It's common to have one's chocolate eating habits criticised: What you're eating is not smooth enough, not dark enough, not fair enough, and so on. The burden placed by the society upon the humble cocoa bean is immense. Anyway, being an avid chocolate connoisseur myself, I've received my fair share of such criticism and unsolicited "advice."
Since forever, I've stuck to my childhood ideology that one does not question the nutritional content of what one enjoys. Undoubtedly, an excellent policy to follow. For years, I've enjoyed a creamy bar of full milk chocolate without question.
So, what changed?
Recently, I was hit on my head with a rather large brick -- or so I believe. Or, my brain structure has got a lot smoother lately. An inconspicuous concussion, perhaps? Perhaps. The thing is, I've started paying attention to the ingredients list even for food I enjoy. Heresy, you say? Aging, I say.
It turns out that on this God's green earth, things that are healthful undoubtedly taste bad. So, without exception, this healthier version of chocolate, called the "dark chocolate," tastes nothing like wholesome goodness of milk chocolate and feels more like eating bitter cardboard. The rich, sugary creaminess is surely missing. But, dark chocolates -- at least the good ones they say -- boast of fewer ingredients and no additives: Cocoa, cocoa butter, sugar -- just the bare minimum. A long list is Ok, if the things on the list are necessary ingredients. But, I just don't want to be cheated by substitutes and chemical processing to reduce costs.
Having eaten several decades of full milk chocolates, I said to myself: No harm in feasting on this chewy cardboard out for a while. Maybe, given my concussion, I'll even find a liking.
So, my friends, that's how my journey to the dark side began. It just began a few days ago, though. So, like everything else, I'll throw it at the wall. Let's see if this sticks or drops.
ark
No comments:
Post a Comment