Revision with supplements and explanations
It’s more than a year since the book “Chocolate – the Reference Standard” was published. Most of the research for it was conducted in the period from September 2014 to March 2015. Since this time, readers have asked questions and facts have changed. Enclosed is an update of the most important changes known to me, additions and a few explanations regarding questions which have arisen.
The different extents of the reviews were unavoidable. There are various reasons for this.
– Some companies were not prepared to provide information. The sparse information, which one could find without their help were then decisive for the brevity of the reviews.
– Companies which produce rather low qualities do not deserve keen attention. But even this rule could not be adhered to strictly when it concerns a very big and well-known brand, where the interest of a comprehensive review is disproportionally high.
– Little information and small product range. This combination is also not suitable for a detailed review.
A book which deals with companies and products from a current range, has basically only a limited topicality. Between the end of writing a book and its publication, editing, layout, translation and print are unavoidable. We managed to complete these very comprehensive tasks within six months, so that we may say with pride that the book was very topical on the day of its publication. Even if certain situations may have changed in the meantime.
Fundamentals of the product quality and philosophy of a company will, however, not change within a few months. If at all, in only very few exceptions.
Grammatical and typographical errors
In a book, especially of this scale, are unfortunately unavoidable. I would also have preferred it if there had not been any errors.
Presumptions and absent confirmation
Based on the often great secrecy of the manufacturers I was not able to confirm or answer all claims, advertising statements and questions. In such cases I decided to write about these nonetheless.
The reader/consumer has a right to know which companies conduct transparent communication.
Honest and trustworthy companies will not even allow one to have doubts about their credibility.
The cultivation countries
In my book I listed the cultivation countries in Latin America as a whole. I used the official publications of the ICCO (International Cocoa Organization, www.icco.org) as reference, there is no differentiation made between Middle and South America in these.
Hispaniola and Sanchez Cocoa
In the book I do not delve deeper into the difference of these two cocoa varieties. From today’s point of view, I should have given a more extended explanation. I am making up for this now;
The Dominican Republic exports two different types of cocoa which are traded under the terms of “Hispaniola” and “Sanchez”. Both come from the same Trinitario cocoa plants. However, the manufacturing method, processing and in particular the fermentation are different.
The “Sanchez” variety represents the major part of the manufactured cocoa. This is only dried before being sold and is suitable for, e.g. production of cocoa butter.
Status “unconfirmed” of various companies
– One does not receive an answer from every company.
– Not every company answers honestly.
– Some people are more credible, others less so.
– One was already found guilty of lying in the past, but the other also in the present.
– Some information was leaked to me confidentially. Due to the partly very delicate situations, in which the informants were and still are, I had to and have to protect their identity and keep it secret.
– The transparency of a company, in particular the web presence, often the only source of information for the consumer, is also an indication of how trustworthy a company is.
– The definition of “Bean-to-Bar” differs; mine has, however been explained unambiguously to every reader.
– The definition of “Tree-to-Bar” differs; mine has, however been explained unambiguously to every reader.
– The definition of “Raw chocolate” differs; mine has, however been explained unambiguously to every reader.
All three stated definitions continue to remain relevant and in force for me.
Status change of companies
Various trustworthy sources have told me that Cacaosuyo produces its chocolates Bean-to-Bar.
New status: Bean-to-Bar
Various trustworthy sources told me that Guido Gobino produces his chocolates Bean-to-Bar. I’m actually also in contact with the company and they confirmed me the current status Bean-to-Bar.
New status: Bean-to-Bar
The statement communicated to me by a company employee that the filled chocolates are produced with bought-in couverture was most likely a miscommunication or a status no longer valid at the time of the book publication. I was credibly assured that Patrice Chapon produces all products with his own chocolate.
New status: Exclusively Bean-to-Bar
Thanks to Santiago Peralta, co-owner of the enterprise, I was able to visit the company’s factory.
I could see for myself that chocolate is produced Bean-to-Bar in this factory. I was also able to convince myself of the further processing of the chocolate, the production of the flavoured chocolate bars and other products.
All calculations of the capacities are plausible and transparent.
In theory, it is possible that Pacari manufactures all his products in this factory.
New status: Bean-to-Bar
RAW Chocolate & Pacari’s RAW Chocolate:
Ich have come to accept the fact that there is no consensus about RAW chocolate in the chocolate industry. Every manufacturer has his own definition and the consumer has to decide for himself, whether the offered transparency is adequate.
Pacari’s concept of minimally processed RAW chocolate has been around for many years and as long as he hasn’t given written warranties for any temperatures, there is nothing to criticise. His definition of „RAW“ chocolate is not the same as mine, however, I do respect it due to Pacari’s history (as I also respect other definitions in the meantime).
Page 581, Meyer (Timo Meyer)
Correct Website: www.chocolatier-meyer.com