Talk:Chocolate

Add to Industry of Chocolate section

The chocolate manufacturer market is dominated by only a few large corporations, such as Mars and Hershey, but the production of Cacao is a different story. The farming and production of cacao is 90% comprised of many small family farms, that are 2-5 hectares in size. These small farmers are the most vulnerable part of the chocolate supply chain, they face low wages, harsh working conditions, and even use child labor. The few corporations at the top of a billion-dollar industry control the market, and keep the prices of cacao low, and these small farmers do not see any of the massive amount of money generated by the industry.

References

Add to chocolate Industry Section

There is an interesting disparity between the production and the consumption of chocolate. Chocolate is consumed heavily in the global north, while cacao is produced in the global south.

References

Removed chocol + atl text

Removed "It is possible that the Spaniards coined the word (perhaps in order to avoid caca, a vulgar Spanish word for "faeces") by combining the Yucatec Mayan word chocol, "hot", with the Nahuatl word atl, "water"."

Kaufman and Justeson (2007 p. 226): "Da´vila Garibi (1939) proposed that the Nawa word chokola:tl for the drink chocolate originated, in part, in a Mayan language. This proposal was accepted and elaborated by Coe and Coe (1996:118–119) with data from Yukateko and colonial Kaqchikel. It has been uncritically accepted by some scholars— for example, by Tedlock (2002:170)—but it is demonstrably false. It depends on a misunderstanding of the Kaqchikel sources and on a lack of understanding of the history of a Yukateko word meaning ‘hot’."

Elaborated further on the page. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 07:23, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Etymology of Cacao

This is really contested, largely between Kaufman & Justeson and Dakin & Wichmann. I've tried to find where the consensus is and have written out a timeline of sources, NPOV will likely just be "it's heavily contested." Cacao is generally accepted as coming from kakawa-tl. It's being debated whether it's from the Uto-Aztecan language family (which includes Nahua, referred to as UA) which would be a lot more recent, or from Mixe-Zoque language family (includes Olmec, a lot older, referred to as MZ).

• Campbell and Kaufman 1976 argue it originates in MZ.
• Coe and Coe 1996 repeat this, citing Kaufman.
• Dakin and Wichmann 2000 (59) argue the word actually has a UA origin.
• Macri 2005 says archeological evidence supports Dakin’s theory.
• Kaufman and Justeson 2007 release a polemic article arguing the word has a Mixe-Zoquean origin.

The journal Kaufman and Justeson publish in solicits comments and publishes responses to the article in 2011.

• Beekman calls the MZ origin “convincing.”
• Dakin and Wichmann responds, noting that historical linguists often disagree about where words come from and researchers are hypothesizing. They argue against MZ and for UA, taking some things into account, disregarding others.
• Hopkins finds Kaufman’s thesis “convincing.”
• Rosenwig is more muted in approval, citing inability to evaluate etymological minutiae.
• Trivino 2013 says the controversy is still alive, and linguists have “joined the controversy.”
• Coe and Coe 2013 print the MZ origin in their 2013 edition of A True History of Chocolate.
• Law 2017 describes Kaufman 2007 as thoroughly refuting UA theory.
• Swanton 2024 says there is an ongoing and robust debate involving the etymology of cacao.
• The OED and Merriam Webster use the Nahuatl origin.

In terms of substance of debate, this is the best summary: Hill 2019. On the whole, there seems to be more support for the MZ theory, although it is very contested. I'm not sure how to word or source this beyond just saying it's contested, as I'm worried about NPOV if I present them as too equally supported or if I present MZ as more popular by selecting sources (i.e. the 2011 article comments, the Law piece and the Coe and Coe reprint), and ignoring the sources implying equivalence or the dictionaries favouring UA.

Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 12:36, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 August 2024

Citation needed for "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chocolate#:~:text=A%202018%20report%20argued%20that%20international%20attempts%20to%20improve%20conditions%20for%20children%20were%20doomed%20to%20failure%20because%20of%20persistent%20poverty%2C%20the%20absence%20of%20schools%2C%20increasing%20world%20cocoa%20demand%2C%20more%20intensive%20farming%20of%20cocoa%2C%20and%20continued%20exploitation%20of%20child%20labor.", cannot find mentioned report. TitanFallout (talk) 11:04, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

 Not done for now: I think it's references 160 and 163? NotAGenious (talk) 13:42, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Thinking of a split

Hi all, I'm thinking of trying to broach whether a split is a good idea and how it would be done. The issue is chocolate and cocoa are two different concepts, but the article opens with "Chocolate or cocoa is a food made from roasted and ground cocoa seed kernels". Cocoa, according to how I understand it, refers more to the cocoa bean, in the various stages of being processed, particularly as a commodity. In British English, cocoa is what is referred to in American English as cacao. On future exchanges, "cocoa" is traded. Here is a quote from academics Carla Martin and Kathryn Sampeck:

In the Anglophone context, “cocoa” is used commonly in reference to the tree and the seed, and especially as a referent for the commodity once it has been sold or processed. An important caveat is that the use of the word “cacao” (instead of “cocoa”) is symbolically important in the niche, fine/specialty/craft cacao-chocolate community, where many see it as a return to the historical roots of the crop and a point of distinction from bulk commodity cocoa.

Chocolate generally refers to an end product. I think these concepts are obviously closely linked, particularly around the chocolate industry and chocolate making.

I'm not sure how a split would be done, but I think it's a) unhelpful to have them smushed into one article, especially without any effort at defining terms, and b) the first sentence is just flat out wrong for most uses of the term cocoa.

Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 16:23, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

I have slept on this issue, I apologize for not having this all laid out initially. While I am still confused, I think the page needs clarification, and to:

a) split up the "Processing" section into chocolate making and Cacao/cocoa processing, probably moving cacao/cocoa processing off the page entirely to a cocoa page. The ingredients for chocolate can include chocolate powder/liquor, sugar, milk and cocoa butter, and chocolate making is the process of combining these. I've rewritten the dark chocolate based on this idea of isolating chocolate making, see Dark chocolate#Manufacturing. Chocolate making should be its own page.

b) define cocoa. It is confusing to say in the first sentence that chocolate is also known as cocoa, and then refer to "Child labor in cocoa harvesting"; you cannot "harvest chocolate". Cocoa is used in a different way and should be differentiated.

c) likely get rid of the reference to cocoa in the lede. This may be a regional thing, but I don't hear people ask for "cocoa" when they want to eat chocolate. It refers to chocolate powder, which is just part of drinking chocolate (hot chocolate). This page does not discuss drinking chocolate. It is understood as eating chocolate, and types of chocolate has never included drinking chocolate. The extent to which chocolate as a drink is discussed, it is referred to as an ingredient/flavoring.

d) Move the page cocoa to cocoa (disambiguation)

e) Move the page cocoa bean to cocoa. The current lede is straight up incorrect;

1) Cocoa is not the same as cocoa beans, it is a more general concept. It refers to cacao in a context of production, and certainly not "the dried and fully fermented seed of Theobroma cacao". Cocoa powder is still considered cocoa, it is not still cocoa beans. You can still be "harvesting" cocoa, even without having dried and fermented it yet.

2) A lot of countries don't ferment cacao seeds, i.e., Indonesia, the third biggest producer. Are they not cocoa beans? There are a lot more issues with cocoa articles.

The articles are just too confusing and fuzzy. This is not entirely our fault: from an article in Confectionary News: "Leissle, an academic who has studied the chocolate industry for more than 20 years, says that even she struggles sometimes with the various nomenclature." I'm also very sorry for writing so much. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 08:35, 10 September 2024 (UTC)