at Wed, 13 Jul 2005 01:28:51 GMT in <1121218131.761788.196780
@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, wrote :

>The description on the back of the new bag says, "...formerly called
>Double Chocolate," so I assume it's the replacement.

:-(

> You're probably
>right about the reason behind the new formulation; half my bag is
>already earmarked for straight eating .

But why would you buy chocolate chips for eating? Why not just get a
chocolate bar? There are different chocolates for different applications
and chips are designed for baking. Would it have been so much to ask that a
company keep specialty products appropriate for their specialty
application?

> I value texture as well as
>flavor, and I just have to repeat that this new chip is as chocolate-y
>as the original...well, to my unrefined palate, that is!

As I say, if the only change was to increase the amount of cocoa butter
without increasing the total cocoa solids percentage, then it's bound to be
less chocolatey. However, if it increases the cocoa butter and cocoa solids
percentage, then the results will be more variable. It will definitely be
less sweet, and whether it would be as chocolatey would depend entirely on
the relative proportion of cocoa butter added compared to the increase in
cocoa solids percentage. However, one definite result would be a poorer
performance in baking - the chips would flatten more and tend to lose
temper - thus ending up after baking with *worse*, not better, texture.

As a result we would have a chocolate chip that couldn't fulfill its
purpose and rather would be simply an eating chocolate in chip format.

However, one other possibility. Are they explicit in claiming it has a
higher cocoa butter percentage than it previously did? It could be that
they've changed the label without changing the contents.


--
Alex Rast

(remove d., .7, not, and .NOSPAM to reply)