I love it, but I feel obligated to say
"It doesn’t make sense for chocolate bars to be divided into equal-sized chunks when there is so much inequality in the chocolate industry!
No, it makes sense. I understand, but it makes a lot more sense
This is for strictly mildly interesting material. If it's too interesting, it doesn't belong. If it's not interesting, it doesn't belong.
This is obviously an objective criteria, so the mods are always right. Or maybe mildly right? Ahh.. what do we know?
Just post some stuff and don't spam.
I love it, but I feel obligated to say
"It doesn’t make sense for chocolate bars to be divided into equal-sized chunks when there is so much inequality in the chocolate industry!
No, it makes sense. I understand, but it makes a lot more sense
It doesn’t make sense for cars to have 4 equal sized wheels when there is so much inequality in the auto industry.
Ok but this is a good way to raise awareness about the issue. Many people will pick these bars in the store without knowing much about the brand. Then when they eat it, they will probably wonder why it's divided like that and the explanation is right there on the inside of the wrapper.
I do like these bars but breaking it into pieces without a mess is difficult. I've had to resort to putting the entire thing in my mouth and waiting for it to melt down my throat.
I guess we'll just have to deal with slavery then
If only there was some middle ground between hard to eat chocolate and modern day slavery.
You break it while the packaging is intact
The geopolitical meta is strong here
Giggity
Too bad about all the lead in them. They're not as bad as some brands, though.
An ounce of their Dark Chocolate has 134% of the California MADL dose of 0.5 micrograms of lead, for those wondering about details.
micrograms, which is 1/1000 of a milligram. No amount of lead is considered safe, but you would need to eat allllottttttt of this chocolate before it would get to a level that, for example, a doctor would be concerned about. Ars Technica has a good write up about the CR report
Not that I’m trying to shill for Big Chocolate. When I saw the report, I definitely made a conscious effort to cut back to once a month or less.
Well shit
I know, right? It really sucks. They're honestly one of the tastier bars I'd had. I've taken a bit of a step back from chocolate in general, these days. I probably got enough lead exposure as a kid... no need to add any more than is absolutely unavoidable.
Otoh, it makes them sweeter
If it's good enough to collapse the Roman Empire, it's good enough to collapse the American Empire!
Maybe they should spend less money on a fancy mold for their chocolate and more on better sourced cocoa beans with less lead in them: https://www.consumerreports.org/health/food-safety/lead-and-cadmium-in-dark-chocolate-a8480295550/
There is absolutely no difference in price between the two - i.e. a "fancy" one like this and a regular one. Both will most likely be made by machining a block of graphite and using EDM to make the actual mold. The difference in machining time wouldn't cost more than $200 or so
Sure, gram for gram, Tony's has 34% more lead than California would like, but their chocolate is still sold in the state.
To add to what @[email protected] pointed out, the Mast bar is 70g for $8, while Tony's bar is 180g for $6.
Gram for gram, Mast is more than triple the price.
Quite succesful in the Netherlands.
In 2003, after discovering that the majority of chocolate produced at the time had links to human exploitation, Dutch television producer and journalist Teun van de Keuken began producing programs about the horrors of the commercial cocoa industry on his show Keuringsdienst van Waarde. Furthermore, he submitted a request to be prosecuted for knowingly purchasing an illegally manufactured product, which prosecutors declined to do.
After three years of unsuccessful attempts to change the industry through investigative efforts, Van de Keuken decided to start producing chocolate bars himself. The brand was called "Tony's Chocolonely" with "Tony" (= Teun) and "Chocolonely" in reference to Teun van de Keuken feeling as if he was the only person in the industry who was interested in eradicating slavery. Van de Keuken sold 20,000 bars in two days.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony%27s_Chocolonely https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teun_van_de_Keuken
Thanks for the advertisement?
Funny that they made their brand the biggest piece of all in the representation.
I'm reading it like they colonize Africa directly
"It's UNFAIR that all of these countries exist! All must bow before Tony's West African Company."
Some info, that's interesting and helps balance this blatant advertisement. Tony's was started by Dutch television maker Teun van der Keuken. He worked on a program that exposes products for their production methods and false marketing and so on. They stumbled onto the slavery that's part of the cacao industry. He asked to be arrested for eating chocolate, and in doing so enabling slave labor, but he wasn't. He started out Tony's Chocolonely to attempt to change the chocolate industry. He's not part of the company anymore. He has concluded the mission has failed, and is very critical of his former company, saying they've lost sight of the aim: slave-free chocolate.
If they paid the farmers more they could just make regular shaped chocolate
They literally do, and their chocolate is a little more expensive because of it
But they're not Hershey or Cadbury (whoever owns them, forget the name rn), or even close to them in size, so they can't just fix the industry all on their own
Cadbury (whoever owns them, forget the name rn),
Kraft, now called Mondelez
Also Mars is the largest confectionery brand
Fait point, but it's a statement about the industry as a whole, not their own production. Even if they were to distribute profits evenly over the entire production chain of their products (which I agree they probably don't), the industry as a whole would still have this problem.
Damn that's just an ad. There is no escape
First not sure why everyone is so sure this is an ad and not just OP likes this and the message.
I’ve contemplated posting about this chocolate, I guess we can’t call out companies we like and we just all shit on everything all the time.
Second, my friend called me out for paying £3.50 for a bar of this whenever we have a chocolate and film night when Cadbury is like £1.50. When I said it’s more ethically sourced he said I don’t care about that. 😞
The irregular pieces make it much easier to eat. You make a conscious decision how much you break off, instead of just getting another 4 squares.
Yes... haha.... conscious eating... haha...
Neato advertisement!
Products looks like shit.
It's also why I no longer buy it. It's a PITA to eat.