Candy Blog

I realized when I started Candy Blog that there was no way I’d ever sample every single candy out there, let alone review them. What’s making it even harder now is that candies that I’ve already reviewed have changed and it hardly seems fair that the reviews here still stand against the present day products.

So, every once in a while I’ll revisit major products that have changed since my original review at least enough to warrant a new taste.

Hershey’s introduced the Take 5 in 2004 and it quickly became one of my favorite new candies. It combined all the great textures of crunchy pretzels and chewy caramel and creamy chocolate. But that was then, and this is now.

Sometime when I wasn’t looking (I photographed it last summer again) the Hershey’s Take 5 left the list of chocolate candy bars and joined the growing list of Hershey’s Real Mockolate. 

The package now says: made with chocolate & pretzels & caramel & peanuts & peanut butter. That “made with chocolate” part means that the coating may contain chocolate, but it has other additives such as vegetable oils that mean that it’s not pure chocolate. The actual chocolate as an ingredient comes far down on the list as the number 6 item, after vegetable oils and high fructose corn sweetener and before nonfat milk (you can imagine there’s not that much milk in there).

The bars actually still look quite fetching. Little rather rectangular lumps with a pleasant sweet & peanutty scent.

Mine were exceptionally fresh, the pretzel was good and crunchy, a nice salty complement to the sweet coating. The coating didn’t have much flavor but did add a creamy texture.

This one was passably good, but I’ve had others in the past few months (I picked them out of a mix of snack size in a bowl at the office a couple of times) and I didn’t realize why they were kind of empty tasting for what I remembered. I just thought they were stale ... turns out that they’re just not designed to be good any longer.

Hershey’s still has an opportunity to reverse this and make it real chocolate again.

Product: Hershey’s Take 5
Previous Review: 7/13/2005
Change: milk chocolate coating is replaced with a fake chocolate coating (which contains chocolate but also other vegetable oils).
Result: For now they’re off my list but still get a passing rating of 5 out of 10.

Sunkist Fruit Gems are made by Jelly Belly these days. An alert reader let me know that the little “single serve” trays are back on store shelves, but instead of holding six fruit jellies, they now only have four.

Worst part of this news? The grapefruit one was missing. (What is it about grapefruit disappearing lately? Is it because of the news that grapefruit juice interacts with some prescription drugs?) This is not to say that the Sunkist Fruit Gems don’t come in grapefruit any longer, just not in this particular package.

The flavors included now are: Orange, Lemon, Lime and Raspberry. The old package was 2.4 ounces, the new one is only 1.35 ounces.

Seeing how Sunkist is known as a citrus company, the fact that they made an assortment the neglects one of the citrus fruits and includes a berry is beyond me. The package is also similar to the old one and actually includes images of grapefruit (though the text clearly says which flavors are in the package).

The change in manufacturing location and ownership, as far as I’ve been able to tell, has made no difference at all for the actual candy. It’s still a nice, soft and flavorful fruit jelly without too much of a granulated sugar coating.

The only real difference here is that you get only 2/3 as much as you used to. I was hoping when Jelly Belly took over that they’d sell the jellies in individual flavors like they do with their famous jelly beans. No such luck yet. (For now whenever I see the Jelly Belly booth at a trade show I pick a half a dozen grapefruit jellies out of their sample bin and move along.)

Product: Sunkist Fruit Gems
Previous Review: November 15, 2006
Change: New owners (Jelly Belly) and smaller package
Result: I didn’t care much for raspberry or lime, so with such a small package and only two pieces I do like it’s not worth it. 4 out of 10

Mars used to make a bar that was called, appropriately enough, the Mars Bar. That bar was discontinued and reintroduced under the much more famous Snickers umbrella of products as the Snickers Almond.

Then something happened, Mars mucked around with it and created the “More Satisfying Snickers Almond” which was really just the Snickers Almond with peanuts thrown in to make up for a lack of, well, almonds. It wasn’t a bad bar, but it wasn’t really distinctive.

Well, the old new Snickers Almond is back. It’s a white lightly sweet & salty nougat with a caramel stripe and whole almonds covered in milk chocolate.

I like the bar (though I prefer the dark chocolate version) and I’m glad they brought it back.

