Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?
Patents Science Idle

Scientists Develop Chocolate That Won't Melt At High Temperatures 161

Zothecula writes "One of life's less pleasant surprises is discovering the chocolate bar that you forgot you had in your pocket on a hot day. Two scientists working at Cadbury's research and development plant in Bourneville, U.K., are fighting that gooey surprise with the invention of chocolate that remains solid even when exposed to temperatures of 40 C (104 F) for more than three hours. Aimed at tropical markets, the 'temperature tolerant chocolate' is described in a World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) patent application."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Scientists Develop Chocolate That Won't Melt At High Temperatures

Comments Filter:
  • by oodaloop (1229816) on Monday December 03, 2012 @10:37AM (#42169195)
    Melts in your Mouth. Not in your pocket.
    • Re:New slogan (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 03, 2012 @10:39AM (#42169223)

      Except that it wouldn't melt in your mouth and thus probably also be less delicious than normal chocolate.

      • Feature not Bug! (Score:5, Insightful)

        by tempmpi (233132) on Monday December 03, 2012 @10:42AM (#42169273)

        Exactly: chocolate melting almost exactly at body temperature is a feature not a bug.

      • Re:New slogan (Score:5, Informative)

        by timeOday (582209) on Monday December 03, 2012 @10:47AM (#42169345)

        Except that it wouldn't melt in your mouth and thus probably also be less delicious than normal chocolate.


        The problem was that making a chocolate bar that wouldn't melt wasn't hard. What was hard was to make one that people still wanted to eat. The military bars didn't melt and they were nutritious, but they were difficult to eat and they didn't taste very good. Thatâ(TM)s because the usual way to keep chocolate from melting was to either add fillers like oat flour and swap the cocoa butter for other fats, which made it taste like a candle, or adding water or glycerol to encourage sugar crystal formation, which made it gritty. Cadbury's approach is...

        Well, I won't spoil it for you.

        • by jfengel (409917)

          I had some of those bars, from mid-80s MREs. They were just awful: as one friend put it "the more you chew it, the bigger it gets".

          If you thought of them as more akin to Tootsie Rolls than chocolate, they weren't so bad (though I'm not a fan of Tootsie Rolls, either).

          • Good thing you weren't eating MRE's in the late 90's/early 2000's then, they often included tootsie rolls, and I hated those.

        • Cadbury's approach is...

          Well, I won't spoil it for you.

          Aw, man. I had to click on the article.

      • Re:New slogan (Score:5, Informative)

        by Lumpy (12016) on Monday December 03, 2012 @11:07AM (#42169653) Homepage

        You got it' It's why others that invented it years ago did not market it. It change the taste and mouth feel of chocolate. Test groups did not like it.

        This is not a new invention, Back in 2009 another company already announced it. []

        • Re:New slogan (Score:5, Informative)

          by NatasRevol (731260) on Monday December 03, 2012 @11:38AM (#42170045) Journal

          I worked with/on Hershey's Desert Bar. In 1990.


          It was processing the egg whites to withstand structural changes at higher temps.

          I put one in a flame on a gas stove. It burned, did not melt.

          They were tolerable to eat, but not great. Much like last year's halloween candy.

          • But conventional Hershey's tastes like wax anyway. Why bother?

            My preference is Theo or Kalila 85% +

            • Your taste preference is not typical, so why bother?

              • OMG! Won't anybody think of the chocolate?!

              • by Capsaicin (412918) *

                Yeah I agree, how can anyone say Hershey's tastes like wax?! I mean the dead fish flavour is so overwhelming how can you taste anything else?

                • by rubycodez (864176)

                  no, they do not taste like fish. if you're going to keep bars in your back pocket, wash your ass.

                  • by Capsaicin (412918) *

                    no, they do not taste like fish

                    Perhaps not to someone who doesn't know any better, but they sure do if you enjoy chocolate. Maybe closer to a bacterial throat infection than fish, I'll grant you that. Even Cadbury's tastes better, and you'd have to be down on your luck to eat their imitation chocolate.

                    Trust me, after my two (2) bites of a Hershey's (I was determined to finish it, but in the event I just couldn't summon up the strength), I won't be letting a bar of it come anywhere near my back, nor any

                    • by dbIII (701233)
                      And here I was just thinking that they taste like that due to six months at sea in an oil soaked shipping container before they get to my country :)
                      I shouldn't even joke, the stuff is going to be old before it gets to Australia so isn't going to match fresh local or NZ stuff made with real sugar instead of corn crap, let alone something shipped refridgerated from Europe.
                    • And here I was just thinking that they taste like that due to six months at sea in an oil soaked shipping container before they get to my country :)

                      I did some research ... well I googled "what's the funny taste in hersheys" ... apparently they infect the milk and let it sour to give the product that unique flavour. Now I can't stand off milk (except when it's so off that it becomes yoghurt), so that probably explains why I couldn't stomach Hershey's. It also explains why it tastes so bacterial.


