BUTTERMILK

Giving final exams today, and one of the students was wearing a t-shirt that said simply "BUTTER" across the chest. She's fairly well-endowed, so I wondered if she'd been jogging.

HAwkee--Did you even read that Vanity Fair rticle? They mentioned that ENglish Cdbury was being controlled by the US Food an Drug. It seems that their "milk Chocolate" needs to contain actual milk. So the "mouth feel" is actually accomplished by something like Cannola Oil.

MMMM.
When you pull the naturl oil out of the product in order to gain "Shelf life" you have a problem in theFDA " Truth in Advertising"

Consequently Hershey does have to probably add more emulsifiers because of the water based sour milk and the cocoa oil.
Whereas Cadbury has mostly cannola(?) (I assume not olive oil since they are apparently just trying to make a market statement by asserting that it enhances the flavor of the chocolate.

I cant figure out what Vanity Fair is trying to be. They have these good articles but are loaded with SCratch and Sniff ads and ladies only products. Itd be like reading a copy of Cosmo on the subway so the world can see that Im quite concerned about ENHANCING MY ORGASMS WITH BROCCOLLI.

I have an acquaintence who writes for VF and even shes embarrassed at its business model

most pf the choco makers in the world (Cadbury, Hershey, MArs etc) merely "Melt their feedstock" Most Belgian chocolateers actually screw with the chocolate . I actually dont like chocolate that much but was really impressed with the chocolate made in Belgium . Each maker had a signature taste that was done by different roasting, etc.

I don't read Vanity Fair, but Cadbury's chocolate has gone down in quality since they were taken over by Kraft.

"Butters" is a character in a US potty mouth cartoon

Yeah, I used to be into South Park big time, but not so much these days.

Love Hotel Chocolat stuff.

Regarding the earlier "candy" mentions, I think it's just another across the pond difference.
We rarely use the word 'candy', and that word, when I hear it, immediately conjures up visions of all those sweets at the really sugary sweet end of the scale, that are mostly consumed by school age kids who have the "sweet tooth" of youth.
Over here we tend to refer to most of that crap end of the scale as sweets, or sweeties if we are talking to the very young.
Chocolate very rarely gets lumped in with that 'candy' crap end of the sugary things we call sweets.

As far as people regarding our Milk Chocolate type of chocolate as something that shouldn't be called chocolate at all, then I would say that is their problem, as one of the supposedly finest producers of chocolate in the world, Lindt, comes out with this.....



and calls it Chocolate.


Take all the varieties of coffee that is now available. Most of them have many other ingredients included, but still get called coffee.

After all, one doesn't suggest meeting up with a friend for a cup of light brown, hot, foamy beverage, topped with flavourings, surely.

White chocolate? That's cocoa butter. Rub it on your skin, but don't eat the stuff.

Cadbury's milk chocolate did contain milk, (at least it did before Kraft took it over) the adverts said a glass and a half in every half pound. Admittedly a glass is not a standard measure, but they still had to put some milk in or they would have been done by the regulators.

We don't use candy unless immediately followed by the word crush. Chocolate melts in your hand, carry a segment of chocolate orange in your hand and it will melt. Other sweets go sticky and disfigured, but they don't melt.

Percentages of coco solids are just each individual country's take. Remember when the EEC (as was) tried to stop us calling chocolate chocolate back in the 80s? Didn't work.

Now you're talking. Don't forget the Swiss and their chocolates. At some poi t, I'll be visiting Switzerland. There's a place that calls my tastebuds. As does Belgium for it's beer AND chocolate. Wonder if either of them does buttermilk? Is it in their cultural tastebuds?

Shudder. The Kraft Faux Parmesan in the green shaker can. It's been decades since I'd consider buying it.

My vote re favorite is for belgian chocolate, which I've tried in a few shops in California and one wonderful one in Parma - but I'm not past liking ordinary stuff . Mostly I'm a fan of savory foods rather than sweet, so I don't buy much of anything except baking cocoa, so called.

Six ways that Kraft has trashed Cadbury.

6 ways Cadbury has been trashed
As Cadbury changes the chocolate on the outside of its Creme Eggs, we look at how its US owner, Mondelez, has changed some of the most famous Cadbury products and traditions – often for the worse.