Product: Mars Snickers Almond
Previous Reviews: 12/28/2005 & 8/14/2006
Change: reverting to old recipe (eliminating peanut ingredients from previous version)
Result: A great bar with a long history and I’m glad that it’s back to a more classic formulation so it bumps up a notch. 6 out of 10

Related Candies

1. Grapefruit Mentos (Japan)
2. Snickers Rockin’ Nut Road Bar
3. Head to Head: Twisted vs Take 5
4. Snickers Almond Dark
5. Take 5 Peanut Butter

For several months I’ve seen these Big Bite Gummy Bears at Cost Plus World Market.

While I’m a big fan of excess in the right circumstances, I was puzzled about what could be so great about a giant gummi other than the fact that it weighed over 12 ounces and was four inches tall. One of the great things about gummi bears is the variety and the fact that you can put a whole one in your mouth, or several at a time for flavor combos.

But this had a lot going for it, first, the price wasn’t bad. At $3.99 for 12.3 ounces (350 grams) it was at least what I considered a fair deal. Yeah, it’s made in China (not one of my favorite gummi-producing countries) but the ingredients looked decent enough to get this just for the sheer joy of photographing it.

They come in five flavors: Cherry, Blue Raspberry, Grape, Green Apple and Orange. Obviously I chose orange, mostly because I thought it would photograph best but also because I think orange is a good flavor.

The packaging is spare and still great. It’s basically the mold for the bear, a hard clear plastic shell, sealed with cellophane tape all around. When done with the bear, the little plastic box can be re-filled and closed up and even has a little loop hole at the top for hanging.

The nutrition facts are a little odd. They think this package holds only one serving, which is 1120 calories.

He’s a little shiny and filmy on the outside, as many gummis are. (This one has carnauba wax.)

The gummi itself is very soft and pliable, quite bouncy and stretchy.

The big question after opening it was serving suggestions.

I trotted out the giant gummi yesterday when we had friends over for the block party on our street. Ernessa is a huge gummi fan, so she was quite smitten with the idea of a large gummi. Her husband, Christian, is one of my few licorice buddies (though he’s a fan of the salted stuff) ... it’s good to have candy friends.

So I served it up on a paper plate and we debated whether to cut him down the middle (there’s a seam) or across. I decapitated him. (There was talk of just picking him up and taking a bite but that’s the candy-equivalent of double dipping.)

A few slices of the head and we were all enjoying a piece of the gummy. It’s very soft, more like a piece of firm Jell-O than a gummi bear. It smelled great, like fresh orange juice. The texture as very smooth and melted in the mouth better and didn’t require a lot of chewing, it was almost like a piece of intensely flavored Turkish Delight. It had a lot of zesty notes to it, a good tingly tartness and of course a sweet and mellow background flavor.

I was pretty impressed with this bear. I was expecting nothing more than flash and style and no substance. I can say that at least in the orange flavor they delivered a really good gummi bear experience. The ingredients list both pectin and gelatin, which is what I owe the even texture to. I’m not sure how well this would do sitting out of its little clear plastic housing. It sat up well for the photos, but I don’t know how it’d do in humid or really hot conditions.

They’d be a fun hostess gift, a great addition to a gift basket or Christmas stocking or if you could find a good deal in bulk, a party favor (and maybe place card holder). As something for one person to eat, it seems a little silly, but it’s definitely a fun thing to share with others. On the whole I prefer the variety and look of the regular-sized ones.

Related Candies

1. All Gummies Gourmet Fruity Fish (Swedish Fish knock-off)
2. Albanese Gummi Butterflies
3. Sour Gummi Bears
4. Gummy Fishies
5. Gummi Sushi

Back in May I got a fabulous box of goodies from All Candy Expo that included this package of Darrell Lea Soft Eating Liquorice. I dutifully took photos of it.

And then ate it all. And promptly forgot what it was like so I couldn’t review it.

So today I went out and bought a new bag, just so I could finish up this review. (My office is dangerously close to a Cost Plus World Market now.)

When I opened it up I remember why I didn’t review it.

I cut the bag open and stuck my nose in there to get a good lung-full of the scent and there it was ... it smells like curry. Not in a bad way, by any means, but that’s why I didn’t review the first bag ... I wasn’t sure if that’s the way it was supposed to be.

So here I am with a second bag and I’m gonna have to say, “hey folks, this stuff really smells like and Indian spice shop!” It makes my mouth water, it’s a mix of curry, coriander, anise and black tea.

The pieces are kind of awkward - they’re long fingers. Thick and soft, they’re about three inches long and a matte black.

