Why does old chocolate turn white on the outside?
It still tastes ok, but looks weird....

On 2015-03-05 1:46 PM, wrote:
> Why does old chocolate turn white on the outside?
> It still tastes ok, but looks weird....
>
>

That happens on spring break and it runs out of important things to do.

On Thursday, March 5, 2015 at 8:46:38 AM UTC-10, wrote:
> Why does old chocolate turn white on the outside?
> It still tastes ok, but looks weird....

Old chocolate it kinda icky. That white stuff is typically cocoa butter which floats to the surface and solidifies. It's called "bloom." There are some chocolates that you can actually freeze without this happening. That's gotta be the greatest developement in chocolate ever and makes moving the product a lot easier. Hopefully, that white stuff is not mold. :-)

On 3/5/2015 2:06 PM, dsi1 wrote:
> On Thursday, March 5, 2015 at 8:46:38 AM UTC-10, wrote:
>> Why does old chocolate turn white on the outside?
>> It still tastes ok, but looks weird....
>
> Old chocolate it kinda icky. That white stuff is typically cocoa butter which floats to the surface and solidifies. It's called "bloom." There are some chocolates that you can actually freeze without this happening. That's gotta be the greatest developement in chocolate ever and makes moving the product a lot easier. Hopefully, that white stuff is not mold. :-)
>
I think the cocoa butter hypothesis is correct but I wouldn't buy any
bloomed chocolate.

--
Jim Silverton (Potomac, MD)

Extraneous "not." in Reply To.

On 3/5/2015 1:53 PM, Dave Smith wrote:
> On 2015-03-05 1:46 PM, wrote:
>> Why does old chocolate turn white on the outside?
>> It still tastes ok, but looks weird....
>>
>>
>
> That happens on spring break and it runs out of important things to do.
>
True dat. It also has to do with lack of refrigeration. Chocolate
bars "sweat".

Jill

On Thursday, March 5, 2015 at 9:25:13 AM UTC-10, James Silverton wrote:
> On 3/5/2015 2:06 PM, dsi1 wrote:
> > On Thursday, March 5, 2015 at 8:46:38 AM UTC-10, wrote:
> >> Why does old chocolate turn white on the outside?
> >> It still tastes ok, but looks weird....
> >
> > Old chocolate it kinda icky. That white stuff is typically cocoa butter which floats to the surface and solidifies. It's called "bloom." There are some chocolates that you can actually freeze without this happening. That's gotta be the greatest developement in chocolate ever and makes moving the product a lot easier. Hopefully, that white stuff is not mold. :-)
> >
> I think the cocoa butter hypothesis is correct but I wouldn't buy any
> bloomed chocolate.

A candy maker, Forrest E. Mars, once did a nutty thing - he opened up a chocolate factory in the middle of a hot desert. Anyway, he developed non-blooming chocolate so that his chocolate could be frozen and then defrosted without any loss of quality. It's hard to believe but my dad keeps several boxes in his freezer for those times when he need a box of chocolates. They are handy when you have special guests dropping in. They work as advertized and are a high quality product. The box is sealed so you should bring it up to room temperature before opeing the seal to prevent moisture from condensing on the candy.

I buy some Hershey's Milk Chocolate bars and keep them in my refrigerator which is a good idea in the tropics. They don't bloom either. I wouldn't buy them if they did too.

>
> --
> Jim Silverton (Potomac, MD)
>
> Extraneous "not." in Reply To.

On 2015-03-05, Dave Smith > wrote:

> That happens on spring break and it runs out of important things to do.

LOL!.....

On Thu, 05 Mar 2015 12:46:27 -0600, wrote:

>Why does old chocolate turn white on the outside?
>It still tastes ok, but looks weird....
>

Couple of reasons:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chocolate_bloom

Moisture/sugar, cocoa fat.

John Kuthe...

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com

On Thursday, March 5, 2015 at 2:41:37 PM UTC-6, John Kuthe wrote:
> On Thu, 05 Mar 2015 12:46:27 -0600, wrote:
>
> >Why does old chocolate turn white on the outside?
> >It still tastes ok, but looks weird....
> >
>
> Couple of reasons:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chocolate_bloom
>
> Moisture/sugar, cocoa fat.
>
You could buy "chocolate" that doesn't have that pesky "cocoa fat" if
shelf stability is more important than taste.
http://www.chocoley.com/p/bada-bing-...ment-4-flavors
>
> John Kuthe...
>
>
--Bryan

On 3/5/2015 3:15 PM, Bryan-TGWWW wrote:

> You could buy "chocolate" that doesn't have that pesky "cocoa fat" if
> shelf stability is more important than taste.
> http://www.chocoley.com/p/bada-bing-...ment-4-flavors

And the higher-quality brands of this confectionary coating taste very
good, far superior to the cheap Hershey's and Nestles candy bars.

mark2002 wrote:
>
>Why does old chocolate turn white on the outside?
>It still tastes ok, but looks weird....

