Jump to content

Talk:Caramilk/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Advertising?

Please, Wikipedia is not a forum for commercial advertising material. In amongst the yum-chocolate-yum talk (a passion I entirely share, by the way) there is some interesting information. However, I see nothing in this entry as it stands to suggest:

  • That it needs an entire entry to itself, as opposed to a sentence or two in a more globally focussed entry such as Chocolate.
  • Or that the process has anything in particular to do with Cadbury. Did Cadbury invent it? Or is it simply a common technique that has been used by the chocolate makers of Europe for generations? If the latter, then it should be credited to the inventor, not to Cadbury.

Tannin 10:33 Jan 28, 2003 (UTC)

In addition, the entry is incorrect. Freezing isn't a common method, nor an effective one. It is much more likely that Cadbury uses a shell moulding plant. I.e. http://www3.ns.sympatico.ca/mt-edward/cadbury.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.244.193.4 (talk • contribs) 04:55, 23 September 2004 (UTC)

Theories removed from article

The following theories presented without sources have been removed from the article. If you have a pet theory that panders to the marketing gurus who invented the "secret", please feel free to discuss it here. However, do not post theories to the article unless you can back up those theories with references. Thank-you. --Craig (t|c) 05:43, 30 October 2005 (UTC)


Theory 1: Many people believe the bars are made using a shell moulding process which basically entails making the bar upside-down by lining a mould with chocolate, filling it with caramel, and then topping it off with chocolate.

Theory 2: Others believe the caramel starts out frozen. In this process, solid caramel drops are made by freezing fixed amounts of caramel syrup into a round shape. The chocolate portion of the bar is made in two halves (which explains the seam running around the bar's perimeter in its final form). The caramel drops are placed into the bottom chocolate half, and then the top chocolate half is placed on top, forming the whole bar. Then the bar is allowed to reach room temperature, at which point the caramel drops turn liquid.

Theory 3: Another theory involves the enzyme invertase: Start with a base of solid chocolate, place blocks of solid caramel treated with invertase on the chocolate bottom, pour chocolate over the blocks. In about a week and a half, the process is complete, and the solid caramel has become liquid.

Theory 4: There is a third, and I believe the most correct, theory and it is as follows:

the entire volume of chocolate required to make the chocolate bar is poured into a suitably shaped mold with the lower portion of the mold being at a sufficient temperature to allow the chocolate to begin solidifying; i.e. from the botom up. The caramel is then added, in the form of liquid drops, at various points along the upper surface of the still liquid, chocolate, with each of the 'points' corresponding to 'caramel pocket'. Now comes the secret... the liquid caramel has a greater density than the liquid chocolate (but don't ask me for the actual density values) and, therefore, when the liquid caramel 'hits' the liquid chocolate, the caramel immediately begins to sink as it displaces some of the liquid chocolate. The caramel continues sinking until it reaches the lower portion of the now hardened chocolate 'shell' at which point the caramel is 'trapped' within the chocolate. The chocolate surrounding the caramel then continues to harden until the chocolate is completely solidified thus resulting in a completed Caramilk bar.

The resulting bar has NO noticeable seams around the edge - which is in exact agreement with the condition of the bars that you buy at your favourite store. There are NO seams. That's why the other techniques previously described are likely incorrect - they do produce a bar that matches an actual Caramilk bar which exhibits NO seams

I'd have to agree that the last is most likely since I've had occasional bars where there is a little caramel residue on the bottom (which would be the top in the creation of the bar) this would be consistent with theory number four Briar Patch Wabbit 16:10, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't have any references for the real process other than what I've seen with my own eyes on a tour of a Cadbury plant. The process is the closest to Theory 1. There is nothing fancy involved like freezing or vicosity. All they do is fill a tray with chocolate (the tray looks like an ice cube tray, basically it forms the top part of the Caramilk bar). The chocolate is left for a moment so that the bottom part hardens, and the tray is then shaken to that the excess chocolate is removed and all that remains is a shell in the bottom of the tray. The caramel is then added in drops. The reason there are no seams is that the molded cups that hold the chocolate pass under heat lamps so that it melts slightly and the chocolate becomes tacky. Then a layer is added to the top of the tray which forms the bottom of the actual bar, and it is scraped smooth. A pretty simple process, nothing too fancy, but it makes one of the best chocolate bars around in my opinion! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.49.46.212 (talk • contribs) .— Preceding undated comment added 06:27, 4 August 2007‎ (UTC)

What I heard about the Caramilk process

Despite the marketing campaign, I don't think it is very difficult to manufacture the bars, and if one was to compete with Cadbury, there are probably a dozen or more ways to make these things. On top of that their own process has likely evolved over time to increase product quality, increase yields, reduce manufacturing or raw material costs, etc.

My information is at least 15 years old, but I had heard that they used freeze dried caramel pieces in the approximate shape of their cavity, and the top of the bar was cast in inverted molds and the solid caramel was dropped in place and the whole thing was capped with the bottom of the bar. I was told the reason was that the solid (dehydrated) caramel would not mix with the liquid chocolate which would mess up the quality and appearance of the bar. The solid caramel was not cold (so it doesn't affect the chocolate freezing properties), by merely dehydrated by freeze-drying. The 'secret' is that the chocolate had a higher water content than normal and the dehydrated caramel absorbed the extra water content of the surrounding chocolate, causing it to re-liquify.

This was an old story and seems plausible, but I doubt they would stick to one process for the decades they have been producing these things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brydenrh (talk • contribs) 17:08, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

How the bar is made

I met the man who created the Caramilk bar, in Winnipeg, Canada. He is from England and he told me the secret has to do with the viscosity difference between the chocolate and the caramilk. They are poured at the same time,and during the settling of the two the caramilk is naturally surrounded by the chocolate. It isn't frozen and there aren't many processes involved. -148.87.1.172

This is similar to a theory proposed already. I think that different plants make the bars differently. For example at the Toronto plant there are two different lines for the Caramilk bars, and I believe both make the bar differently. The line I saw had nothing to do with viscosity, the molds were filled with chocolate and then sat for a few moments to harden before caramel was poured into the molds, then another part of chocolate is added on top (the molds are upside down).
I was given a similar explanation in Toronto by a retired Cadbury employee about 10 years ago. The only difference was that he told me there were actually three different viscosities in play: a denser-than-caramel chocolate, a lighter-than-caramel chocolate, and then the caramel itself. The three were all shot into an upside-down mould at the same time, and after settling you'd end up with bands of chocolate on either side of the caramel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.21.214.131 (talk) 13:45, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Any production description will require actual reliable sources, as opposed to blogs, personal websites or articles which themselves don't have supporting references. Perhaps theories and speculation could be tolerated if identified as such and supported by clear WP:RS. Dl2000 (talk) 21:49, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Why Caramilk?

Given that Cadbury's is primarily a British company, based in the UK, why is this page named using the US version of the product name? Surely it would make more sense to have the article at Cadbury's Caramel or Dary Milk with Caramel and have Caramilk as a redirect? --86.20.80.219 23:37, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. It should be moved. 129.12.98.76 11:48, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually the article as it now stands seems to concentrate mostly on the Canadian bar. I've eaten both UK and Canadian versions and although having different wrappers and shapes, they taste identical, so a merged article under the UK name (as the original) would seem best. I'll do that in a few days' time unless anyone objects. Loganberry (Talk) 23:45, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
In fact, on reflection I'm not so certain. Although (Dairy Milk with) Caramel and Caramilk are effectively the same bar in terms of taste and texture, there is quite a lot of "cultural heritage" for both the UK and the Canadian versions, and they don't overlap much. For example, I don't think the Cadbury's Caramel Bunny was ever used in Canada, while the Canadian "secret of how they make them" stuff wasn't used in Britain. Anyone? Loganberry (Talk) 16:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

{{unreferenced}}

I added this tag because... well, because the article is unreferenced! This needs fixing, especially in the "How they are made" section. At the moment that is basically unsourced speculation, which is not appropriate for Wikipedia. It's a case of "source it or delete it", I think! Note that the hidden comment by the Cadbury employee is not a verifiable source, so is not good enough as a reference. Loganberry (Talk) 23:38, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


"How do they get the caramel in the caramilk bar???" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.1.206.174 (talk) 18:57, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

What about it? All that is, is an advertising phrase. It's not a source for the actual means of production. Loganberry (Talk) 22:43, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cadbury Caramilk. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:55, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Cadbury Caramilk. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:33, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

UK 2021

"In 2021, the bar was launched in the United Kingdom." - having just spotted them in a shop this afternoon, and now eaten one, these are solid - like the Aus/NZ Caramilk. So there are two different uses for the same name, and the page could do with either a clear split between the two types [gooey caramel in chocolate vs solid bar] or being separated out into two pages.188.29.54.50 (talk) 14:44, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Done Barry Wom (talk) 15:46, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Chocolate vs. Candy Bar

The Caramilk bar does not meet the legal definition of a chocolate bar in Canada due to the use of vegetable oils in production. This probably extends to the U.S. as well, where it would have to be labeled as Chocolatey or 'made with chocolate'. Edited the description to reflect 'Candy bar' instead of chocolate bar rather than describe the difference.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Types_of_chocolate#Canada ingredients (best I could find): http://www.aircanada.com/en/travelinfo/onboard/dining/Nutritional_Info_Allergies/CadburyCaramilkEN_FR.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.137.245.207 (talk) 17:41, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

It should also be noted that Caramilk is sold as a Candy bar, not a Chocolate bar. It even says Candy on the wrapper. No where in it's boxing or packaging does it claim to be a chocolate bar, only a candy bar. Canterbury Tail talk 17:13, 25 February 2016 (UTC)


Labelling Requirements for Chocolate and Cocoa Products http://www.inspection.gc.ca/food/labelling/food-labelling-for-industry/chocolate-and-cocoa-products/eng/1392136343660/1392136466186?chap=2

It's not rocket science, the Canadian government is pretty clear on what a Chocolate Bar is, and this is not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.27.58.110 (talk) 02:38, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. In Canada, it is a candy bar. Meters (talk) 17:34, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
I have updated the article with the above link.Meters (talk) 05:59, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
I’ve updated the article to keep “Candy bar” as the term per Canadian English, but changed the link target and category to Chocolate bar and its associated category, which have scopes that include this style of product. See Talk:Chocolate bar#MOS:Chocolate.--Trystan (talk) 13:54, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
good idea. Meters (talk) 19:15, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Checkmate, you lose. It's now a chocolate bar, not a candy bar on the article. 142.233.200.10 (talk) 19:50, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Chocolate bar revisited

The article has been unstable for some time on whether to say "chocolate bar" or "candy bar" in the lead sentence. I'm hoping to confirm the approach we should use. The lead currently describes the Canadian version as a milk candy bar, which is not a thing.

This article covers several varieties of bars in several countries. The lead sentence should use chocolate bar, as that is the corresponding article for this type of product, based on global common usage.

By common usage in Canada, this type of product is overwhelmingly referred to as a chocolate bar. "Candy bar" is relatively uncommon, though it does appear on the labels of a few Mars products. Under Canadian food labelling regulations, only a bar of solid chocolate can be labelled as a chocolate bar. (The issue is not, as claimed in a section above, that it doesn't meet the definition of chocolate, which is listed as an ingredient.)

When referring to the Canadian bar specifically, I don't think we are restricted by food labelling guidelines. We can go by common usage and call it a chocolate bar, by which we mean it is the sort of product described at the linked article. If for some reason we we feel compelled to limit ourselves to what is on the label, that is "candy", not "candy bar".--Trystan (talk) 15:14, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Article updated. Barry Wom (talk) 16:30, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
This seems to have relatively stabilized the article.--Trystan (talk) 15:36, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Restructured

Since Caramello redirects here, I have made some changes to the article structure, so that the scope includes all Caramilk and Caramello bars on an equal footing. Please let me know your thoughts. The headings are a bit longer than we usually use for articles, but I think it is necessary in this case to allow a reader to quickly find the variant they are looking for.--Trystan (talk) 15:48, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

The title of the article is Caramilk and whether Caramello redirects here or not is irrelevant. The article would need to be renamed "Caramilk and Caramello" for these changes to be made. Barry Wom (talk) 16:53, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
I've amended the redirect to the relevant sections in the article. Barry Wom (talk) 16:57, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
I have withdrawn the move proposal, as there was a unanimous consensus that the joint title would be clunky. I would still like to resolve the scope problem highlighted below, as it doesn't make sense to have added the unrelated-but-for-name Australian Caramilk bars to the article's scope without also covering the much more closely related Caramello bars, which are a variant of the Canadian Caramilk marketed under a different name. As mentioned in the discussion below, changing the title is not necessary to reflect this scope. Is there consensus that the article's scope properly includes the Canadian Caramilk, Caramello, and Australian Caramilk bars?--Trystan (talk) 14:16, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Caramilk/Archive_1&oldid=1168720674"