The flavor is dark and smoky. The molasses is pronounced but has a great mellow licorice mixed with a little hint of those spices I mentioned earlier. The chew is soft without being too sticky like Dots can be. Not too sweet and really munchable but satisfying.

Pretty good overall and certainly distinctive enough that I think I could tell this apart from most of the other Aussie style licorices I’ve had over the years. And I plan on finishing this package pretty soon as well.

Rating: 8 out of 10

There are a lot of different licorice twist flavors out there, but most of them are fruity. So I was pretty excited to find this Soft Eating Ginger Liquorice at Cost Plus World Market (I bought these a couple of days ago and then realized I should review the black stuff, too, and went back.) If there’s one thing I’ve learned about Australia through candy, it’s that Australians make good licorice and ginger products.

Like the rest of their line, it comes in a kraft paper looking package, mellow and muted and boldly stating that it’s flavored naturally. The ingredients bear that out: Raw sugar, wheat glucose syrup, wheat flour, cane sugar, ginger puree (4%), water, modified food starch, palm oil, natural flavor, mono & di-glycerides, salt, citric acid, malic acid, spinach extract (color), liquorice extract, sodium bicarbonate, beta carotene (color) and sulphur dioxide (preservative).

This one didn’t smell quite as appealing. Like the Buderim Ginger Gummi Bears, I found that this bag smelled a bit like Elmer’s Glue.

But I got over it.

The little fingers in this version are a little shorter at about 2 1/2 inches each but a little bigger around. The texture is different as well, though still soft they’re not as pliable and just a bit drier on the outside. But singly they smell less like wood glue and more like ginger tea.

The bite is a smidge less smooth, but boy howdy is it spicy. Right away there’s the woodsy peppery taste of ginger and then a throat warming burn. It’s not very sweet at all, much less than the other ginger chews that I like so much from Chimes and the Ginger People.

The wheat base of the chew makes it a little starchy in a way, but it also makes them rather filling and I think cuts through what might be a very spicy affair. It would be cool if they actually used molasses in these, they’d be like gingerbread (without the extra spices). But for ginger fans, this is a great new way to enjoy it. It’s a good munching food for movies, especially mixed with something salty like popcorn (I tried it with pretzels and it went well).

Rating: 7 out of 10

Darrell Lea has a pretty big range, I saw the Green Apple and Strawberry versions at Cost Plus as well. There is another version that are chocolate covered smaller nibs but their Australian website shows a much larger range of products (most of which sound fabulous). They’re Kosher and have no artificial colors or flavors.

Related Candies

1. Young & Smylie Traditional Licorice
2. Kookaburra Licorice
3. Organic Finnska Soft Licorice
4. Kenny’s Licorice Pastels & Root Beer Twists
5. Altoids Chocolate Dipped Ginger Mints
6. Dutch Licorice
7. Chimes Ginger Chews

Even though I adore high end chocolate, I have a hard time plunking down $5 to $12 without knowing what I’m going to get. So I’m often quite happy to fork over for tasting square versions even though they’re even more expensive when you figure out the cost per ounce. (And hey, it helps with portion control, too.)

I was happy to find some tasting squares from Amadei, one of the most highly reviewed chocolate makers in the world at Mel & Roses. Even though they were 85 cents each for the 4.5 gram squares, I at least got to sample a broad spectrum of their product line which will help to guide me when I decide to finally buy one of their bars.

As a little bonus I decided to try Amadei’s milk chocolate offering as well:

Overall, I was most pleased with the Madagascar and Porcelana but all were exceptional. I’m still not quite convinced enough to spend $11 for one of their bars, but I’m leaning in that direction. But for now the little selections in this format are enough for me and well worth the pocket change.

Related Candies

1. Domori Cru
2. Amano Single Origin Bars: Madagascar & Ocumare
3. Michel Cluizel Les 1ers Crus de Plantation
4. Dagoba Single Origin
5. E. Guittard Single Origin Tasting Kit

It was big news this month when Hershey Co. announced that it was raising its wholesale candy prices by 11%. This is the second price jump for them this year, in January they raised prices by 13% for select products in their line as well.

Most of this is due to increased cost across the board. Rising fuel prices in all sectors means that it costs more to buy energy to operate their factory candy kitchens, air condition their warehouses and drive trucks around. Add to that the biggest change, the raw materials cost more because of their vast distances from the Pennsylvania confectioner on top of their actual costs which have risen 20% - 45% this year alone.