The American takeover of Cadbury in 2010 was very controversial. Many British commentators argued that the £11.5 billion acquisition by Kraft, the world's second biggest food company, would see the famous UK brand be devalued. Within weeks Kraft had closed a factory, despite promises during the deal that it would keep it open.

But it is not just the factories Kraft has meddled with. The US owner is now called Mondelez – the confectionery business of Kraft was split out into a separate company in 2012. And it has tinkered with recipes, packaging and traditions. Not to everyone's taste.
Here are six of the more controversial changes:

1. Changing the chocolate on the Cadbury Creme Egg
To many, the Creme Egg is 177kcal of pure gloopy grossness, containing palm fat and paprika colouring. But to lovers of this strange Easter treat, invented in 1971, it is a (large) mouthful of gooey joy. And should not be messed with.

Cadbury today has confirmed it has replaced the hugely popular Cadbury's Dairy Milk shell with one made from a standard cocoa mix chocolate.
A spokesman told the Sun newspaper: "It's no longer Dairy Milk. It's similar, but not exactly Dairy Milk. We tested the new one with consumers. It was found to be the best one for the crème egg, which is why we've used it this year.
He told the Telegraph: "The fundamentals of the Cadbury crème egg remain exactly the same."

2. Axing chocolate coins
Well, they might just have well shot Santa and cancelled Christmas. The Telegraph broke the shattering news that Cadbury was no longer going to make chocolate coins. The company argued that it was not very profitable part of their business – afterall, supermarkets and even pound shops sell their own (cheaper) versions. But many consumers love the taste of Dairy Milk, an idea that Mondelez finds hard to grasp sometimes. These fans wanted Cadbury coins, not Tesco or Marks and Spencer ones.

3.Rounding the corners on a Dairy Milk
Dairy Milk chocolate is a bar. It has chunks, you snap off those chunks, you pop those chunks in your mouth. Yum.
It is a formula that has served confectionery companies for decades and Cadbury since 1905. But Mondelez just couldn't stop themselves from fiddling with Cadbury's most famous product. They "rounded" the corners to improve the "mouth feel" of the chocolate. A spokesman said: "This undoubtedly helps improve the melt-in-the-mouth experience and feedback from consumers has been extremely positive."
He failed to add that the new bars were shrunk from 49g to 45g. The price was not shrunk.

4. Putting Cadbury in Philadelphia cream cheese
No, no, no. When Kraft took over, how we all joked about how they'd put chocolate in cheese. It turns out, it was no joke. You can now buy Cadbury Philadelphia. The company describes it as an "irresistible spread for toast or bagels and a dreamy dip for fruit or oatey biscuits". It isn't. It is a low-rent, cheesy version of Nutella. Next stop, Crunchie Dairy Lea. Possibly.

5. Ditching the Bournville chocolate from the Heroes tub
Could there be a clearer sign that Cadbury is now a poor relation in the Mondelez empire? Back in 2013, the parent company altered what went into a tub of Heroes, a selection box that highlights its key chocolate bars. It ditched Bournville – not only one of its oldest brands, but one that pays homage to the great Birmingham home of Cadbury – in favour of Toblerone, one of the Kraft brands. And Swiss, to boot.
At the time Angus Kennedy, editor of Kennedy’s Confection magazine, told the Daily Mail: "To replace Bourneville with Toblerone is unpatriotic. It’s like replacing the fish in fish and chips with mussels."
A spokesman for Mondelez insisted Toblerone was only a "guest" during Christmas. But the Bournville bar is still missing.

6. Axing Christmas chocolate gift to pensioners
One of the perks of working for Cadbury, one of the great Victorian firms set up by Quakers, was that you were looked after in retirement. Long-term former employees were given a gift of chocolates at Christmas. Not much, admittedly, but a small recognition of their years of service. Up to 14,000 would get these parcels.
Mondelez scrapped the gifts, claiming it needed the money to help plug the company's pension black hole.
One pensioner, Ray Woods, who worked at the Bournville factory in Birmingham for 36 years until 2004, said: "The cost of this cutback is peanuts. To link it with plugging the gap in the deficit in the pension fund is laughable.
"(The parcels were) a way of somebody taking the trouble to say 'you worked for Cadbury for a long time.'
"It's tinged with sadness for me, and I think that a lot of people will think the same way.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/foodanddrink/foodanddrinknews/11339559/6-ways-Cadbury-has-been-trashed.html

Its only bi'zness, nuthin personal.