            • Re:New slogan (Score:5, Informative)

              by drinkypoo (153816) <> on Monday December 03, 2012 @06:31PM (#42174245) Homepage Journal

              My preference is Theo or Kalila 85% +

              Just in case you need to know, Ghirardelli is still good, Droste is still good, Lindt is now shit. This is relevant if you're looking for gourmet chocolate in a supermarket.

              • I live 200 yards from a tree-hugger supermarket that sells a lot of fancy chocolate including Theo and Kalila.

              • What has changed with Lindt? It's certainly not the most gourmet chocolate available but I haven't noticed a change over the years. No other gourmet brand is widely available in supermarkets where I'm from so it remains a staple. I tend to grab Camille Bloch from European importers when passing by.

                Having tried Lindt in Switzerland I noticed no real difference (although not an A/B). On the other hand many English friends claim Cadbury in Australia is quite different (inferior of course) due to changes th

                • by drinkypoo (153816)

                  What has changed with Lindt

                  It doesn't dissolve like it used to, I would describe it as "waxy". I've been eating it since I was a child, it has most definitely changed. Oddly, Ghirardelli didn't go downhill when they bought them, which is why I mention it. If anything, THEY have improved. I still prefer european chocolate in general, but Lindt no longer qualifies. I've been eating it for 20 years, so I think I know what I'm talking about.

                  Cadbury chocolate is inferior no matter where you buy it.

          • by shpoffo (114124)

            Did you ever hear that there was any health consideration? - meaning that maybe it would be bad for you, like crisco / hydrogenated oil, because it too would have a higher melting point than much of the body temperature, and therefore clog-up the body channels

            • Not that I was aware of.

              However, it was egg whites not fat. So it wouldn't be similar to oils.

            • Cheese fits your description above. I don't eat enough of it for it to be a problem but I believe the answer is to blast it out by drinking prune juice. From experience, drinking four litres of unsweetened pineapple juice would blast anything out (it was an incredibly hot day and the stuff came in four litre tins so it was an entirely unintentional and disturbing discovery), but is not to be recommended since it leaves you feeling like you've had a sexual encounter with a Santa Gertrudis Bull lubricated w
          • by a_hanso (1891616)
            That's nothing. Combined with the new 60-day bread, we're looking at an indestructible eclair.
            • by rubycodez (864176)

              we already have the cream fileed suffle that lasts on the order of geological time, the twinkie. The only long term threat to twinkes is proton decay, if such exists.

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          In the 70s, friends in Ecuador used to occasinally send us candy. Mostly chocolate bars w.peanuts, and pressed coconut w/cocoa.. The chocolate bars were tolerant of higher temperatures and had a different mouth feel. Not bad, just different (and delicious).
        • by dbIII (701233)
          For a few years I used to get "compound chocolate" to take on camping trips when the temperature was up above 35C, I'm not sure who made it since it was sold in a plain white packet as a supermarket chain's "home brand". There was even a fruit and nut version. It was far cheaper than normal blocks of chocolate but didn't taste anywhere near as good as even the cheap and nasty stuff the cheapest easter eggs are made of, but it didn't melt at 35C+. I don't know if it melted at body temperature and I don't
      • They say, that their chocolate is going to be good even if it does not melt, as opposed to a "normal chocolate". As chocolate in general does not melt easily on very cold days and thus has taste problems, then perhaps their chocolate will actually taste better in the winter.
      • by MarkGriz (520778)

        Ok, new slogan

        "Tastes like shit, but at least it doesn't melt in your hands"

      • by Darinbob (1142669)

        Reminds me of the chocolate they sell in the Caribbean and Central America, doesn't melt as fast but loaded with tons of sugar to ruin the taste.

    • by uncanny (954868) on Monday December 03, 2012 @10:39AM (#42169229)

      chocolate that remains solid even when exposed to temperatures of 40 C (104 F) for more than three hours

      If your mouth is 104 F you might want to see a doctor!

    • by paiute (550198)

      Melts in your Mouth. Not in your pocket.

      Melts in an oven. Not in your intestines.

    • Re:New slogan (Score:5, Interesting)

      by cellocgw (617879) <(moc.liamg) (ta) (wgcollec)> on Monday December 03, 2012 @12:42PM (#42170813) Journal

      My wet-blanket reply of the day follows.
      The primary mechanism for chocolate breakup in your mouth is dissolving (and some early enzymatic breakup), not melting. If you really waited around for even soft chocolates to melt at 37-ish degrees Celsius, you would not have a good time.
      What would matter to the consumers of this new chocolate,then, would be its texture and dissolution rate, not its melting temperature.

  • Can't wait to try it (Score:4, Interesting)

    by ShooterNeo (555040) on Monday December 03, 2012 @10:38AM (#42169217)

    From TFA : Temperature tolerant chocolate has been around since the 1930s, but it sucks because it becomes too hard and tastes bad.

    I can't wait to try a bar of this stuff and compare it to the normal kind. Obviously, since it doesn't melt in your mouth, it won't be the same, but if it is soft and easy to chew, and disolves in saliva, maybe the eating experience will be similar.

    Personally, I find the most enjoyable chocolate to be Hershey's Symphony bars that have been frozen.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Personally, I find the most enjoyable chocolate to be Hershey's Symphony bars that have been frozen.

      If your favorite chocolate is Hershey's anything, the only explanation is that you've never tasted chocolate.

      Hershey's chocolate isn't chocolate. I'm not saying this in an elitist, "it's so bad you can't consider it chocolate way." I mean, they don't use cacao, which is definition of chocolate.

      • by Chirs (87576) on Monday December 03, 2012 @11:43AM (#42170103)

        If you look at a Hershey chocolate bar, it does in fact have "chocolate" listed in the ingredient list, which is by definition made from cacao.

        • by Eevee (535658)
          There are two possible interpretations here: the previous post was wrong, or the US has a definition of "chocolate" that specifies a much lower level of cocoa solids than the rest of the civilized world and thus should not be considered chocolate by anyone with working taste buds.
          • There are two possible interpretations here: the previous post was wrong, or the US has a definition of "chocolate" that specifies a much lower level of cocoa solids than the rest of the civilized world and thus should not be considered chocolate by anyone with working taste buds.

            Actually, you're wrong on both counts. I believe the word "chocolate" in the U.S. implies a minimum of 10% cacao solids, while in the EU, you can label anything with at least 1% to be "chocolate."

            The difference isn't the definition, where the US is actually more strict. The difference is the EU requires the percentage to appear on the label, so those "civilized" nations just have more information to make choices among snooty chocolate. (For the record, I personally love gourmet chocolate, but milk choc

            • Alright, I admit it when I'm wrong -- the EU standards do seem to require something more like 20%, as I've discovered in searching. So much for my "foodie" friend who told me the 1% bit. Nevertheless, I think the required percentage labeling is still the more important think for chocolate quality in the EU.
            • by retchdog (1319261)

              more strict, maybe, but no thanks to hershey's and several other industry groups who (unsuccessfully) lobbied like hell to get the fda to relax its definition to allow hydrogenated vegetable oils, circa 2007-09.

              after failing to get away with it, hershey's changed many of their bars to mockolate anyway. for example, mr. goodbar is now "made with chocolate and peanuts" [] instead of "peanuts in milk chocolate" [].

      • by guises (2423402)
        Hershey's Special Dark has won quite a few taste tests. It's by no means the best there is, but declaring a product to be worthless just because of its branding is no better than declaring a product to be great just because of its branding (or lack of branding).
  • by jbridges (70118) on Monday December 03, 2012 @10:39AM (#42169221)

    Not going to melt in your mouth unless you have a high fever.

    So it's going to be like chewing on chocolate flavored crayons.

    • Well, if you got this chocolate to your body temperature in your mouth, is there any reason why your saliva still wouldn't *dissolve* it?

      • Melting isn't the same as dissolving, is it? Your saliva will dissolve a Starburst, for example, but it doesn't exactly have a melting sensation. :)
      • by sjames (1099)

        Fats don't dissolve in water.

    • by Hatta (162192)

      So it will be like eating a Hershey's bar?

  • by Cruciform (42896) on Monday December 03, 2012 @10:42AM (#42169285) Homepage

    If your chocolate bar remains hard for more than four hours, please see a confectioner.

  • when I try to eat a frozen chocolate on a winter day. It tastes like goo. Can it be, because it does not melt?
  • by 93 Escort Wagon (326346) on Monday December 03, 2012 @10:48AM (#42169357)

    Although, unfortunately, I can't say I've ever forgotten about a chocolate bar that's in my possession.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    High temperature chocolates are not new. In WWII, the US Military created emergency rations in the form of chocolate bars ( []) that remained solid up to 120 degrees. It was kind of an in-joke how unpalatable they were, but this was part of the design. As an emergency ration, they wanted you to have to be *really* hungry before you ate them.

    • I don't know whether I should be less surprised by the fact that mil-spec chocolate exists or by the fact that it doesn't taste all that good. :-)
    • by jandrese (485)
      I still wonder if the company that made them was actually told "make them taste bad so Soldiers don't try to eat them early", or if they realized during production that the taste was horrible and some smarty pants in marketing sold it to the military as a feature.
  • by MaxToTheMax (1389399) on Monday December 03, 2012 @10:51AM (#42169405)
    And Cadbury was already licensing the technology, IIRC. I read the recipe in a magazine years ago (apparently invented by some schoolkids) and actually made it. The trick is to melt the chocolate down, mix in a little glycerine, and let it set again. It works pretty well, although my chocolate is pretty soft even when it's not melted. Could be I did it wrong.
  • by sribe (304414) on Monday December 03, 2012 @10:52AM (#42169409)

    Is when that's not chocolate in your pocket after all ;-)

  • by MyLongNickName (822545) on Monday December 03, 2012 @10:55AM (#42169469) Journal

    Isn't one of the "good" characteristics of chocolate is that it begins to melt in your mouth? If it doesn't melt at 104F, I don't see it melting in my mouth.

  • This is kind of missing the point that Chocolate is supposed to melt at body temperature, it is this feature of Chocolate that makes it unique.
  • My dream of living in a house made of chocolate may one day become a reality!!
  • Shatters when cold (Score:4, Informative)

    by docilespelunker (1883198) on Monday December 03, 2012 @10:59AM (#42169539)
    Taking chocolate to the other extreme, dunking it in liquid nitrogen makes it shatter. I learnt a lesson that should not be repeated... Don't eat cryo cooled chocolate. When it shatters in your mouth it's like having a mouth full of cold knives. However after a while and some whimpering it did melt - so hurrah for melty chocolate!
    • by dbIII (701233)
      Back at uni we did the liquid nitrogen shattered banana thing which tastes pretty good due to the very small ice crystals. The guy that burnt his tongue instead of waiting long enough now works in an explosives factory.
  • by Billy the Mountain (225541) on Monday December 03, 2012 @10:59AM (#42169541) Journal
    I thought that was the idea behind Nestle's Don Carlos V. Ten years ago I bought some in Mexico and left the bars in the car but they remained solid. Also, this chocolate is not gritty and is available in the U.S. (At least in some markets)
  • by rossdee (243626)

    There would be a lot of uses for a material that won't melt at high temperatures for example a heat shield for spacecraft reentry, or containment vessel for nuclear reactors

    • by Anonymous Coward

      There are many fewer needs for such a material to also be a food. That is why existing materials (Ni-based alloys and such) are already employed to meet these needs. Yes, there is ongoing research into improving the materials available, but (to my knowledge) no one has added the requirement of "must be delicious".

  • by realsilly (186931) on Monday December 03, 2012 @11:20AM (#42169793)

    McDonald's french fries that do not spoil.

  • by Squidlips (1206004) on Monday December 03, 2012 @11:21AM (#42169807)
    Mmm yum. Better food through science...
  • by guttentag (313541) on Monday December 03, 2012 @11:33AM (#42169967) Journal
    It's interesting that we're suddenly seeing all these stories about engineered foods that don't behave like real food so soon after the collapse of Hostess. It's almost as though there is a perception that the world will be more accepting of new food-substitutes that last forever to fill "the Hostess void" and take the place of the Twinkie in our bomb shelters. Perhaps we will find that the new 60-day bread maintains a constant temperature of 105 degrees F, hot enough to ward off mold and melt the new chocolate, so you can have Nutella in your bunker. Because the comforts of chocolate offset the creepiness of bread that toasts itself.
  • by Synerg1y (2169962) on Monday December 03, 2012 @11:34AM (#42169989)
    To bring obesity to tropical countries!
  • by hyades1 (1149581) <> on Monday December 03, 2012 @11:55AM (#42170255)

    Slow-melting chocolate vibrators. My idea. MINE!

  • Who knew! I thought Cadbury just made disgusting sugar laden junk food.

  • That the US Army started issuing during WWII? []

                mark "eventually, it gets crumbly"

  • Melted chocolate coming out of flat, squeezable plastic thing would be better than chocolate with strange chemical properties. For troops in the field, have an outer plastic wrapper so that they can put the inner plastic part in their mouth and squeeze out all the product without having to get dust and grime in their mouth. Oh, better yet don't make the inner wrapper plastic. Make it an edible product that's flexible but tasteless. How about gel caps full of chocolate? There would probably be too much

  • How will scientists detect microwaves now?

  • Pooping is overrated anyway.
  • "The chocolate that melts in the heart of the sun, not in your intestinal tract!"
  • by evilviper (135110) on Monday December 03, 2012 @01:32PM (#42171345) Journal

    Through the entire article, and up-voted slashdot comments, not a single mention of the WWII era TROPICAL BAR? []

  • Hey slashdot, 1943 called. They want their story back! []

  • by RivenAleem (1590553) on Monday December 03, 2012 @02:05PM (#42171817)

    Can I have a Chocolate palace now Mr Wonka?

  • call it soylent brown.

"The fundamental principle of science, the definition almost, is this: the sole test of the validity of any idea is experiment." -- Richard P. Feynman