The falling value of the dollar hasn’t helped much either, as all cocoa products are imported and there is more competition for quality cocoa beans. Even though they’ve trimmed their workforce within the past 18 months, rising health care costs are a huge burden for companies lately as well.

The change in the wholesale price for Hershey Co. is different than their tactics in the past when dealing with this sort of volatility. It seems kind of quaint now how Milton S. Hershey tried to lock down his costs by entering into long term buying deals for cocoa beans and even building his own sugar plantations in Cuba (and a community named Hershey there too, complete with schools, libraries and a railroad system). Back then attempts were made to keep the price of the candy the same, so they would change its size as needed.

(see larger)

The green line at the top represents the size of the chocolate bars (shown in grams). It’s easy to see that through the early years the price of the bar increased steadily (though slowly) but the size of the bar sold was volatile, even when taking the price per ounce into consideration. Oddly enough, the bar did become a better value quite often, both growing in size and dropping in price, though that trend ended after WWII and shortages and price swings in raw materials normalized.

Often though when the price went up, so did the size of the bar as a way to offset the perception of poor value.

The trend more recently, in the past 20 years though, has been to keep the bar the same size but simply raise the prices as needed. This means that things like slots in store shelves, wrappers, nutrition panels and manufacturing equipment stays the same.

While the icon of Hershey’s Milk Chocolate is fun to use as a benchmark, what is important to recognize is that Hershey’s doesn’t just play with the size and price of their products. They also change the manufacturing process (Hershey’s no longer roasts their own beans or processes them into chocolate liquor, they’ve subcontracted that to Barry Callebaut), alter how long products are conched and lately have even started substituting substandard ingredients. In 2006 Hershey’s began using PGPR, which is an emulsifier and extender, in some of their milk chocolate products, but it wasn’t until this year that it finally appeared in the formula for the Hershey’s Milk Chocolate bar.

To demonstrate how else Hershey’s has begun to cut corners, I only needed to look at Hershey’s classic Hershey’s Miniatures to discover that two of their iconic and early chocolate brands, Mr. Goodbar and Krackel, are no longer chocolate bars at all. Hershey’s was a strong and vocal supporter of The Grocery Manufacturers Association’s attempt to change the definition of chocolate from its present and not terribly stringent one (chocolate must contain cocoa solids and cocoa butter and no additional vegetable oils). In order to get chocolate products from Hershey’s now, consumers have to opt for their premium lines like Bliss and Cacao Reserve or pay true premium prices for their Dagoba or Scharffen Berger product lines.

Other changes to Hershey’s products over the past three years include:

Other products which have never been real chocolate (so you’re not confused):

Hershey’s has not completely made this switch over and their website still contains erroneous graphics and text that mislead consumers (UPDATE: I’ve documented more of that here), as an example, the 5th Avenue bar has not been made with a milk chocolate coating since at least early 2007, yet the main product listing and the product page still say that it is a milk chocolate & crunchy peanut butter. I cannot say if this is intentional, but based on my experience with calling Hershey’s customer service hotline and emailing them, they do not seem to understand that consumers should get up-to-date and accurate information when contacting a manufacturer.

While Hershey’s seems to be concentrating a great deal of effort on honing their efficiency, based on the fact that they’re subcontracting, eliminating factories and a percentage of their workforce while manufacturing more in Mexico, they seem to have neglected their primary mission: making good chocolate. Milton Hershey was often derided for not embracing advertising for his products. He said, “Give them quality, that’s the best kind of advertising in the world.” But presently they’re advertising quality with their new Pure Chocolate campaign but neglecting to actually deliver it.

Sources:
Wall Street Journal: Hershey Raises Prices Again by Jay Miller (8/18/2008)
Food Navigator: Hershey and Barry Callebaut Join Forces (4/27/2007)
Grocery Manufacturers Association Citizen’s Petition to the FDA (PDF) on Standards of Identity (10/25/2006)
Food Timeline: Historic Food Prices
Hershey Archives: Wrapper Visual Chronology
The Emperors of Chocolate: Inside the Secret World of Hershey and Mars by Jo?l Glenn Brenner
The Chocolate Chronicles by Ray Broekel
The Great American Candy Bar Book by Ray Broekel

Related Candies

1. ReeseSticks (Revisit)
2. Kissables (Reformulated)
3. Hershey’s CEO to Retire
4. What Made Hershey’s Want to Change Chocolate?
5. Big Candy Buyouts - Hershey & Jelly Belly
6. What does that Hershey’s code mean?