Why doesnt somebody take the old recipes and restart a "cadberry" chcolateering .
OR, was the reason Cadbury was sold off because nobody wanted it?

'Death by chocolate' plot to kill Sir Winston Churchill
My emphasis, because since ages I buy my chocolates (and bisquits, cakes) at the factory sales of >Peters<.

Well, until they closed their Café, manufacture and shop in the town, I bought it there

I think competition is doing/did them in. Look at how much Lindt, as a prime example, exploded in NA without reducing their quality one iota. They even had Lindt storefronts here in the east coast US. I don't think that Cadbury could handle that sort of competition.

I found an interesting article about Cadbury vs Lindt:

"The Swiss are known for manufacturing brands of exceptional quality, from watches, to engineering products, to pharmaceuticals, to chocolates. Yet, we would hardly call the Swiss dynamic as an overall descriptor – they are not China. Despite this, of the most significant icons of brand philosophy over the last years have come from countries like Switzerland and Austria (i.e. Red Bull and Swarovski). Whilst Nestle is Swiss, the Swiss seems to focus on smaller, niche markets, where exceptional craftsmanship is in demand. Where consumers make an anti-mass statement.

Yet, with the emergence of the new economies like China, India, Africa and Latin America, niche is becoming the new mass.

None of the Swiss brands I am aware of is not totally dedicated to manufacturing excellence. It is in the DNA of the Swiss.

Lindt is good example of that, on a level that is fairly accessible to all. Not everyone can afford an IWC watch, yet many people can afford a slab of chocolate or a Linder ball. Lindt did this with exceptional chocolates, creating itself as a global industry leader. They also did it in the way they now package and sell their brand. They have also expanded their distribution, clearly indicating that they no longer choose to remain a niche brand.

The British are known as the parents of the industrial age. They exported this to the world. The UK exported brands even before the advent of American global brands: just their global presence as a colonizing nation, made many of their brands household names from countries as wide apart as Australia and India. Yet today their manufacturing is under siege. The most iconic British brands have been sold to global players from as wide as India and the US. Authentic British brands like Burberry produces most of its product outside of the UK. Whereas the UK may still have exceptional design talents, its ability to translate that into global brands has taken a serious knock.

This leaves us with a tale of two slab brands: both signify a branding approach that is different. The one - Cadbury - was sold to Kraft two years ago, signifying a further blow to British manufacturing. On the other hand, a brand like Lindt has globalised more widely than ever before. It has become a household name in many places around the world.

Is this symbolic of the fact that the instruments of integrity, true craftsmanship, innovation and creativity are the key drivers of brand value and desirability today?

Is Lindt more in sync with the emergence of the new economies – and the increased buying power from these economies?

I believe it is.

The desire of consumers from emerging economies to become global citizens - to be seen as worthy and sophisticated consumers is echoed in the growth of luxury brands in all emerging economies - at the expense of purely utilitarian brands. Lindt is in sync with what is happening with global trends. Cadbury is not.

Let us explore these two brands visually - that to me signifies the way in which a brand should be managed, juxtaposed against the way it should not be done.

Whilst Cadbury is traditional, wholesome, homely, family oriented, accessible, chunky - almost old fashioned; Lindt is thin, modern, sophisticated, special and luxurious."

Lindt chocolates are sold in nearly all university cafeterias in Germany. (500gram for about 7 Euros.)

My point being that they're far more pervasive here in US and Na over the last decade than ever. Whereas, Cadbury presence is shrinking but more importantly to us a chocla-holics, their quality level has dropped off.

I noticed that. (We've the largest Lindt factory here in Germany, several smaller ones and their famous chocolate museum in Cologne)
Edit: I've just looked it up: nearly 90% of the internationally sold Lindt chocolates are produced in Germany (Aachen/Aix-la-Chapelle) [Source: Lindt & Sprüngli Annual Report 2013, published 2014]