Valrhona "Chuao" (was Criollo cocoa powder?)
at Mon, 26 Apr 2004 22:25:55 GMT in >,
(Blake Jones) wrote :
>In article >, Alex Rast wrote:
>> It really does seem as though Valrhona's isn't the real deal. The
>> Chuaos from Bonnat, Amedei, and Pralus are sufficiently similar, and
>> have sufficient amount of the Chuao "signature" for me to believe
>> they're genuine. But Valrhona's is entirely different, so much so that
>> I'm not entirely confident they're giving us the whole truth with
>> their "Chuao" moniker.
>
>I did a bit of reading about this, and it seems like there really is
>something fishy going on. From what I've found, Amedei has the
>exclusive rights to the beans from the Chuao plantation, and they have
>plenty of reason not to want to share with Valrhona...
It's really hard to know who to believe, because all the reports are
garbled and come from sources with vested interests. It's clear as you say
that something fishy is going on but who isn't telling the whole truth is
very difficult to figure out. Don't forget that there's nothing to stop a
company with an exclusive source from reselling what they buy to third
parties. If Amedei does indeed have an exclusive contract, they could in
theory resell the cocoa they didn't use to any company they chose. For
instance, Pralus and Bonnat might be buying from them. It seems unlikely
that Valrhona would be able to buy any after snubbing Amedei, but business
is business, and perhaps for the right price, anything can be had. Then
again, Italians are Italians... (couldn't resist).
It's all immaterial, though, because ultimately what counts is the quality
of the chocolate. And in that respect, Amedei (at least IMHO) is the clear
winner. So as far as I'm concerned, it would be just as well if Amedei did
have an exclusive arrangement, and I'll continue to buy Amedei, and not
Valrhona, not because I have any misgivings over the labelling, but because
the chocolate is better.
--
Alex Rast
(remove d., .7, not, and .NOSPAM to reply)
|