I think it used to say "as little slavery as possible" or something like that but I don't see that written out anymore, just implied.
From the inside of one I just opened:
Also
lead by example
mfw
I think it used to say "as little slavery as possible" or something like that but I don't see that written out anymore, just implied.
From the inside of one I just opened:
Also
lead by example
mfw
It used to say "slave free" (yes, without a hyphen because apparently they know better than 4 translators) but now it says they try to be as slave free as possible.
It actually doesn't even say that anymore, it's even more vague now. Thats what I was trying to show with the picture
That consumer reports link. YIKES!
He does a great job but it's all USA focused content
I love Tony's, but they're also reportedly higher in lead content than other brands.
https://www.consumerreports.org/...
Valrhona is a solid non-American brand pick from the list of safer chocolate and they're B-Corp certified. I believe their parents company is French.
When it comes to chocolate you're often forced to pick your poison, so to speak.
This is for dark chocolate only, and the article has them listed as one of the lowest lead brands. Crazy that they're all so high though, WTF!
A fair point! Didn't even occur to me since I only bother with the dark stuff lol
They're the lowest listed of the "high lead content" category. So kind of the best of the worst for it, I suppose.
TIL chocolate can have lead...jfc
I love Tony’s, but they’re also reportedly higher in lead content than other brands.
Yes, that is because cocoa plants absorb heavy metals from the soil. Tony probably has a higher lead content because they simply use more cocoa. That's something you can also see if you compare dark chocolate with milk chocolate - dark chocolate will have more lead because more cocoa is used.
The amount of lead is also not a biggie - you'd have to eat such an insane amount of chocolate that you'd die of the sugar intake WAY earlier than from the lead exposure.
1: It's thought to be contamination from the manufacturing and shipping process, as far as I know.
2: There is no safe level of lead intake, and it's not about lethal dosage. The numbers used are California's extra-paranoid metrics however. That doesn't make them wrong, just be aware that you're being poisoned in so many other ways as well you might as well have some chocolate now and again, it probably won't be the thing that gives you Alzheimer's. But it might! You'll never know! Or remember...
3: Tony's is still better because all the others are just as bad but with slavery.
I mean, their 70% cocoa clocks in at 134% the mentiomed safe limit while the 80% cocoa from mast is at 14% (both reportedly for 1 oz of chocolate) according to the previously linked data. If the main determinant was the amount of cocoa, than I would have expected 80% to be higher.
Of course a company could be lying about the cocoa %, or using some type of filler, etc. But it seems plausible that there might be other causes. For example, perhaps some cocoa plantation locations have more lead in their soil, etc.
Tony's did actually respond to CR, claiming these are not food safety standards. They did not appear to mention why their chocolate had any different levels of lead than other companies, just that leaf is absorbed from the soil.
I doubt anyone is getting lead poisoning exclusively from eating chocolate, but it's accumulative in the human body and worth being aware of.
It's most likely from the surrounding environment, and pollution from cars. Countries with shitty regulations are cheap to hire from and their crops are cheaper. The downside? You get lead in your food.
In the UK, B labs certifies companies they meet their requirements for social responsibility, environmental stuff etc. I don't know the details but the companies I've seen that have B corp status seem to care about doing nice stuff, so I consider it a plus.
Well there's your problem, in the Netherlands (and other places) Hershey milk 'chocolate' isn't legally chocolate. It needs at least 35% cacao to be called chocolate. It would be called 'Cacao fantasy' here instead. So no wonder you think it's shit chocolate, cause it isn't chocolate to begin with
Hershey's chocolate has butyric acid, which is also found in vomit. The acid is allegedly a byproduct, but it helps stabilize the chocolate and prevent it from melting. https://www.huffpost.com/...
I don't know if it's an urban legend, but the story I had always heard was that chocolate became very scarce during the war, as milk was rationed, but Hershey's figured out how to make decent tasting chocolate from spoiled milk, which was easier to get since no one wanted it. The war went on long enough that Americans eventually expected chocolate to taste like that, so after it ended they reformulated to keep the signature taste while using fresh milk.
Butyric acid is a natural ingredient of milk. Surprisingly, in small amounts it creates a creamy sensation. It is used for that purpose in many natural and synthetic flavourings.
The problem with American milk chocolate is the way they produce milk powder - their method increases butyric acid content turning creamy sensation into vomit.
