quite a healthy drink. Dark chocolate is full of magnesium, you can control the sugar content as well!
Milo i think was totally watered down compared to a long time ago when it had a, full chocolate taste. I remember having to add several tablespoons worth to get the same taste
