
Nestle finds new way to use cocoa leftovers to sweeten chocolate - atlasunshrugged
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-07-16/nestle-invents-new-way-to-make-chocolate-without-adding-sugar
======
antoncohen
Cacao pulp is delicious. It is interesting that we use the bitter seeds from
the fruit, and mostly throw out the tasty pulp. If you are in San Francisco
you can get cacao fruit smoothies from Dandelion Chocolate. I hope the pulp
starts showing up in more food products instead of going to waste.

~~~
technothrasher
Traditionally the pulp is left on the beans during fermentation to impart
flavor, and is basically used up in the process. It's mostly American style
chocolate that removes the pulp before fermentation and throws it away, in
order to... reduce flavor, I guess?

------
jeanlucas
Good side: nice, new ways to use that waste. Bad side: Nestlé.

~~~
atlasunshrugged
Serious question, why is it bad that it's Nestle?

~~~
mft_
I think the majority of the hatred for Nestlé comes from their aggressive
approach to selling baby formula in poor countries where (for various reasons)
it wasn't appropriate, which probably directly harmed children as a result.

However, according to this page, there are other reasons too:
[https://www.zmescience.com/science/nestle-company-
pollution-...](https://www.zmescience.com/science/nestle-company-pollution-
children/)

~~~
RobAley
"aggressive approach" \- their sales reps dressed as nurses and went into
hospitals. It goes a bit beyond "aggressive".

"probably directly harmed children" \- report after report from (respected)
NGOs and the WHO concluded babies died. No "probably", beyond "harmed".

~~~
mft_
Thanks for additional info. (I wasn't trying to downplay Nestle's crimes -
more just hedge due to my own lack of certainty about the situation.)

~~~
atlasunshrugged
Wow, just read through the link and did some more research on it quickly, this
is some crazy stuff. Thanks for sharing

------
55555
Have they really been throwing it away? The white 'fruit' is delicious... If
you ever see a cocoa tree, try it. It's like a fruit that tastes like
chocolate.

------
scotty79
Nestle found a way to add sugar to chocolate without saying it added sugar to
chocolate and even charge a premium for it.

~~~
toper-centage
It's not sugar! It's cocoa pulp Syrup!

------
twic
See also cascara, the dried fruit left over from producing coffee beans:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coffee_cherry_tea](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coffee_cherry_tea)

------
floatingatoll
Will this be required to be listed as “added sugars”?

(That it’s a component of cocoa beans doesn’t _necessarily_ mean it’s
permitted in chocolate as an unlisted component.)

------
yial
It would also be nice instead of just focusing on sugar, nestle focused on not
using child labor in their cocoa sourcing process.

[https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/business/hershe...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/business/hershey-
nestle-mars-chocolate-child-labor-west-africa/?utm_term=.78337193cd00)

~~~
vernie
Wow, what a poignant paywall.

------
mdorazio
As expected, this is pretty misleading.

“The food company is using a patented technique to turn the white pulp that
covers cocoa beans into a powder that naturally contains sugar.”

They’re not adding any _processed_ sugar, so they can make the “no added
sugar” claim. They’re still adding sugar via another method.

~~~
Finnucane
Yeah, it's unclear from the article what the product is actually going to be
composed of. 70% dark chocolate means basically 70% cocao and 30% sugar. Is it
still going to be 30% sugar? It might not be cane sugar, but it'll still be
sugar.

~~~
pteraspidomorph
That's really not true. Or at least in europe, 70% chocolate contains 70%
cocoa solids. The remaining 30% are mostly butter (cocoa butter or another
type of fat) and can contain sugar and milk.

~~~
arcticbull
At least in the US to be called chocolate it has to be cocoa butter. Chocolate
is an FDA regulated term. Hershey learned this lesson the hard way a few years
back as they tried to change over to vegetable oil, IIRC. [1] Apparently in
the UK it must be at least 20% cocoa solids.

[1]
[https://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/09/business/worldbusiness/09...](https://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/09/business/worldbusiness/09iht-
chocolate.1.7055816.html)

------
tekproxy
I remember in chemistry we learned the difference between ordinary, reagent
grade sucrose and the fancy, organic, fair trade, whole wheat, gluten free
sucrose. The fancy stuff was way better for you.

~~~
eesmith
How can sucrose be "whole wheat"? And why would reagent grade sucrose have
gluten in it? Sucrose usually comes from gluten-free sources, like sugar beets
and cane, yes?

~~~
gamblor956
It was a joke...Sucrose is sucrose regardless of the source.

~~~
eesmith
Looks like I'm being downvoted because I can't distinguish your humor from
your being misinformed by your teacher.

I thought it was a lesson that that "reagent grade" is different from "food
grade", Eq, [https://www.spectrumchemical.com/OA_HTML/chemical-
products_S...](https://www.spectrumchemical.com/OA_HTML/chemical-
products_Sucrose-
Ultrapure_S1697.jsp?minisite=10020&respid=22372&phrase=Sucrose%20Food%20Grade)
lists 99.9% purity, while commenting: "Sucrose, Ultrapure, also known as
sugar, is derived from cane sugar and used as a food sweetener. Ungraded
products supplied by Spectrum are indicative of a grade suitable for general
industrial use or research purposes _and typically are not suitable for human
consumption or therapeutic use._ "

(What is "reagent grade" for sucrose? Sigma-Aldrich's "ACS reagent grade"
sucrose is only promising ≥99% purity (see
[https://www.sigmaaldrich.com/catalog/substance/sucrose342305...](https://www.sigmaaldrich.com/catalog/substance/sucrose342305750111?lang=en&region=US)
).

So I figured there was some common lab impurity in sucrose that your teacher
was referring to, which you mistook for, or mis-remembered as gluten.

As you almost certainly know, "organic" and "fair trade" refer to farming and
labor practices, which is independent of the chemical content. The latter may
be better for your mental well-being, for those sensitive to humans subjected
to terrible employment practices.

~~~
gamblor956
I'm well aware of the differences between the different grades of sugar.
You're still not getting the OP's joke. Purities aside, all sucrose is just as
good or bad for you health-wise as any other sucrose.

As you almost certainly know, organic and fair trade refers to farming and
labor practices, which is independent of chemical content. This is why fair
trade sugar isn't any better for you than non-fair trade sugar. The substance
you're eating is the same.

~~~
eesmith
"Purities aside"? My objection - and confusion - is precisely because when you
buy "reagent grade sucrose", you don't actually buy 100% pure sucrose - you
buy "sucrose with a small amount of impurities." And the impurities that are
okay in a lab might not be healthy.

Yes, in retrospect I can see where the humor is supposed to be. But I think it
isn't a good joke, for reasons I've described.

