Well, that finally lost me at "white chocolate isn't worthy of the name chocolate". I've had some amazing white chocolate, at the kind of restaurants this guy might even lower himself to...
Well, that finally lost me at "white chocolate isn't worthy of the name chocolate". I've had some amazing white chocolate, at the kind of restaurants this guy might even lower himself to patronising (ie, multiple Michelin starred).
I also read his knife porn article, which was equally pompous and condescending. But I know slightly more about knives than I do about chocolate, and it confirmed that he really doesn't know as much as he clearly thinks he does. I'd characterise the knife article as about 90% utter nonsense and I think it's probably safe to assume the chocolate article is similar.
I really hate this 80s-style, Marco Pierre White-like "I know so much better than you plebs" kind of attitude among a certain type of food person. High end chocolate is a great thing, but so is (relatively) cheap chocolate. You don't need to shit on 95% of something just because the top 5% is better.
It's made in similar shapes as chocolate, it's used similarly, it's sold similarly and generally is accepted as chocolate. Being pedantic doesn't add anything here.
It's made in similar shapes as chocolate, it's used similarly, it's sold similarly and generally is accepted as chocolate. Being pedantic doesn't add anything here.
And the annual shaping of butter into a cow or a skyscraper doesn't make the butter cows or skyscrapers. It's not pedantry, it's correct classification instead of marketing. Denying the truth...
And the annual shaping of butter into a cow or a skyscraper doesn't make the butter cows or skyscrapers. It's not pedantry, it's correct classification instead of marketing. Denying the truth because it doesn't fit your preferred view adds nothing.
Technically you might be correct (you might not, it does depend how you define 'chocolate') but that's not what Siegel is saying in this instance. The exact quote is "White chocolate and milk...
Technically you might be correct (you might not, it does depend how you define 'chocolate') but that's not what Siegel is saying in this instance. The exact quote is "White chocolate and milk chocolate are not worthy of the name chocolate. They are grocery-store candy."
He's not interested in what 'chocolate' exactly means in a technical sense when he writes this, he's demonstrating how superior his palate is to us savages who dare to enjoy his precious chocolate in some form other than the one he has decided is the definitive one.
It turns out enjoying white chocolate is a very regional thing. Canada has the lowest consumption of white chocolate as a percentage of total chocolate [1]. Quizzing my friends, I found a lot of...
It turns out enjoying white chocolate is a very regional thing. Canada has the lowest consumption of white chocolate as a percentage of total chocolate [1]. Quizzing my friends, I found a lot of Canadians share the sentiment that white chocolate isn't chocolate. This site seems to have a disproportionately large number of Canadian users, and I'm guessing that's a part of why your comment is so highly voted.
That's actually one of the reasons I really like the Epicurious Price Points videos. Very few of the experts they have on disparage the cheaper products, and many often even go out of their way to...
You don't need to shit on 95% of something just because the top 5% is better.
That's actually one of the reasons I really like the Epicurious Price Points videos. Very few of the experts they have on disparage the cheaper products, and many often even go out of their way to specifically recommend them over the expensive ones for certain uses.
Wow, that guy is really heavy on the opinions. It really adds to my appreciation of the world to know that basically all chocolate is trash and marketing, and that almost all consumers are...
Wow, that guy is really heavy on the opinions. It really adds to my appreciation of the world to know that basically all chocolate is trash and marketing, and that almost all consumers are ignorant fools.
I think it's true that there's a lot of food we buy that we don't know much about, chocolate included. We're going on faith in marketing claims we haven't investigated. It's good to realize that....
I think it's true that there's a lot of food we buy that we don't know much about, chocolate included. We're going on faith in marketing claims we haven't investigated. It's good to realize that.
But my conclusion isn't that I need to get picky about the chocolate I buy. It's that I shouldn't bother paying a lot for chocolate. Cultivating expensive tastes isn't something I find particularly valuable.
Connoisseur chocolate is generally made with a mix of Criollo “flavor” beans and the other “bulk” beans. They never say what the blend is. Even if it says “single origin” it has a mix of species in the farm. Only if the bar says “porcelana” is it more than 50 percent white bean. I’ve never heard of a 100 percent white-bean bar.
Well, that finally lost me at "white chocolate isn't worthy of the name chocolate". I've had some amazing white chocolate, at the kind of restaurants this guy might even lower himself to patronising (ie, multiple Michelin starred).
I also read his knife porn article, which was equally pompous and condescending. But I know slightly more about knives than I do about chocolate, and it confirmed that he really doesn't know as much as he clearly thinks he does. I'd characterise the knife article as about 90% utter nonsense and I think it's probably safe to assume the chocolate article is similar.
I really hate this 80s-style, Marco Pierre White-like "I know so much better than you plebs" kind of attitude among a certain type of food person. High end chocolate is a great thing, but so is (relatively) cheap chocolate. You don't need to shit on 95% of something just because the top 5% is better.
White chocolate isn't chocolate though, as it's comprised of the fat component of cocoa only. Tallow isn't beef. Lard isn't pork. Cream isn't milk.
It's made in similar shapes as chocolate, it's used similarly, it's sold similarly and generally is accepted as chocolate. Being pedantic doesn't add anything here.
And the annual shaping of butter into a cow or a skyscraper doesn't make the butter cows or skyscrapers. It's not pedantry, it's correct classification instead of marketing. Denying the truth because it doesn't fit your preferred view adds nothing.
Technically you might be correct (you might not, it does depend how you define 'chocolate') but that's not what Siegel is saying in this instance. The exact quote is "White chocolate and milk chocolate are not worthy of the name chocolate. They are grocery-store candy."
He's not interested in what 'chocolate' exactly means in a technical sense when he writes this, he's demonstrating how superior his palate is to us savages who dare to enjoy his precious chocolate in some form other than the one he has decided is the definitive one.
It turns out enjoying white chocolate is a very regional thing. Canada has the lowest consumption of white chocolate as a percentage of total chocolate [1]. Quizzing my friends, I found a lot of Canadians share the sentiment that white chocolate isn't chocolate. This site seems to have a disproportionately large number of Canadian users, and I'm guessing that's a part of why your comment is so highly voted.
[1] - https://qz.com/175432/charts-where-in-the-world-people-actually-like-white-chocolate/
That's actually one of the reasons I really like the Epicurious Price Points videos. Very few of the experts they have on disparage the cheaper products, and many often even go out of their way to specifically recommend them over the expensive ones for certain uses.
Wow, that guy is really heavy on the opinions. It really adds to my appreciation of the world to know that basically all chocolate is trash and marketing, and that almost all consumers are ignorant fools.
I think it's true that there's a lot of food we buy that we don't know much about, chocolate included. We're going on faith in marketing claims we haven't investigated. It's good to realize that.
But my conclusion isn't that I need to get picky about the chocolate I buy. It's that I shouldn't bother paying a lot for chocolate. Cultivating expensive tastes isn't something I find particularly valuable.
From the article: