Lograh (lograh) wrote,

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??!?


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.

  • comfort? // an elaboration

    So yeah, some seem to have taken issue with my previous entry. This is good. Disagreement is fine and healthy, and I welcome all who would take issue…

  • (no subject)

    One nice thing about getting to work as early as I normally do, is that I can sleep in a little and not really have to rush to still make it in "on…

  • there goes any free time I may have had // life

    who'da thunk it? Turns out the CSUS library has a nice little section of Buddhist books tucked away around the corner and along the back. A section…

  • Post a new comment


    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.