No, it's because there's some biproduct to how they process the chocolate that I think tastes bad to people who didn't grow up eating it. As an American, I think I can taste the slightly sour note in Hershey's that I don't taste in other chocolates but my brain has had enough exposure to it that it doesn't taste vomit-y so I don't mind it (lol.) Don't get me wrong, it's not good quality by any means but to me it's like the difference getting a burger from McDonald's vs at a nice restaurant. Not often, but there's time and place where getting McDonald's fucking hits.
@half_fiction @TTH4P the theory is it's butyric acid (in the UK everyone thinks Hershey's tastes like vomit too and lots of our milk chocolate is quite low cocoa content) https://www.huffpost.com/...
I didn't know I liked milk chocolate, because Hershey's is disgusting.
Hershey's is someone LARPing chocolate making. It's pure disgusting. How people have been eating it for so long is beyond me.
The lies your government have fed you since you were a child are hard to forget. But join us, in the real chocolate world, my child, and we will embrace you with open arms.
My cat's sick is a better tasting product than Hershey's
It basically is. Back in 2005, when inspecting cocoa plantations used for example by Nestlé, they found six-year-olds bought as slaves climbing the trees with baskets and harvesting cocoa using machete-like big knives that regularly caused the children to lose their hands or arms, in which case the child was thrown away and a new one was bought to replace it. Children were observed with scars in their shoulders half a centimetre (about ¼ inch) deep from carrying heavy baskets attached to their shoulders by ropes.
To my knowledge, this has not changed in the last 20 years, except that nowadays there are quite many slavery-free chocolates available, so the number of those plantations has probably decreased?
Chocolate comes from slaves, and the slaves are essentially hunted.
Aside from the activism stuff, Tonys just tastes how good chocolate should taste.
I mean there is also a big difference between American brands in the US and the EU. Last time I went to the US, I brought back snickers, Twix, and KitKats. Then I bought the EU alternative and set up a double blinded taste test with my friends.
Without fail we all immediately were able to tell them apart. The American version was chalky and tasted like pure sugar. The EU version, albeit also nowhere near Tony quality and still very sweet, was much higher quality and you could taste the individual components of the candy. It was not just a sweet punch in the face.
I worked in a Nabisco factory a decade ago in the US making Oreo.
They've consistently looked for cost cutting measures to reduce the amount of cocoa powder (expensive input) put into the product. What happened when I was there was they would look for a new vendor that would offer stronger cocoa flavor profile per kg and then use that as a justification to cut the amount of cocoa powder in the product. To mask it they would amp up the sweetness.
In a blind test, a normal people can't tell the difference year to year, but if you compare it to what it was ten years ago, there would be a noticeable difference.
I was just joking around ;)
(But what one can say is that there is a problematic practice in that whole industry since they all ship cocoa to other continents to combine it with so much more stuff to make chocolate. I'd love to buy fully African-produced chocolate, but it simply doesn't exist)
I love Tony's as much as the next guy. However, be aware that a test conducted in 2022 found high levels of lead in Chocolonely Dark Chocolate variant.
Consistent, long-term exposure to even small amounts of heavy metals can lead to a variety of health problems. The danger is greatest for pregnant people and young children because the metals can cause developmental problems, affect brain development, and lead to lower IQ, says Tunde Akinleye, the CR food safety researcher who led this testing project.
Everyone should watch John Oliver’s Chocolate episode (as much as is preferred not to link YouTube). Tony’s is discussed, and it seems more ethical than most. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FwHMDjc7qJ8
Edit: updated comment to better reflect coverage.
That short segment about Tony seems relatively positve.
I discovered Tony's Chocoloney a few months ago, and I really love it. I can get it at my local supermarket as well. Great to see them on here!
Also available in Finland in some grocery stores.
I didn't downvote but I will add a note to Tony's.
First of all: I applaud their mission and every company in the world should be working without slavery of any kind.
Because Tony's is so open about their sourcing and making a big deal about being 100% slave free, they are an easy target for organizations checking their claims. There have been a couple of moments in time where Tony's has been challenged, the most recent one being 2021, where they have been removed from the list of ethical chocolate companies by the American company Slave Free Chocolate, because they collaborated with Barry Callebaut.
Now, to expand on 'collaboration', here: Tony's buys their cocoa very transparently, from farmers who do not employ children, paid or otherwise. Then, to process this cocoa they need an efficient factory and they use one in Antwerp, Belgium. This factory also processes the cocoa from Barry Callebaut.
Tony's doesn't really care, of course, about being taken off the list by this company. They know they are ethical enough by their own measure, which is still leagues ahead of most.
