The Accidental Hedonist's Guide to:




My Book



99 Drams of Whiskey:The Accidental Hedonist's Quest for the Perfect Shot and the History of the Drink


Communication

The Sophistication of Candy

07/30/10, by Kate Hopkins Email 3024 views • Categories: Chocolate, Candy, Candy Book

When returning from my overseas journeys, I make it a habit to bring back some souvenir or foodstuff from where I've been, and then share this bounty amongst friends and co-workers. It's no surprise that I brought back candy from the last trip, but what I didn't expect was the response to it. Several friends sought me out to mention that many of the candies brought them back to their childhood.

In the back of my mind, I thought back to the other recent trips to Europe, when various types of chocolate were brought back, and although the response was appreciative, no mention of childhood was made. This got me to thinking - what's the difference, culturally, between chocolate confection and sugar confection? What makes us think "I'm too old for Jolly Ranchers, but a box of chocolates is perfectly okay?"

It's an interesting question, I think, because the world of candy carries such a juvenile stigma to it, especially here in America, but it certainly occurs overseas as well.

My first thought is to blame the sugar confections themselves. After all, these aren't the most complex of consumables on the market. While a few sugar confections have ingredients that provide deep and interesting flavor characteristics (I'm looking at you, licorice), most sugar confections do nothing more than assault the taste buds with an excessive of flavors, whether it's sweetness from sugars, or sours from citric acids, or even savories from cinnamons and anise. When it comes to sugar confection, the word "subtle" is rarely used in descriptions.

Chocolate, on the other hand, is extraordinarily complex, with some estimates reaching as high as 800 different flavor profiles found within a finished piece of couverture.

But hang on a minute. There are plenty of chocolates which are perceived as juvenile, mostly low-end types. And here's the interesting bit. Point of a Hershey bar, and ask anyone "Is that a piece of candy?", you're likely to get an affirmative answer.

When one gets to the upper end chocolatiers, the vernacular begins to change. One is no longer looking at candy. Rather, people are looking longingly at truffles, bars, caramels, creams, and assortments. The language becomes more specific and with it comes the inference of sophistication. One thing that sophisticated items are not is juvenile.

This is really nothing more than a trick of our language. What you see being sold at these upscale chocolatiers and confectioners is candy. You know it, I know it, and children most certainly know it. You can take any product found at a high end chocolate shop and find a lower end variation of it that has been mass produced. The only difference between high end and low end is packaging (most certainly), production techniques (in some instances), quality of ingredients (in some instances), and mass produced chocolates have extra ingredients added to give their product a shelf life of a bajillion years (give or take).

What's amusing, to me at least, is that some of the more nefarious chocolate producers use packaging to presume an extraordinary value upon their product. Because higher-end confection has taken on the air of sophistication, and because those who find value in sophistication often aren't the same sort to understand the true cost of quality ingredients and production techniques, the chocolatiers have been able to push retail costs to absurd levels. The most famous of which is Noka Chocolates, who in 2006 were selling a 4-piece "Vintages Collection" in the "Signature Box" for $39. That's $9.75 per piece of chocolate. After Dallas Food embarrassed them with an in depth report, they lowered their prices by nearly half.

This doesn't even take into account the entire bean-to-bar question that many chocolatiers are afraid to answer, for fear of exposing the wizard behind the curtain. For the record, many chocolate shops that say they make their own chocolate, actually don't. But more on that at a a later date. The point here is that candy is candy, regardless of how one dresses it up.

Here's an interesting test that you can run if you wish. Head to your favorite chocolate store, and take mental note of the candies being sold. Then head to your favorite grocery or drug store that has its own large candy selection. Try to find a low-end product that is similar to a high-end one. You should be able to place over 90%. Leaving the question of quality aside, what is the difference between candy and confection? Nothing more than perception.


Comments, Pingbacks:

Comment from: steph [Visitor] Email · http://www.abacusandquill.com
One thing about the candy harkening back to childhood, is I think that some of us, at some point, stop eating candy but do not stop eating chocolate. It's like at some point, when deciding what we want, because we can have chocolate, we don't have those other things. So the chocolate doesn't remind us of the past because it's come from the past into the present.

