Lograh (lograh) wrote,
Lograh
lograh

ah, no wonder // random pointless bitching

So, I'm eating this chocolate bar that proclaims itself to be of the "dark truffle" variety, and I'm thinking it's neither very dark nor very truffle-y. I can excuse the lack of truffleness due to it's thinness -- there's only so much room to stuff the soft goodness in. The darkness, though I simply cannot let slide. Then I notice some small type in a corner of the wrapping: "57% cacao".

wtf?? *57* percent?! that's ALL??!?

fuckers.

Since when was 57% considered "dark" chocolate? There should be a law against that kind of misleading advertising. Chocolate shouldn't be called "dark" untill it's *at least* 65%, preferably over %70.

Sure, the wrapper printed with soy ink and the bar's claim of being all-organic is nice and reassuring, but that doesn't excuse a cheap-assed attempt at passing off a measly 57% as being "dark" chocolate. No wonder it tastes so pathetic.

Last time I buy this crap.
Subscribe

  • A year in the life

    Okay, so not quite a year. More like 10.5 months since last update. At first, I thought that I should write about the whole lazor-eye thing right…

  • pew pew

    I suppose I should make a mention of this. Round about this time tomorrow, I’ll be getting shot at by lasers. It sounds so sci-fi saying it that…

  • Decade?

    I suppose a more complete review of the decade will needs be done at some point (including the question of if 'the decade' is in fact over) but one…

  • Post a new comment

    Error

    switch
    default userpic
    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.
    Help
  • 4 comments