The point here being that one might read one headline or the other, refuse to go into any depth and form their opinion. Now any time they read Tony's all they remember is 'they are not as holy as they make themselves out to be'. Hence they'll just downvote this any time they glance over it.
Or it might be Big Chocolate, idk.
The chocolate just doesn't taste the same if it's not seasoned with the tears of child-slaves. /s
There are people against seeing any brands on social media unless it's an exposé. I don't fault them.
I
Tony's is great and tastes awesome, but the real question here is, are we european really eating that much non-EU sweets? Maybe the occasional Snickers or Mars, but all the stuff that I tasted and was from across the pond was either brutally sweet or had no flavor at all.
As always, I appreciate you and the content you post. I hope you're doing well :)
I'd love to have some Tony's Chocolonely. Unfortunately, I have such a severe gluten intolerance that their cross contaminated factory produces Russian Roulette bars for me.
Even though most of their bars don't actually contain gluten based ingredients, the fact they use one big production facility that sprinkles gluten all over the place for shits and giggles ensures I will never be able to safely consume their products.
I'll stick to G'woon chocolate. They at least produce their non-glutened bars in a safe environment.
(And yes I've tried Tony's bars in the past, always resulting in issues because of it.)
As an American this is also what I buy. Good stuff. Support them 💪
They are soooooo good!
No, they aren't Have you tried quality chocolate? Not Chocomelk, Milka, or store brands
I don't see Milka as quality, more Fondente Nero by Novi, or better, Venchi. But that doesn't imply Tony's are bad, I tried a variety pack last time, I enjoyed 90% of them (I'm not into too sweet)
@fxomt found it in my local supermarket too
@fxomt yep
Contrary to conservative beliefs, food made of child slavery doesn't taste more delicious.
/j...?
...honestly, I wouldn't put it past rich bastards like Musk getting off on their food, due to it being seasoned with suffering.
I keep seeing the bars around and I’m very tempted to try it, but I’m allergic lmao. It’ll probably be a lot better than sneaking a Hershey’s though.
Maybe one day they’ll make a carob one.
Yeah Tastes terribly tho
Konditorei Haag (Austria)
Marou (Vietnam)
Solkiki (UK)
Friis Holm (Denmark)
Fjåk (Norway)
Krak (Netherlands)
Feitoria do Cacao (Portugal)
Willie's Cacao (UK/Denmark)
Rózsavölgyi Csokoládé (Hungary)
Solstice Chocolate (US)
zotter Schokolade (Austria)
Alter Eco (France)
zotter, Solkiki are specifically mentioned on https://www.slavefreechocolate.org/...
Check out https://chocoladeverkopers.nl/ - they can ship even to the US
So many people sing its praises but it's a swing and a miss for me too. Tastes like rando grocery store trader Joe's type chocolate to me.
i am definitely going to read this entire comment thread and all its tributaries until i get bored and forget, but also fuck the dutch. fucking badass dike builders when it's feeling kinda sexy for them
edit fuck the tariffs for fucks sake
I knew there was truth to it, but I was too lazy to post sources of studies, etc. and wanted to raise my concerns for anyone else to do their own research on, if they cared to. Thankfully, someone else gave a better response than I did regarding the topic, so I'll give that a read to refresh my memory.
Yes, Consumer Reports did find that Tony’s dark bar had higher levels of lead than some other bars.
To determine the risk posed by the chocolates in CR’s test, we used California's maximum allowable dose level (MADL) for lead (0.5 micrograms) and cadmium (4.1mcg).
Per that metric, Tony's Chocolonely Dark 70% was found to have a 134% dose of lead per ounce. Tony’s has disputed the validity of those metrics.
Cacao naturally contains heavy metals, so every chocolate product contains them as well. Some cacao contains more than others. And dark chocolate contains more cacao than milk chocolate, so it contains more heavy metals as well.
This is what Tony’s says on the topic: https://tonyschocolonely.com/...
Yikes. It's garbage quality chocolate.
Please elaborate otherwise you’re just coming off as a contrarian that dislikes everything popular.
Have lived in Switzerland for 8 years. I know how good chocolate tastes. I have seen the light.
thanks for using Leebra!
go to feed...
I was under the impression that Tony’s is working towards a chocolate industry without child labor and forced labor. But the issue is quite complex and they’re not there yet.
Not saying they’re bad. It seems that they’re doing what they can and according to their website they “lead by example”. But I’m not sure if they make any promises about a 100% child labor / forced labor free supply chain at this moment.
The above could be outdated, maybe they’ve achieved their objectives for their own supply chain already. But I can’t find it on their website atm.
save