Cadbury's after Kraft

[944fan]

I know there will be a lot of people who say Cadbury's has always tasted st, but I am not ashamed to admit I do like it. Or at least I used to.

Rich Hall on Live at the Apollo once said the when Kraft bought Cadbury's they would make it st, because that's what Kraft do, the make stuff st.

I think he is right. Recently Cadbury's has begun to resemble vomit. Anyone else noticed a change?

[Wadeski]

They won't have changed the recipe.

They did sack everyone in Cadbury's management though!

[Puggit]

944fan said:

Anyone else noticed a change?

No, it's always tasted like st

[Lurking Lawyer]

Puggit said:

No, it's always tasted like st

Compared with what....?

I've never had a problem with the taste of Cadbury chocolate - and I can't say that I've noticed that it has changed over recent years - but then I haven't exactly tried a lot of "proper" chocolate (i.e. the stuff with higher cocoa content) to compare it with.

[Mastodon2]

Wadeski said:

They won't have changed the recipe.

They did sack everyone in Cadbury's management though!

They have, have you not had a Cadbury's bar in the last few months? It not has a glossy, wet-look finish, typcial of Kraft chocolate, as opposed to the dull, matte finish it used to have. It now tastes different too, it has started to incorporate a lot of what people call the "vomit" smell, due to it now using soured milk, as it's cheaper to used concentrated soured milk, as opposed to using larger volumes of fresh milk. It's not a huge change in taste but it's definitely not how it used to be.

They won't change the recipe drastically or rapidly, it's being done slowly. It was Jan 2010 when the Kraft takeover was approved, and instantly there was uproar when people said that Kraft would fk Cadburys up. They waited 3 years to start implementing their changes, long enough for people to get used to Kraft being the parent company, and long enough for people to start thinking that they were wrong and that the product would not change. Wrong. Where there is money to be saved, it will be saved. Kraft didn't buy Cadburys because they care about the heritage and history of the company, or because they are passionate about the product. They bought it because it sells, and they know they can squeeze even more profit out of it than the last management.

[Wadeski]

I must say i dont eat Cadburys much.

It could be true, but I really doubt they would risk a recipe change after putting up 15 billion quid to buy the company, unless Cadbury's profitability was dire. And if the profitability was that bad, surely they would have found other ways to cost-engineer the product before changing the flavour.

Cadburys does differ around the world - in hot countries all chocolate has to be full of anti-melting agents which give American and Asian chocolate that wierd chalky texture.

[Kermit power]

Cadbury chocolate was never anything more than just about edible, but it is now just utterly flavourless.

[Baryonyx]

I used to quite happily eat Cadburys's chocolate. I'm not sure I would bother now. I think it's the high vegetable oil content that puts me off, I'd sooner go to Thorntons. It's not that much more expensive these days.

[897sma]

Definitely tastes different now, someone had some cadburys roses at work the other day and the chocolate was foul.

[Ilikebeaver]

It's changed for sure. No one at Kraft will admit to it though.

My guess is that they have replaced some of the cocoa solids with palm oil (to save money)!

This is what makes cheap chocolaye taste cheap and more sickly than it should be

[anonymous-user]

Mastodon2 said:

it has started to incorporate a lot of what people call the "vomit" smell, due to it now using soured milk, as it's cheaper to used concentrated soured milk, as opposed to using larger volumes of fresh milk. It's not a huge change in taste but it's definitely not how it used to be.

It seems to taste different to me (there's certainly an odd aftertaste to it now), but it doesn't have the vomit smell that you get from Hershey's. Yet.

[RobDickinson]

Ilikebeaver said:

It's changed for sure. No one at Kraft will admit to it though.

My guess is that they have replaced some of the cocoa solids with palm oil (to save money)!

This is what makes cheap chocolaye taste cheap and more sickly than it should be

Cadburies tried the palm oil trick here at the same time as dropping the bar weight. Backfired massively and everyone buys the much nicer whitakers now.

[Halb]

I love Cadbury's, it's amongst the best, I haven't noticed a difference. But then I eat choccy in binges rather than frequently. Like Easter/Christmas.
I would feel disappointed if Kraft have altered it.

[dazco]

Ilikebeaver said:

It's changed for sure. No one at Kraft will admit to it though.

My guess is that they have replaced some of the cocoa solids with palm oil (to save money)!

This is what makes cheap chocolaye taste cheap and more sickly than it should be

Would this not be very easy to check? I thought the amount of cocoa was published on the side

[PugwasHDJ80]

dazco said:

Would this not be very easy to check? I thought the amount of cocoa was published on the side

It is easy to check, but most of the flavour from milk chocolate is not from cocoa- its from Milk solids, oil, cocoa butter, sugar and all the other ingredients.

For me- Cadbury chocolate really has changed flavour in the past 2 years- noticed it most this easter when it had just lost that creaminess it used.

I've gone back to yorkies!

[h0b0]

Kraft do not own Cadbury's. They are owned by Mondelçz who will soon be owned by Pepsi who also own Lays/Walkers.

[The jiffle king]

h0b0 said:

Kraft do not own Cadbury's. They are owned by Mondelçz who will soon be owned by Pepsi who also own Lays/Walkers.

do you have a source for that? I know Irene Rosenfield is ex Pepsi and did the split, but I thought the Pepsi strategy was more healthy brands (quaker, Tropicana, dairy etc)

[h0b0]

PepsiCo Inc. (PEP) and Mondelez International Inc. (MDLZ) shareholders are wagering that salty and sweet are better together.

ETA - I work with both companies in a confidential manner but I DO NOT HAVE ANY KNOWLEDGE OF ANY PLANS OTHER THAN THOSE I SAW IN THE LINKED ARTICLE. What I have said here should not been seen as inside information.

Edited by h0b0 on Friday 26th April 16:26

[Lurking Lawyer]

Ilikebeaver said:

It's changed for sure. No one at Kraft will admit to it though.

My guess is that they have replaced some of the cocoa solids with palm oil (to save money)!

This is what makes cheap chocolaye taste cheap and more sickly than it should be

Looks like they tried this for some non-UK markets but it didn't go well and they back-tracked.

I hesitate to use Wikipedia as a source but make of this what you will:

"In mid-2009 Cadbury replaced some of the cocoa butter in their non-UK chocolate products with palm oil. Despite stating this was a response to consumer demand to improve taste and texture, there was no "new improved recipe" claim placed on New Zealand labels. Consumer backlash was significant from environmentalists and chocolate lovers. By August 2009, the company announced that it was reverting to the use of cocoa butter in New Zealand. In addition, they would source cocoa beans through Fair Trade channels. In January 2010 prospective buyer Kraft pledged to honour Cadbury's commitment."

[LordGrover]

I suspect they are doing us a favour. If they make milk chocolate taste as bad as it is for our wellbeing less of the st will be consumed.

Having said that, I have a wicked sweet tooth and like some above I binge rather than eat sweets/chocolate regularly.
Choccy wise, the 85-90% cocoa solids baking chocolate is my preference these days, often cheaper too.