Google <chocolate bloom>.

On Thursday, March 5, 2015 at 1:46:38 PM UTC-5, wrote:
> Why does old chocolate turn white on the outside?
> It still tastes ok, but looks weird....

It's called "bloom." There are 2 types, fat bloom and sugar bloom. Fat bloom just looks bad, it's not harmful or anything. Sugar bloom is different, but again it's not dangerous, just ugly looking.

In both cases I'm pretty sure you can re-temper it and the fat or sugar will be reincorporated into the chocolate.

Bill Ranck
Blacksburg, VA

> wrote in message
...
> Why does old chocolate turn white on the outside?
> It still tastes ok, but looks weird....

The fat navigates to the outside. It's called bloom. Has more to do with
temperature change than age.

On Thu, 05 Mar 2015 15:53:02 -0600, Moe DeLoughan >
wrote:

>On 3/5/2015 3:15 PM, Bryan-TGWWW wrote:
>
>> You could buy "chocolate" that doesn't have that pesky "cocoa fat" if
>> shelf stability is more important than taste.
>> http://www.chocoley.com/p/bada-bing-...ment-4-flavors
>
>And the higher-quality brands of this confectionary coating taste very
>good, far superior to the cheap Hershey's and Nestles candy bars.

I found that out by taste testing several "compound coatings" too!
Chocoley's definitely the best I tried, so I stuck with it.

Bryan's just a food snob, nothing's good enough for him unless HE says
it is. So **** him, he gets NONE of my Christmas Candy anymore!

John Kuthe...

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com

Sqwertz wrote:
> On Thu, 05 Mar 2015 14:26:09 -0500, James Silverton wrote:
>
>> I think the cocoa butter hypothesis is correct but I wouldn't buy any
>> bloomed chocolate.
>
> You can't see 99.5% of the chocolate in stores when you buy it.
>
> -sw

plenty of bulk chocolate candy is visible at my regular stupidmarket

and then there's See's etc.

On Fri, 6 Mar 2015 08:25:33 +0000 (UTC), tert in seattle
> wrote:

>Sqwertz wrote:
>> On Thu, 05 Mar 2015 14:26:09 -0500, James Silverton wrote:
>>
>>> I think the cocoa butter hypothesis is correct but I wouldn't buy any
>>> bloomed chocolate.
>>
>> You can't see 99.5% of the chocolate in stores when you buy it.
>>
>> -sw
>
>plenty of bulk chocolate candy is visible at my regular stupidmarket
>
>and then there's See's etc.

When unwrapped bulk chocolate shows bloom it's rubbed/licked off.

Sqwertz wrote:
> On Fri, 6 Mar 2015 08:25:33 +0000 (UTC), tert in seattle wrote:
>
>> Sqwertz wrote:
>>> On Thu, 05 Mar 2015 14:26:09 -0500, James Silverton wrote:
>>>
>>>> I think the cocoa butter hypothesis is correct but I wouldn't buy any
>>>> bloomed chocolate.
>>>
>>> You can't see 99.5% of the chocolate in stores when you buy it.
>>
>> plenty of bulk chocolate candy is visible at my regular stupidmarket
>>
>> and then there's See's etc.
>
> It was inevitable that some dumbass would come along a protest about
> the other .5%. Tell you what - you go to the local major grocery
> store in your area and count the number of chocolate products you can
> see, and the number you can't see. Then get back to me.
>
> -sw

it's a lot more than .5 percent

someone needs a nap!

On Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:21:24 +0000 (UTC), tert in seattle
> wrote:

>Sqwertz wrote:
>> On Fri, 6 Mar 2015 08:25:33 +0000 (UTC), tert in seattle wrote:
>>
>>> Sqwertz wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 05 Mar 2015 14:26:09 -0500, James Silverton wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I think the cocoa butter hypothesis is correct but I wouldn't buy any
>>>>> bloomed chocolate.
>>>>
>>>> You can't see 99.5% of the chocolate in stores when you buy it.
>>>
>>> plenty of bulk chocolate candy is visible at my regular stupidmarket
>>>
>>> and then there's See's etc.
>>
>> It was inevitable that some dumbass would come along a protest about
>> the other .5%. Tell you what - you go to the local major grocery
>> store in your area and count the number of chocolate products you can
>> see, and the number you can't see. Then get back to me.
>>
>> -sw
>
>it's a lot more than .5 percent
>
>someone needs a nap!

