I used to work for Godiva, and they gave us little scripts to say when asked about sugar-free chocolate: something along the lines of quality, European recipes, not good enough to bear the Godiva name, so sorry, etc., and then tell the customer where in the mall they find fake chocolate.
Now that I can’t eat anything with a high sugar content, I have found it easy to avoid the Godiva located ten feet from my store and directly in the path to my car. Despite my previous addiction to raspberry truffles.
But today, they had a sign up introducing their new sugar-free chocolates. None so far are raspberry, thank heavens. But I’ve had a few pieces of Russell Stover sugar-free chocolate that were quite good (as long as you don’t eat too many…sugar alcohols can cause diarrhea) so I imagine anything Godiva would put its name on must be much better.
This is a slippery slope I don’t want to get on. I want to continue not needing chocolate anymore. But I really want to try one. I guess poverty will have to be the deciding factor here.
But if they come out with a sugar-free dark chocolate raspberry, I may be lost.
The website doesn’t have details yet. Any idea what they’re using instead of sugar? Sucralose, probably. I can’t eat that stuff - makes me feel like I swallowed a swimming pool. I burp chlorine for hours. Plus, I still taste the same exact “fake sweetener” off taste I do with Nutrasweet.
My main problem with non-sugar ‘diabetic’ chocolates is they use some god-awful edible wax in place of perfectly good cocoa butter, making the mouth feel SUCK like eating cheap regular chocolate :eek:
When will candy companies learn that just because we cant eat sugar, we arent on a low fat diet? I can plan my days diet around the amount of cocoa butter in a treat :mad: I want the quality that comes with a full cocoabutter chocolate!
I didn’t have time to ask what sweetener they are using…I’ll check with the manager tomorrow. I think the Russell Stover S-F Choc. uses the sorbitol-malitol-suagr alcohol stuff. The poster showed a candy bar, and she mentioned almonds, but she was just uncovering the kiosk and I had to get to church for communion, so tomorrow night I’ll have an answer.
If saccharine can be sold with only a warning label about causing cancer in rats, then by golly, cyclamates ought to be available under the same rules!
Dumb question: So why don’t you just eat chocolate that’s dark enough so it has little or no sugar? I recently picked up a bar that’s 100% cacao (no sugar, no nuthin’ but chocolate), and it ain’t too bad. It’s pretty interesting to try it with a little black pepper and some sea salt.
Or even more lax rules. In 1984, the FDA released a report saying, “[T]he collective weight of the many experiments . . . indicates that cyclamate is not carcinogenic.” They’ve been in constant use in more than 50 countries, and Canada re-approved them in 1978. (Information found here.) Do I detect a filibuster by other artificial sweetener manufacturers’ lobbyists? [/hijack]
Hunter Hawk, dark chocolate is a wonderful creation. It’s a taste like none other. It’s a taste completely unlike milk chocolate, for example, or caramel filled nougaty goodness, or whipped chocolate truffles. When I want chocolate, I want milk chocolate. When I want dark chocolate, I want dark chocolate (preferably with candied orange rinds in it).
Alright, here’s the update. The new candy comes out next Monday. It is sweetened with malitol. The candy bars will be milk, dark, and milk with almonds, sold individually or in the multi-pack. Nut crunch will also be available in sugar-free. I don’t know if the nut crunch will be available in bulk, or just the boxed. I left the flyer downstairs in my jacket pocket and I’m too tired to go find it right now.
I’m surprised at how items with sugar alcohol taste no different than regular sugar.
The only thing I don’t like about sugar alcohol is the horrible gas it gives me. My husband will attest to that. :o I still eat regular sugar from time to time, just very little at a time or else I start sweating and need to lie down for a half hour.
It’s a gamble, but sometimes I’m willing to take my chances.
IMHO, it is merely a sign of the decay of standards that currently afflicts our culture, that Godiva is willing to degrade the definition of “fine chocolate confections,” merely to snag a share of the market for non-“fine chocolate confections.”
It’s not like Godiva is the best chocolate out there. Or even particularly excellent. It’s decent, don’t get me wrong; I enjoy it - but it’s overpriced and it’s certainly not “fine chocolate”. The fine stuff is a little harder to find, admittedly - but would you really expect fine chocolate to be sold in random department stores next to the purses?
I can’t eat that stuff - makes me feel like I swallowed a swimming pool. I burp chlorine for hours. Plus, I still taste the same exact “fake sweetener” off taste I do with Nutrasweet.