|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on May 12, 2024 14:25:42 GMT
This thread is about cost of stuff, and it is niggling me. I know we have been here before with the water chickens, but this concerns chocolate. Go to any supermarket and you have three firms doing chocolate: Galaxy, Cadbury's and Nestle. Being a keen economist I've been studying the price of this stuff and it seems to me it has increased a fair bit. A few years back you could buy 150g for a quid, but now it is £1.50 for 100g. That's more than bloody double. First of all the 150g packs started shrinking, so they ended up as 100g packs and of course any smaller and someone might notice, so then they wazzed the price up when the press were yapping on about the Brexit problems. Another observation is all three brands work in sync like a classic oligopoly. Now I know some of you are going to try and tell me the price of coco has gone up, but there is one more thing that clinches it. How can Morrisons sell 100g of their own brand for 50p, i.e. 1/3 of the price? I chanced a purchase the other day, wary that it would be some sort of fake chocolate, but it turned out it had more chocolate in it than the other three, which seem to be pretty dilute and tasteless. I was amazed to find the 50p chocolate was noticeably better. Slight digression, but still on 'shrinkflation'. A few weeks ago as we were putting the groceries away I noticed an item that had significantly shrunk. As I put a new box of Ritz crackers in the cupboard, next to a nearly empty box, I saw it was about two inches shorter than the old box. I took them both out of the cupboard and discovered the old box weighed 200g, the new box weighed 150g, the cost had not changed, still £1,25. The contents have been reduced by a quarter but the cost remains the same. If that's not the dictionary definition of 'rip-off', it bloody well should be. You know what is going on here. The press report the price of chocolate for the proles has gone up due to rising commodity prices which rose due to a bad harvest (too much rain). All of this is exactly true, but a heinous lie at the same time. The truth as I see it is as follows. We have a bad harvest. all the chocolate manufacturers of the cartel get together in a smokey room and say, well guys we have a crisis. Our supply costs are going up due to all of this rain. Let us celebrate, because the stupid proles won't know how much, so we can make a big killing out of it at the same time and reward our shareholders. All in chaps. Sure thing dude. Now lets get Bob to get some terrible pictures of stricken African farmers in tears at the sight of a few really badly damaged specimens.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ripley on May 12, 2024 14:48:01 GMT
Do you know of any other commodity where the global price has more than doubled in less than twelve months and buyers have declined to pass the increase on to consumers? It's all irrelevant. All I needed to have done was look at the original price of the Galaxy, how much it is now and then observe the current price of Morrison's chocolate plus sampling both to check how much coca is in each, upon which I learnt the Morison's one comes top out of the four brands, but most especially I notice the contrast between Galaxy and Morrisons.
You know the way I approach it here is using the skills of a mathematician. You don't always need to know that much to be certain of the solution if you choose the way you look at it carefully.
Sometimes you find there is a good reason for the price difference between brands. Lea and Perrings sells for about £2.70, where Henderson's sells for about £1.80 and taste the same. In this case I learn Lea and Perrings contains anchovies where Henderson's is only using cheap ingredients. In the case of chocolate I understand there is some EU rule to do with chocolate can only be sold as such if it contains so much of the cocoa.
It may be a quality issue. A simple price comparison doesn't take into account that all chocolate is not created equally. The higher the percentage of cocoa solids, the deeper the flavour and the more caffeine it contains. Cocoa solids are the non-fat part of the cocoa bean that is used in chocolate production. When you look at the ingredients of your favourite chocolate bar and see the percentage of cocoa solids listed, that’s a direct indication of how much of the chocolate is derived from the cocoa bean itself, excluding the cocoa butter (the fat component). The amount of cocoa solids in a chocolate product significantly influences the taste, texture, and even health benefits of the chocolate. Cocoa solids are responsible for the characteristic bitter, full-bodied taste of chocolate. In general, the higher the percentage of cocoa solids, the darker and more bitter the chocolate will be. High-quality dark chocolate usually contains between 70% to 85% cocoa solids, giving it that robust, deeply chocolaty taste. By contrast, milk chocolate contains less cocoa solids, usually around 20% to 30%, resulting in a sweeter, milder flavour and a creamier texture, owing to the additional milk or milk powder and sugar. The percentage of cocoa solids can also serve as an indicator of the quality of the chocolate. A higher cocoa content generally suggests less room for fillers like sugar, vegetable oils, and other additives. Hence, a chocolate bar with a high cocoa solids percentage is often of superior quality. Cocoa solids are rich in flavonoids, natural compounds associated with several health benefits, such as reducing inflammation and improving heart health. Therefore, chocolate with a higher percentage of cocoa solids often provides more of these beneficial compounds. To compare chocolate fairly, you'd have to take into account the relative percentage of cocoa solids to know that you're comparing apples with apples, and not just price. Of course, your personal taste preference matters too. Just remember that a higher cocoa percentage often indicates less room for fillers and other additives. |
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on May 12, 2024 15:23:27 GMT
It's all irrelevant. All I needed to have done was look at the original price of the Galaxy, how much it is now and then observe the current price of Morrison's chocolate plus sampling both to check how much coca is in each, upon which I learnt the Morison's one comes top out of the four brands, but most especially I notice the contrast between Galaxy and Morrisons.