I made up a saying, a truism if you willl.

Anything made of chocolate is both good and useful!

John Kuthe...

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com

On Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:21:24 +0000 (UTC), tert in seattle
> wrote:

>Sqwertz wrote:
>> On Fri, 6 Mar 2015 08:25:33 +0000 (UTC), tert in seattle wrote:
>>
>>> Sqwertz wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 05 Mar 2015 14:26:09 -0500, James Silverton wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I think the cocoa butter hypothesis is correct but I wouldn't buy any
>>>>> bloomed chocolate.
>>>>
>>>> You can't see 99.5% of the chocolate in stores when you buy it.
>>>
>>> plenty of bulk chocolate candy is visible at my regular stupidmarket
>>>
>>> and then there's See's etc.
>>
>> It was inevitable that some dumbass would come along a protest about
>> the other .5%. Tell you what - you go to the local major grocery
>> store in your area and count the number of chocolate products you can
>> see, and the number you can't see. Then get back to me.
>>
>> -sw
>
>it's a lot more than .5 percent
>
>someone needs a nap!

It's rare to see unwrapped chocolate nowadays, now it's rare to see
unwrapped and not security sealed anything... Clorox is security
sealed. 40-50 years ago candy stores sold unwrapped, those days are
long gone.

On Fri, 06 Mar 2015 17:25:44 -0500, Brooklyn1
> wrote:

>On Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:21:24 +0000 (UTC), tert in seattle
> wrote:
>
>>Sqwertz wrote:
>>> On Fri, 6 Mar 2015 08:25:33 +0000 (UTC), tert in seattle wrote:
>>>
>>>> Sqwertz wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 05 Mar 2015 14:26:09 -0500, James Silverton wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I think the cocoa butter hypothesis is correct but I wouldn't buy any
>>>>>> bloomed chocolate.
>>>>>
>>>>> You can't see 99.5% of the chocolate in stores when you buy it.
>>>>
>>>> plenty of bulk chocolate candy is visible at my regular stupidmarket
>>>>
>>>> and then there's See's etc.
>>>
>>> It was inevitable that some dumbass would come along a protest about
>>> the other .5%. Tell you what - you go to the local major grocery
>>> store in your area and count the number of chocolate products you can
>>> see, and the number you can't see. Then get back to me.
>>>
>>> -sw
>>
>>it's a lot more than .5 percent
>>
>>someone needs a nap!
>
>It's rare to see unwrapped chocolate nowadays, now it's rare to see
>unwrapped and not security sealed anything... Clorox is security
>sealed. 40-50 years ago candy stores sold unwrapped, those days are
>long gone.

Why the HELL do they safety seal Chlorox bleach? Do they really think
someone's gonna slip something toxic in it? I rermember when they
started all this safet sealing crap. It was back when someone put
cyanide in Tylenols, killing severa lpeople as I recall. Then everyone
started safety sealing everything.

I bought some new boullion cubes today. Safety sealed. Ugh!


John Kuthe...

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com

Oliver in Olympia wrote:

> Sqwertz wrote:
> > On Fri, 6 Mar 2015 08:25:33 +0000 (UTC), tert in seattle wrote:
> >
> >> Sqwertz wrote:
> >>> On Thu, 05 Mar 2015 14:26:09 -0500, James Silverton wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> I think the cocoa butter hypothesis is correct but I wouldn't buy any
> >>>> bloomed chocolate.
> >>>
> >>> You can't see 99.5% of the chocolate in stores when you buy it.
> >>
> >> plenty of bulk chocolate candy is visible at my regular stupidmarket
> >>
> >> and then there's See's etc.
> >
> > It was inevitable that some dumbass would come along a protest about
> > the other .5%. Tell you what - you go to the local major grocery
> > store in your area and count the number of chocolate products you can
> > see, and the number you can't see. Then get back to me.
> >
> > -sw
>
> it's a lot more than .5 percent
>
> someone needs a nap!


hehe...fkucin' tert ...


--
Best
Greg

On Thu, 05 Mar 2015 12:46:27 -0600, wrote:

>Why does old chocolate turn white on the outside?

Pity Michael Jackson has passed on... you could have asked it for the
answer.

>It still tastes ok, but looks weird....

I might let that one pass.