Also, I seem to have some pretty strong associations: the filled strawberry candy my great grandmother had, the candy I only ever ate at Halloween, my father's favorite candies, etc.
PermalinkPermalink 07/30/10 @ 12:38
Comment from: Serene [Visitor] Email · http://www.momfoodproject.com
I don't like chocolate, but some of the candies of my childhood did contain it: Chunky bars, Heath bars, etc. Mostly, though, I remember the penny candies most fondly: wax bottles, button candies, Necco wafers...
PermalinkPermalink 07/30/10 @ 20:24
Comment from: Erik Deckers [Visitor] Email · http://laughing-stalk.blogspot.com
I'm trying to become a chocolate snob but not enough that I'll pay nearly $10 for a single piece. While I appreciate quality, I'm still cheap enough to expect to get a little more for my money. I'm trying to find the balance between price and enjoyment without sacrificing too much of either.
PermalinkPermalink 08/01/10 @ 11:08
Comment from: bkkguy [Visitor] Email
"Leaving the question of quality aside, what is the difference between candy and confection? Nothing more than perception."

if you are going to leave the question of quality aside then there is no point in comparing high quality and low quality products ... cheap candy and supermarket "chocolate" are cheap and nasty because of the "quality" ingredients, gorgeous confections and orgasmic chocolate are also so because of the "quality" ingredients
PermalinkPermalink 08/02/10 @ 06:57
Comment from: Kate Hopkins [Member] Email · http://www.accidentalhedonist.com
bkkguy,

I respectfully disagree. Bad Chocolate is still chocolate. Bad Candy is still candy. When a confection is made poorly, it doesn't cease to be a confection.
PermalinkPermalink 08/02/10 @ 07:42
Comment from: bkkguy [Visitor] Email
"Bad Chocolate is still chocolate" - I read recently (perhaps in one of your blog posts?) that if certain manufacturers had not got their way US fair trade laws would have forced them to call their products "chocolate like" rather than "chocolate" if minimum cocoa levels where not met - to me these low end products will never be "chocolate"

growing up in suburban Sydney "candy" for me was always boiled lollies and other cheap "treats" at the local store - gorgeous chocolate and real confectionery always meant a trip to a specialty shop in the city

living in Bangkok now I despair - the 7-11s and corner stores are full of junk but real chocolate and confectionery are just so expensive, but some of the local confections can be quite exquisite as well at reasonable prices!

I have only recently stumbled on your blog, but have been really enjoying it!

bkkguy
PermalinkPermalink 08/03/10 @ 06:41
Comment from: Kate Hopkins [Member] Email · http://www.accidentalhedonist.com
Trust me, I hate bad candy and bad chocolate as much as the next bloke. But you bring up a good point - for chocolate, at least there are standards. As you may know, Cadbury cannot legally call itself chocolate in the UK Europe any more because they effed around with their ingredient list so much.

Current ingredient list - Milk, Sugar Cocoa Mass, Cocoa Butter, Vegetable Fat, Emulsifiers (E442, E476), Flavourings.

But as Candy has no standard definition, it's left up to us (culturally) to claim what it is and is not.

Thanks for the kudos!
PermalinkPermalink 08/03/10 @ 07:22
Comment from: Harry [Visitor] Email · http://heracliteanfire.net
As you may know, Cadbury cannot legally call itself chocolate in the UK any more because they effed around with their ingredient list so much.


This is incorrect; in the UK they can and do call it chocolate. In the rest of the EU it has to be referred to as 'family milk chocolate', which was a compromise after 30 years of arguing within the EU about what chocolate should be like.

And as I understand it, it's not that they changed the ingredient list: British-style milk chocolate with less cocoa solids, more milk and vegetable fat in it has been made that way for many decades. I can't find the details for sure via Google, but I think the English have been making chocolate that way for nearly as long as chocolate bars have existed.

I personally don't like it much — too squishy — but it seems perfectly reasonable to think of it as an alternative style of chocolate, rather than something so degraded that it needs to be classified as a different product.
PermalinkPermalink 08/25/10 @ 08:45
Comment from: Kate Hopkins [Member] Email · http://www.accidentalhedonist.com
Harry,

Poh-TAY-to/ Poh-TAH-to. It's all a matter of perspective. While many in Britain know with all of their hearts that Cadbury's is chocolate, the standards (and more than a few chocolatiers) say otherwise. I'm not saying one person is right and another is wrong. I'm simply pointing out the discrepancy.
PermalinkPermalink 08/25/10 @ 10:02
Comment from: Harry [Visitor] Email · http://heracliteanfire.net
Some standards say that; others don't. Most to the point, the statement 'Cadbury cannot legally call itself chocolate in the UK any more' is straightforwardly false.
PermalinkPermalink 08/26/10 @ 01:35

Leave a comment:

Your email address will not be displayed on this site.
Your URL will be displayed.

Allowed XHTML tags: <p, ul, ol, li, dl, dt, dd, address, blockquote, ins, del, span, bdo, br, em, strong, dfn, code, samp, kdb, var, cite, abbr, acronym, q, sub, sup, tt, i, b, big, small>
(Line breaks become <br />)
(Set cookies for name, email and url)
(Allow users to contact you through a message form (your email will NOT be displayed.))
What color is a red balloon?