You know the way I approach it here is using the skills of a mathematician. You don't always need to know that much to be certain of the solution if you choose the way you look at it carefully.
Sometimes you find there is a good reason for the price difference between brands. Lea and Perrings sells for about £2.70, where Henderson's sells for about £1.80 and taste the same. In this case I learn Lea and Perrings contains anchovies where Henderson's is only using cheap ingredients. In the case of chocolate I understand there is some EU rule to do with chocolate can only be sold as such if it contains so much of the cocoa.
It may be a quality issue. A simple price comparison doesn't take into account that all chocolate is not created equally. The higher the percentage of cocoa solids, the deeper the flavour and the more caffeine it contains. Cocoa solids are the non-fat part of the cocoa bean that is used in chocolate production. When you look at the ingredients of your favourite chocolate bar and see the percentage of cocoa solids listed, that’s a direct indication of how much of the chocolate is derived from the cocoa bean itself, excluding the cocoa butter (the fat component). The amount of cocoa solids in a chocolate product significantly influences the taste, texture, and even health benefits of the chocolate. Cocoa solids are responsible for the characteristic bitter, full-bodied taste of chocolate. In general, the higher the percentage of cocoa solids, the darker and more bitter the chocolate will be. High-quality dark chocolate usually contains between 70% to 85% cocoa solids, giving it that robust, deeply chocolaty taste. By contrast, milk chocolate contains less cocoa solids, usually around 20% to 30%, resulting in a sweeter, milder flavour and a creamier texture, owing to the additional milk or milk powder and sugar. The percentage of cocoa solids can also serve as an indicator of the quality of the chocolate. A higher cocoa content generally suggests less room for fillers like sugar, vegetable oils, and other additives. Hence, a chocolate bar with a high cocoa solids percentage is often of superior quality. Cocoa solids are rich in flavonoids, natural compounds associated with several health benefits, such as reducing inflammation and improving heart health. Therefore, chocolate with a higher percentage of cocoa solids often provides more of these beneficial compounds. To compare chocolate fairly, you'd have to take into account the relative percentage of cocoa solids to know that you're comparing apples with apples, and not just price. Of course, your personal taste preference matters too. Just remember that a higher cocoa percentage often indicates less room for fillers and other additives. OK I have got a figure.
I have the old packet and it says cocoa solids 27% minimum. I just Googled Galaxy and it said 25%. My taste was correct! I thought it was a deeper chocolate flavour.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ripley on May 12, 2024 15:24:59 GMT
It may be a quality issue. A simple price comparison doesn't take into account that all chocolate is not created equally. The higher the percentage of cocoa solids, the deeper the flavour and the more caffeine it contains. Cocoa solids are the non-fat part of the cocoa bean that is used in chocolate production. When you look at the ingredients of your favourite chocolate bar and see the percentage of cocoa solids listed, that’s a direct indication of how much of the chocolate is derived from the cocoa bean itself, excluding the cocoa butter (the fat component). The amount of cocoa solids in a chocolate product significantly influences the taste, texture, and even health benefits of the chocolate. Cocoa solids are responsible for the characteristic bitter, full-bodied taste of chocolate. In general, the higher the percentage of cocoa solids, the darker and more bitter the chocolate will be. High-quality dark chocolate usually contains between 70% to 85% cocoa solids, giving it that robust, deeply chocolaty taste. By contrast, milk chocolate contains less cocoa solids, usually around 20% to 30%, resulting in a sweeter, milder flavour and a creamier texture, owing to the additional milk or milk powder and sugar. The percentage of cocoa solids can also serve as an indicator of the quality of the chocolate. A higher cocoa content generally suggests less room for fillers like sugar, vegetable oils, and other additives. Hence, a chocolate bar with a high cocoa solids percentage is often of superior quality. Cocoa solids are rich in flavonoids, natural compounds associated with several health benefits, such as reducing inflammation and improving heart health. Therefore, chocolate with a higher percentage of cocoa solids often provides more of these beneficial compounds. To compare chocolate fairly, you'd have to take into account the relative percentage of cocoa solids to know that you're comparing apples with apples, and not just price. Of course, your personal taste preference matters too. Just remember that a higher cocoa percentage often indicates less room for fillers and other additives. OK I have got a figure.
I have the old packet and it says cocoa solids 27% minimum. I just Googled Galaxy and it said 25%. My taste was correct! I thought it was a deeper chocolate flavour.
