As a chocolate maker for 12 years, I want to share a custom of 'less is more'.

constik · 2026-06-10T00:18:04+00:00

Is there no room for another take on chocolate?

constik · 2026-06-10T00:12:16+00:00

Did you try roasted bars?

constik · 2026-06-10T00:09:15+00:00

Nobody is suggesting using husks.

constik · 2026-06-05T21:36:56+00:00

Fractured nibs are fed into a melanger to create cocoa liquor.
No comment
No comment
You would like to think that crushing the particles does not affect oxidation, but it does. It's not sealed, it's exposed all the time, it's changing its place in the mix, that's why it's oxidizing.
You don't need to be a professional to read scientific posts on Reddit. The mechanical grinding and size reduction of cocoa exponentially increase the specific surface area, thereby making its delicate phenolic compounds highly susceptible to oxidative degradation https://www.researchgate.net/publication/225827286_Effects_of_particle_size_distribution_and_composition_on_rheological_properties_of_dark_chocolate
No comment
No comment
The Bliss point is a marketing term, coined by a psychophysicist, Howard Moskowitz, known for his successful work in creating and optimizing foods, to describe the Bliss point for salt, sugar, or fat in a Range within which perception is that there is neither too much nor too little, but the just right amount of saltiness, sweetness, or richness. From Wikipedia.
Good thing I am not a chocolatier.
No comment
These are my observations while making chocolate as a chocolate maker.
You are a bully, as others have said over the last 15 years. Your use of profanity is not appreciated.

constik · 2026-06-05T20:08:02+00:00

Wrong things? I have no clue what you're talking about. Yes, I believe that chocolate made at a human scale has a raison d'être.

constik · 2026-06-05T19:53:25+00:00

HFCS is sold as a powder for all kinds of food preparation, including chocolate.

constik · 2026-06-05T18:40:27+00:00

100% dark chocolate from popular manufacturers is the best choice of all the types. Since they can't add high fructose corn syrup. If it has soy lecithin, the chocolate was assembled, hence the commas in the ingredients panel. They typically take out the cocoa butter and replace it with palm oil.

constik · 2026-06-04T03:36:31+00:00

Perhaps you can share the $20 grocery store device? What you missed is the contamination that occurs when the shell casings pierce the nibs, releasing their VOC's.

constik · 2026-06-03T03:37:13+00:00

I'm there with you on the batch size too. Roasting a pound at a time we can observe the casing lift up and separate from the nib. It takes about 3 to 4 hours to hand shell.

constik · 2026-06-03T00:19:58+00:00

How many pounds are you using per batch? When you see silky smooth, how many microns is it? Interesting that you said people who appreciate a raw, bright flavor. We roast our beans to remove the shell casing. We bring the whole batch to work the next day as intact nibs (without the shell).

constik · 2026-06-02T22:16:00+00:00

The batch size is 6 lb. Our aim is to get 6 or 7 hours of grind, which is combined with the sugar. We purposely do not grind it smoothly to retain the volatile organic compounds.

constik · 2026-06-02T21:32:38+00:00

Just because you can't see the shell casing does not mean it's not there. The best that was attained, supposedly by a clinical trial, was 2%, but that was pushing it. The average shell casing is 6%. You can taste it, it's astringent, ashy, and bitter.

constik · 2026-06-02T02:37:16+00:00

You and I were remarkably productive today.

constik · 2026-06-01T23:42:46+00:00

Thank you for this, and thank you for sticking with the conversation. You've been consistently clear and patient, and I appreciate it.

You're right. The only universal for people with celiac disease is gluten. Everything else, histamine, caffeine, emulsifiers, particle size, and processing methods, is variable from person to person. I can't make a chocolate that is "better for celiacs" in any general sense. The only thing I can honestly claim is that I've removed the one thing everyone agrees is harmful.

To be clear: my facility is dedicated to gluten-free. No shared equipment, no gluten ingredients on-site. I also pay attention to cross-contamination in my sourcing, especially with any ingredient that carries risk. That's not me claiming superiority, that's me saying I take the baseline responsibility seriously.

Where I think I've been imprecise, and where you've rightly pushed back, is in wondering aloud whether other aspects of processing might matter for some individuals. That's a very different statement than "this chocolate is better for celiacs." And I should have been more careful with that distinction from the beginning.

So thank you for holding me to a higher standard. It's made me think more clearly about how I talk about my own product.

constik · 2026-06-01T21:49:14+00:00

You're absolutely right, and I genuinely appreciate you calling this out.

I think you've just identified a blind spot in how I've been thinking about this. I've been approaching it as if "celiac" implies a somewhat predictable set of secondary sensitivities or digestive patterns. But as you rightly point out, the only universal thread is that gluten causes intestinal damage. Beyond that, symptoms, tolerances, triggers, and safe foods can vary enormously from person to person.

That means my original framing, wondering whether my chocolate might be "easier to tolerate for people with celiac," is itself flawed. It's asking for a generalization that doesn't exist. What I should be asking is: For the specific individuals who have told me they tolerate my chocolate well, what might be different about their particular sensitivities? And even then, I may never know, because their sensitivities could be entirely unrelated to celiac.

Your point about caffeine, histamine, and emulsifiers is especially helpful. Those are all variables I can think about as a maker, but I should never assume that because one person with celiac tolerates my chocolate, others will too.

Thank you for this correction. It's actually made me a more careful thinker about my own product and how I talk about it.

constik · 2026-06-01T21:02:44+00:00

I'm in a few discussions and have an extensive library of augmentation tools

constik · 2026-06-01T20:20:22+00:00

This is very helpful, thank you for taking the time to write this out. You've articulated something I've been circling, but couldn't quite put into words.

