What is the difference among 90%, 99%, and 100% chocolate?

[kenny1999]

I can see that a famous chocolate brand Lindt has released three different rates of chocolate and their prices have quite a big difference. The 100% one is the most expensive, while the 99% one is only a fraction of the price of the 100% one. I can guess that reaching 100% for anything may take more processes so the price is much higher but what is the reason of having pure 100% chocolate? Does it have better taste?

What is the difference in terms of the health benefits among the three types of chocolate? 

Is such pure chocolate only good for health with little or no adverse effect? My common sense is normally any chocolate shouldn't be good for health.

[TheVat]

Most of the hype about dark chocolate comes, oddly enough  from the chocolate industry.  Pure cocoa (a nice cup of hot chocolate, add a little sugar) is good for you (polyphenols, nitric oxide boosting, vasodilation, improved insulin sensitivity, antidepressant, etc) but adding lots of saturated fats and sugars to make it into chocolate is not really improving it (in terms of health benefits; flavor is another matter) - and processing reduces the flavonol content generally.  

The higher cost for 100% is probably because fewer people buy that (it probably is more bitter and lacks the other ingredients that create a better mouthfeel), so the production runs are smaller.  Small batch production always raises the price per unit.  

Edited February 21, 2023 by TheVat
clarif

[kenny1999]

10 hours ago, TheVat said:

Most of the hype about dark chocolate comes, oddly enough  from the chocolate industry.  Pure cocoa (a nice cup of hot chocolate, add a little sugar) is good for you (polyphenols, nitric oxide boosting, vasodilation, improved insulin sensitivity, antidepressant, etc) but adding lots of saturated fats and sugars to make it into chocolate is not really improving it (in terms of health benefits; flavor is another matter) - and processing reduces the flavonol content generally.  

The higher cost for 100% is probably because fewer people buy that (it probably is more bitter and lacks the other ingredients that create a better mouthfeel), so the production runs are smaller.  Small batch production always raises the price per unit.  

But what's the difference between the 99% one and the 100% one? The 100% one is almost double the price of 99% one for the same amount of net weight under the same brand.

[zapatos]

I just looked at Walmart and another store, and found the prices for 90%, 99% and 100% are approximately the same. 

[sethoflagos]

46 minutes ago, kenny1999 said:

But what's the difference between the 99% one and the 100% one? The 100% one is almost double the price of 99% one for the same amount of net weight under the same brand.

I lile these products. As do my wife and children. Why should we answer to you about our personal preferences? None of your business I think.

[kenny1999]

31 minutes ago, sethoflagos said:

I lile these products. As do my wife and children. Why should we answer to you about our personal preferences? None of your business I think.

Am I asking you? I didn't even know you exist, and your "wife and children". That I am asking questions here is none of your business.

Edited February 22, 2023 by kenny1999

[Sensei]

I see that the Lindt no sugar version has a higher price i.e. the sugar is replaced by something else. They are usually more expensive than fructose, glucose or sucrose.

[sethoflagos]

13 hours ago, kenny1999 said:

Am I asking you? I didn't even know you exist, and your "wife and children". That I am asking questions here is none of your business.

You're absolutely right. There was no call for my response. I've no idea why I wrote it. Can we put it down to a senior moment?

[Genady]

14 hours ago, zapatos said:

I just looked at Walmart and another store, and found the prices for 90%, 99% and 100% are approximately the same. 

No Walmart here, but the situation in our stores similar. About a dime difference. (It could be double price if it were a dime vs two dimes, but it is not. About 5% difference in price.)

[Eise]

I think it is the process of conching  that takes longer. Without help of supporting substance (e.g. lecithine) conching takes long, maybe even better conching machines are needed.

And did you look carefully for the prices of the 90% and the 99%? Here in Switzerland the 99% has only half of the contents of the 90% (50g instead of 100g):

 

Edited August 25, 2023 by Eise

[Steve81]

On 2/21/2023 at 12:02 PM, kenny1999 said:

I can see that a famous chocolate brand Lindt has released three different rates of chocolate and their prices have quite a big difference. The 100% one is the most expensive, while the 99% one is only a fraction of the price of the 100% one. I can guess that reaching 100% for anything may take more processes so the price is much higher but what is the reason of having pure 100% chocolate? Does it have better taste?

What is the difference in terms of the health benefits among the three types of chocolate? 

Is such pure chocolate only good for health with little or no adverse effect? My common sense is normally any chocolate shouldn't be good for health.

Higher percentage cacao dark chocolate products are richer in the natural flavor, but much less sweet as a result (less percentage sugar). It’s more appropriate for diabetics like myself as an occasional treat, or someone with similar concerns.

I did use 90% (IIRC) as a topper with melted PB and a non-sugar sweetener mixed in (monk fruit sweetener, which later turned out to have its own issues) and cooled in the freezer to make a nice diabetic friendly treat.

Edited August 25, 2023 by Steve81