Both are in the normal range for milk chocolate. |
|
|
|
Post by johnofgwent on May 12, 2024 15:28:15 GMT
This thread is about cost of stuff, and it is niggling me. I know we have been here before with the water chickens, but this concerns chocolate. Go to any supermarket and you have three firms doing chocolate: Galaxy, Cadbury's and Nestle. Being a keen economist I've been studying the price of this stuff and it seems to me it has increased a fair bit. A few years back you could buy 150g for a quid, but now it is £1.50 for 100g. That's more than bloody double. First of all the 150g packs started shrinking, so they ended up as 100g packs and of course any smaller and someone might notice, so then they wazzed the price up when the press were yapping on about the Brexit problems. Another observation is all three brands work in sync like a classic oligopoly. Now I know some of you are going to try and tell me the price of coco has gone up, but there is one more thing that clinches it. How can Morrisons sell 100g of their own brand for 50p, i.e. 1/3 of the price? I chanced a purchase the other day, wary that it would be some sort of fake chocolate, but it turned out it had more chocolate in it than the other three, which seem to be pretty dilute and tasteless. I was amazed to find the 50p chocolate was noticeably better. Does the sugar ''tax'' partly explain this? I don't think so The difference between a 'full fat' coke at McDonald's versus the carcinogenic / liver destroying alternatives is a fraction of the cost of the sugar free one. This cannot easily explain the ridiculous shrinkage in pack size of branded chocolate over the last few years Maybe it's the middlemen stealing the so called fair trade premium ? Because it's certain no plantation grower is seeing this price hike |
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on May 12, 2024 15:56:08 GMT
OK I have got a figure.
I have the old packet and it says cocoa solids 27% minimum. I just Googled Galaxy and it said 25%. My taste was correct! I thought it was a deeper chocolate flavour.
Both are in the normal range for milk chocolate. Yes and it was this factor I was weary of, yet the chocolate was nice chocolate even if we ignored the cost. This one I bought was the cheaper of the Morrison's brands of chocolate. The other is twice the price but the taste was a bit off for some reason. I have the full list of ingredients here and I mark the same on my chocolate (y)
SUGAR(y) SKIMMED MILK POWDER(y) COCOA BUTTER(y) COCOA MASS(y) MILK FAT(y) described as butter oil (milk) PALM FAT LACTOSE WHEY PERMEATE (FROM MILK)(y) Described as Whey Powder(milk) EMULSIFIER (SOYA LECITHIN)(y) + Polyglycerol polyricinoleate VANILLA EXTRACT.(y)
MILK SOLIDS 14% (same) MINIMUM AND COCOA SOLIDS 25% MINIMUM. (27%)
So that's it. All I'm lacking is the lactose and the palm oil. Mind you since lactose comes in milk, it may well be they just add it for safety sake, not as a separate ingredient added to the milk.
I think I've figured out what is going on here. The palm oil in the Galaxy, rather than being a plus point is:
Where in the Morrisons, they have simply used more butter instead of partially replacing it with a cheaper substitute as we see in the expensive chocolate.
There is another factor here as well.
But we also know ingredients are listed in order of weight. Cocoa butter appears in Galaxy as the third highest ingredient, where in the cheaper chocolate it is second.
So on all three counts the cheaper one is the better chocolate. How fascinating. I suspect the Blackrock boys are doing their usual thing.
|
|
|
|
Post by patman post on May 12, 2024 16:01:58 GMT
A few weeks ago as we were putting the groceries away I noticed an item that had significantly shrunk. As I put a new box of Ritz crackers in the cupboard, next to a nearly empty box, I saw it was about two inches shorter than the old box. I took them both out of the cupboard and discovered the old box weighed 200g, the new box weighed 150g, the cost had not changed, still £1,25. The contents have been reduced by a quarter but the cost remains the same. If that's not the dictionary definition of 'rip-off', it bloody well should be. Just during this week we were talking about how products are shrinking, and my Dad remarked: "Wah bout di size of di old Wagon Wheels?"
Then the others started remembering Mars Bars, Toblerone, bags of Maltesers, etc...
|
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on May 13, 2024 10:00:34 GMT
A few weeks ago as we were putting the groceries away I noticed an item that had significantly shrunk. As I put a new box of Ritz crackers in the cupboard, next to a nearly empty box, I saw it was about two inches shorter than the old box. I took them both out of the cupboard and discovered the old box weighed 200g, the new box weighed 150g, the cost had not changed, still £1,25. The contents have been reduced by a quarter but the cost remains the same. If that's not the dictionary definition of 'rip-off', it bloody well should be. Just during this week we were talking about how products are shrinking, and my Dad remarked: "Wah bout di size of di old Wagon Wheels?"
Then the others started remembering Mars Bars, Toblerone, bags of Maltesers, etc... I'll be honest I hadn't really noticed it until I bought those Ritz crackers, I'll be looking out for it now. |
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on May 15, 2024 12:00:17 GMT
What I do not get is how can you get chocolate made of more expensive + the same ingredients for 1/3 of the price of all the popular three. The packet does not specify the country of origin but the shape of the chocolate might be a give-away. It is like the continental chocolate you get in a lot of European countries. It's got a lower profile to it, like flat slabs of chocolate squares similar to Green and Blacks. All I can conclude is the main brands are stitching the consumer something rotten. After all one cocoa bean is the same as any other. They all come from the same jungles.
|
|