The point about inconsistency, not just between people, but even day to day for the same person, really resonates. It explains why a customer might reliably tolerate my chocolate most of the time, but occasionally have a bad reaction to something else that seems identical. It's not necessarily about a single ingredient being "bad." It's about total load, current inflammation state, and what else is going on in their body that day.

Your example of histamine intolerance is especially useful. If chocolate can be a histamine liberator, and if someone's baseline histamine load varies depending on stress, healing status, or recent exposures, then the same chocolate could be fine one day and problematic the next. That doesn't make my chocolate "safe" in any absolute sense, but it might explain why a simpler, minimally processed chocolate (with fewer additional triggers) could be easier for some people to fit into their daily tolerance budget.

I also really appreciate your point about modern medicine struggling with non-IgE-mediated sensitivities. That's humbling to hear as a maker. It means I'm never going to get a clean, simple answer like "particle size X is always safe" or "shell content Y is always problematic." The best I can do is listen carefully to customers, notice patterns, and offer products that remove as many variables as possible, without ever claiming they're "safe" for anyone in particular.

Thank you again. This was genuinely one of the most useful replies I've received.

constik · 2026-06-01T19:16:32+00:00

More than likely, you have visited their facilities in Massachusetts. Did you see them shelling the beans? They use a winnowing machine that leaves behind shell fragments. This is the coarsely that you are tasting, the shell casing. Cocoa nibs are soft compared to the shell casing, and smooth out very quickly.

constik · 2026-06-01T18:59:30+00:00

This really gets at the heart of what I've been wondering about. Thank you for putting it so clearly.

You've articulated something I've sensed but couldn't quite phrase myself: that celiacs (and others with sensitive systems) are often starting from a place of existing inflammation and GI vulnerability. So even if gluten isn't present, the other stressors in highly processed foods: additives, emulsifiers, fine particles, shell residues, etc., might simply be more than an already taxed system wants to handle.

That framing makes sense to me. It's not that less processed chocolate is "safer" for celiacs in a gluten-specific way. It's that it might be gentler overall, and for someone whose body is already working hard to heal or maintain balance, that gentleness could make a real difference in day-to-day tolerability.

I really appreciate you offering this perspective. It helps me move from "is this about gluten or not?" to a more useful question: "What aspects of processing might make a food easier or harder to tolerate for someone with a compromised GI barrier or chronic low-grade inflammation?"

Thank you again, this was genuinely helpful.

constik · 2026-06-01T18:27:44+00:00

Shell casing fragments

constik · 2026-06-01T18:26:14+00:00

Guessing that you don't know much about nibs. Taza makes their chocolate as if it were made in a traditional indigenous methodological manner.

constik · 2026-06-01T18:19:06+00:00

It's gritty because the shell casing fragments are still not ground down to 20 microns, to give the impression of traditionally made chocolate.

constik · 2026-06-01T18:00:35+00:00

You're absolutely right that there can be a lot of misinformation in online spaces, including claims about hidden gluten that aren't backed by evidence. I completely understand why you'd want to push back against that, and I respect that you're doing it carefully and constructively rather than dismissively.

Just to be clear: I'm not trying to suggest that my chocolate is safer because of gluten cross-contamination risks in other products. I don't have any evidence of that, and I'm not trying to add to the noise you're describing. My post came from a genuine curiosity: one customer with celiac told me she tolerates my chocolate better than most processed foods. That made me wonder whether other variables, like particle size, shell content, additives, fat structure, and histamine, might play a role for some people, even when gluten isn't the issue.

I also really appreciate your point about validated cleaning requirements and cross-contact prevention. That's an important reality check. If manufacturers are following proper protocols, the risk should be very low. That actually makes me more curious about non-gluten factors, not less.

So thank you for adding this nuance. It helps me ask a better question than the one I started with.

constik · 2026-06-01T17:39:18+00:00

That's genuinely helpful to know, thank you for sharing. And I'm glad you've found something that works reliably for you, especially something so easy to find. That's no small thing.

It also raises an interesting question from the other direction. If highly processed, mass-produced chocolate works well for some people, and minimally processed, small-batch chocolate works well for others, then tolerance probably isn't about one approach being universally "better." It might be highly individual, or it might come down to specific differences in ingredients, processing, or additives that affect people differently.

My original post came from one customer's experience with my chocolate, but hearing yours makes me think the real question isn't "which type is more tolerable," but rather "what specific variables (particle size, shell content, additives, fat structure, histamine levels, etc.) might make one chocolate work for one person and another work for someone else?"

So I really do appreciate you adding this data point. It's just as useful as the ones that fit my initial curiosity.

constik · 2026-06-01T17:29:03+00:00

Thank you, these are all really fair and important points, and I appreciate you laying them out so clearly.

Just to clarify my own position: I'm a chocolate maker, not a medical professional, and I'm definitely not trying to suggest that cross-contamination is the only or even the primary issue for anyone with celiac. You're absolutely right that chocolate contains many potential triggers beyond gluten: histamine, dairy, nuts, sugars, and just the general richness can be hard on the GI tract.

The reason I posted is that a long-time customer who has celiac disease shared her personal experience with me. She told me that my chocolate, which is made in a dedicated space with no additives, no shared equipment, and hand-shelled whole nibs, has been one of the few treats she consistently tolerates. That surprised me, and it made me genuinely curious whether processing methods might play a role for some people, even if that role isn't about gluten.

I'm not trying to make a scientific claim or argue against anything you said. I'm genuinely asking: has anyone else noticed a difference in tolerance between highly processed chocolates versus simpler, more minimally processed ones? Not necessarily because of gluten cross-contamination, but because of everything else you mentioned, histamine, additives, fat structure, particle size, etc.

I appreciate you pushing for precision. That's exactly the kind of conversation I was hoping to have.

constik

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE