Word-Import - 1

Yes

No

Minimum percentages?

If so, what percentage for dark? %

For milk ____%

No vegetable fat?

Real vanilla only?

Other ______________________

Should entries contain only ‘natural’ ingredients?

Should vegetable fat be allowed in fillings?

Should artificial flavouring be allowed?

Should invert sugars be allowed

Should the use of artificial colours be allowed?

Yes / no

If so, should they have been on sale for a given time?

If so, for how long?

Yes / no

Should they have to be on sale within:

1 month

3 months

6 months

No limit

No minimum

6 months

1 year

2 years or more

Only if the judges think there is an issue?

As a random sampling of the entered products?

Not important

Categories

Category structure

Rather than create a long list of categories, which can be confusing and unclear on limitations and specifications, a smaller, simpler list of categories could be used. This would cover broad groups of products such as ‘dark bars’, but within each category multiple awards could be given, such as ‘chocolate made directly from cacao’, ‘best chocolatier bar’, ‘best growing country bar’, etc.

This approach would mean that all dark bars are judged against each other. It would be more flexible, allowing more special awards, for example for innovation, new producers or giving and award to the cacao growers for their contribution to a winning chocolate.

It would still be possible to create an ultimate ‘overall’ winner.

More flexible and easy to follow?

More confusing?

It would be better to have many defined categories but enter the winners of each into a ‘grand final’ within their group

Not sure

Fairer?

Unfair and not transparent

Not sure

Attributes

When entering a large group category, there could be a list of ‘attributes’ for that entry. Examples for ‘dark bars’ could be:

made in own factory from cacao

made in a growing country

made from a named cacao cooperative or farmer

directly sourced cacao

organic

Fair Trade

It would be possible to have as many attributes for each entry as are relevant, each could potentially qualify an entry for an award.

Easy to understand

Flexible

Confusing

Not sure

Bar categories

Production size

The chocolate world now includes many different sizes of chocolate maker, from the very large industrial, to the established fine chocolate makers and now the new very small ’micro-batch’ producers. These produce different styles of chocolate with different appeals to the consumer.

‘Micro-batch’ chocolate can be more rustic and unrefined, where the interest is more in the unusual flavours of very small batches of cacao. Availability is therefore limited and these products may not be widely available to consumers.

be judge together at the same time, side by side

be judged separately

an official quantity definition of ‘micro-batch’

should entrants be able to choose this themselves

Attributes

If the ‘attribute’ system given above in the ‘Category structure’ section was used, only a smaller number of categories would be needed. This division would be used to optimised the judges palates and allow side-by-side judging of similar products. Awards would then be given for the best achieving entries for the various attributes.

Dark bars

Milk bars

Flavoured dark

Flavoured milk

Entire production process in one factory, beginning with cacao

Bar fully made in a cacao growing country

Directly sourced cacao – where the end consumer bar company has sourced the cacao

Price band

Cacao cooperative / farmer

New product

Organic

Fair Trade

Other certificate

Fair?

Unfair?

Flexible and adaptable

Confusing

Other comments

Filled categories

Filled chocolates cover a very wide range of styles and flavours. To preserve the best possible judging conditions, flavour groups should probably be separated for like-with-like comparison, allowing the judges to focus on technical aspects relevant to each type. This is also important for preserving the judges palates, eg chilli fillings should not be judged side-by-side with or before plain fillings. Awards would then be given for the best achieving entries for the various attributes.

Plain dark

Plain milk

Flavoured ganache based

Praline/gianduja based

Caramel

unflavoured truffles

unflavoured ganaches

origin ganaches

caramel

fruit

spices

herbs

nuts

praline

floral

organic

Fair Trade

Other

Yes

No

Yes

No

A cocoa dusting?

A chocolate coating?

Shaped like a truffle fungus?

Any shape?

A blend of chocolate and cream, with optional butter and flavours

A blend of chocolate and any liquid, eg water in a water-based ganache?

Yes

No

Yes

No

Other categories

Packaging?

Best chocolatier

Hot drinking chocolate

A yearly theme challenge, eg using ingredients from a particular cacao growing country

Rules

Will be made published and will be publicly available before at the same time as the awards entry forms are published. This will include the judging structure and methodology and the forms to be used by the judges.

Judging

Presentation of samples

Bars

A difficult area for judging of bars is judges’ pre-knowledge of the bar being judged. This can happen because the bar maker’s mould is familiar to the judges, or in some cases, includes the name of the maker.

Two approaches for dealing with this issue are to either find ways to hide or disguise the maker’s mould, or to deal with the issue through a judging method and training that helps to eliminate any bias.

Disguising samples

Several methods could be used to disguise the mould of the chocolate. These are:

Sample piece size – samples can be cut very small, so it’s hard to identify the mould or maker’s name. There are several drawbacks with this approach though:

the samples can become very small and therefore difficult to judge for appearance and mouth-feel

flavour delivery can be changed and therefore effect the judge’s impression.

on the other hand, if the samples are made larger to counter this, the mould or name may still be decipherable, defeating the point of this approach.

Re-moulding – the provided samples are melted and re-tempered and re-moulded by a chocolatier or other professional. This will remove any recognisable features, but has the following issues:

Reworking the chocolate could change its flavour and textural properties

Given the likely sample quantity, hand tempering would be necessary, and this is likely to change the different mouth feel

Flavour contamination could occur during the reworking

Entrants may well be unhappy that their product has been changed.

The products being judged are no longer in the original retail format

Standard moulds – provide chocolate makers with a custom mould and asking them to submit samples made with this mould. This would create a standard format and solve many of the presentation issues, but has the following practical and logistical problems:

Not all entrants will be prepared to do this

Depending on the production set up, it might not be practical

The samples judged will not be the same as the consumer product and may not be a fair test, eg the mould thickness could affect flavour perception.

There would be logistical, timing and cost issues with this approach, though it might become more practical as the Awards grow.

Present ‘as is’

Bar samples are presented as they come from the entrant, cut into larger pieces and presented without the wrapper, but with no particular effort made to disguise the mould or maker name or logo, if present.

Disadvantages:

judges might be effected by their knowledge and familiarity of the brand, if recognised

judges who have identified the brand, might consciously or subconsciously influence others around them

Mitigation – if this method is used, various steps could be taken to reduce the possible influence that knowledge of the maker may have:

Declaration – judges could declare their identification on the judging form. Statistical checking of the marks could identify any bias between judges who did or didn’t identify the sample

Training – it could be made clear to judges that if they personally identify a sample, they should keep this private and should avoid discussing the sample. .

Judging methodology – the rating system and scoring form should be constructed to use qualitative statements that encourage a considered rating based on the attributes of the sample, rather than a pre-formed opinion.

by cutting small samples?

by re-tempering and re-moulding before judging?

by providing entrants with standard moulds in which all bars must be submitted?

they should not be disguised, the judging should be structured to ensure knowing the brand does not create a bias

Other factors

The entry attributes?

A basic flavour description?

The full description given by the entrant?

Carried out individually?

In small groups tasting the same sample at the same time?

With discussion between the group?

With no discussion?

With a team leader present?

Technical guidance

Yes

No

Feedback

Entrants often want feedback from the judges on their products, and through this the Awards can provide a useful service. However, collecting feedback can prove difficult and the resulting feedback can be negative and contentious.

This can come about because it is hard to ask judges to make constructive comments about every product, especially when many entries are being judged at the same time. It’s all too easy for judges to fall back on standard remarks such as ‘badly made’, ‘inedible’ or ‘brilliant’.

To provide a more workable and acceptable method, it is proposed that the scoring form provides a short list of positive and negative statements, relevant to each type of product being judged.

For example:

Well made

Well thought out flavour combination

Poor choice of ingredients

Chocolate not best choice for flavours

Centre too thick / too liquid

These would then be fed back to the entrant.

By standard statements, as above

With freeform, unedited text

An edited summary of freeform text

Not at all

This would be helpful

It would only be helpful in the context of other scores, eg of the winners

Not helpful

Awards

Types

Gold, silver, bronze?

Stars?

All awards should be the same level

to the highest ranked entries?

only if a minimum mark is reached?

at the Grand Jury’s discretion

Yes for innovation

Yes for best new products

No

Yes

No

Usage

Have their awards revoked?

Be barred from future entry?

Be given a warning for first offence?

National and Final Rounds

National and regional heats will be held in participating countries before each year’s Grand Final. In some cases, the heat will be for entrants in that country only. In others the competition will be open to any entries from the region or continent. This will be decided by the partner organisation in each country.

Yes

No

Yes, even if they also have entries from other countries?

Should all national/regional winners go through?

All entries above a certain predetermined mark?

A predetermined number of entries?

At the discretion of the Grand Jury?

Yes?

No?

The Grand Final will be at least several months after the national/regional rounds. Entries that pass through to the final rounds will need to be reconsidered

In the case of bars, samples could be kept from the first round of judging, depending on shelf life. For filled chocolates, this is unlikely to be the case.

Newly submitted products will be fresher, but may not be from the same batch.

Judged purely by their first national round scores and not be re-judged?

All Grand Final entries must be re-submitted to qualify?

Submitting new product would be optional?

Judged purely by their first national round scores and not be re-judged?

All Grand Final entries must be re-submitted to qualify?