The Chocolate Life

Discover Chocolate and Live La Vida Cocoa!

Here is a list of bean to bar makers. It is not a list of ethical companies or artisan chocolate makers. It simply means that these companies all make their chocolate all the way from raw cacao beans to the molded bar. This list is the result of an ongoing project conducted at 70%, where members maintain a discussion and make attempts to verify that each company on this list actually makes chocolate from raw beans. The reason for verification is that sometimes companies wish to sound hip and trendy and so they claim to be bean bar. The idea is to have some type of definitive list going of who actually makes chocolate from the bean for RETAIL (not solely commercial, industrial, sale).


Madecasse (Madagascar)
Claudio Corallo (São Tomé)
Divine Chocolate

Haigh's Chocolates
Tava (factory is currently not operational)



Barry Callebaut
Pierre Marcolini

TOMS Gruppen

Michel Cluizel

Ludwig Weinrich


Antica Dolceria Bonajuto

Casa Don Puglisi

Cioccolato Peyrano


Chocovic (now owned by Barry Callebaut)

Malmö Chokladfabrik

Confiserie Berner

United Kingdom
Red Star 
Sir Hans Sloane
Willie's Cacao

North America

Soma Chocolatemaker

United States

Bittersweet Origins

Black Mountain Chocolate
Cacao Atlanta
Cacao Prieto 

Fresco Chocolate


Jacques Torres (no longer in production)
Lindt (not a US company)
Mast Brothers

Mindo Chocolate Maker
Nestle (technically not a US company)

Oakland Chocolate Company

Original Hawaiian Chocolate Factory
Patric Chocolate

Potomac Chocolate

Rogue Chocolatier
Scharffen Berger

Snake and Butterfly


Latin America/ Caribbean
AMMA (Brazil)
Chocolates Condor (Bolivia)
Chocolates Para Ti(Bolivia)
Cooperativa Naranjillo (Peru)
Cotton Tree Chocolate (Belize)
Danta Chocolate (Guatemala)
El Castillo del Cacao (Nicaragua)
El Ceibo (Bolivia)
El Rey (Venezuela)
Fenix (Argentina)
Grenada Chocolate Company (Grenada)
Hacienda Bukare (Venezuela)
Kallari (Ecuador)
Momotombo Chocolate Factory (Nicaragua)
Pacari (Ecuador)
Rain Republic Chocolate (Guatemala)
Santander (Colombia)

Tags: bean-to-bar, chocolate-makers

Views: 10790

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion


To many people, the claims you make for your product are no different than the claims made by MXI for Xocai - because they are shrouded in secrecy.

What you're encountering here is the same kinds of skepticism. If you want to stop people from questioning you about this you're going to have to be much more open. For example, your iron claim. Do you have an independent lab assay (e.g., Brunswick) showing the differences in iron content in your product made with and without the shell to back you up? If you do - just post it so people can see that it's real. That's all anyone is asking. We're not asking you to reveal your proprietary machinery and processes - just to back up the claims your are making for the results of your processes with independent support.

What's hurting MXI (at least for members here on The Chocolate Life) is that a lot of the information they do publish is just plain wrong, and they're squirrely about the patents that cover their claims for cold processing. It smells fishy, and fishy-smelly chocolate is not a pleasant thought. (Though did you know that MXI uses hydrolyzed fish collagen in one of their products? Great protein source I am told though not very appealing from a dietary or sensory perspective.)

Another thing that's hurting MXI is that the lab test they reference is several years old. To be valid, in my opinion, they need to run an assay on every batch because they make a very concrete claim for ORAC levels. The only reasons MXI gets away with this are a) they are claiming to be a dietary supplement not a food "this product is not intended to diagnose or cure any disease" and b) there is no RDA (recommended daily allowance) for ORAC.

Being on the cutting edge does not exempt you from federal regulations. In cases like this my understanding is that the FDA supersedes California authority.
By the way, you don't have to start from cocoa liquor to make chocolate. We START from the whole bean.
FYI...We have discovered a new way to make chocolate starting from the whole cacao bean. We do not make chocolate from cocoa liquor.

Have you run your interpretation past a lawyer who has experience arguing these kinds of cases with the FDA?

All chocolate is, by definition, made from chocolate liquor. Chocolate liquor, by definition, is made from nibs. There is no provision for making chocolate from whole beans. Here are the references:

Sec. 163.111 Chocolate liquor.
(a)Description. (1) Chocolate liquor is the solid or semiplastic food prepared by finely grinding cacao nibs.

Sec. 163.110 Cacao nibs.
(a)Description. (1) Cacao nibs is the food prepared by removing the shell from cured, cleaned, dried, and cracked cacao beans.

Sec. 163.123 Sweet chocolate.
(a)Description. (1) Sweet chocolate is the solid or semiplastic food prepared by intimately mixing and grinding chocolate liquor ...
^ included is the definition of sweet chocolate is bittersweet chocolate

Even though you're grinding whole beans you are subject to the rules related to shell content if you want to call your product chocolate. Right now, because you're not making your product from nibs, legally you can't call it chocolate. That's the way the Standards of Identity work. They determine what ingredients can be included in a food (and in many cases HOW it is made) if you want to use a certain word or term to describe it. Because your products use a process that is not in the Standard of Identity, my interpretation is that your product does not adhere to the Standard and therefore can't be called chocolate.

But - I am not a lawyer and YMMV.

:: Clay
Clay, if we don't make chocolate, i don't know what it is then! And, perhaps you should not have allowed me in your chocolate competition. :-)

I am not a lawyer, but I do think you should consult one. I think you are in violation of Federal labeling law. I believe you need to make up some sort of name for your product. It legally isn't chocolate. (Maybe you could call it Chocolate with Cocoa Husk)

The standards of identity are not concerned with safety at all. They are about full disclosure to consumers. They also provide for fair competition and prevent a product from dilution. If there were no distinction between chocolate and for example chocolate compound consumers could easily be misled into thinking they were paying for a premium product and actually purchasing something diluted with hygroginated vegitable fats. If they dislike compound coating they might frown upon all chocolate. That hurts business making a the "real" thing.

This isn't an attack on your product. I haven't tried it. It may be very good. However, the standard set by the FDA isn't about making value judgements. It is about making sure we all are speaking the same language when we use words like "chocolate" or "sugar".

Interestingly if you include less than 12% milk solids in a chocolate bar you can't call it a "Milk Chocolate." So if you have a bar with 9% milk you may need to call something fanciful like "Mike's Bar" and then have a clear description of what the product actually is comprised of on the front label.

best of luck,
Hi Michael,
Thanks for your concern. We are ALL about full disclosure with ingredients. We have even signed the truth in labeling oath with the natural ingredient resource center. I have yet to see another chocolate company do the same. As such, we list in our ingredients three types of ingredients: Cacao Nibs, Cacao Butter, and Whole Cacao Beans with SKINS. Also, we list our "milk" chocolate as Mylk with a y so that we indicate to consumers that our Mylk chocolate tastes like milk chocolate even though it is actually dark chocolate. If companies can even include such things as hydrogenated vegetable oil, whole flowers, salt or even bacon in their chocolate and call it chocolate, there is a disconnect at least within my own mind of how something that is as raw and natural as the actual whole cacao bean itself can't be called chocolate if it is included in the very thing it is responsible for making. We in no way want to mislead consumers. Instead we want to fully educate them. This is why I give tours to children of the factory on a regular basis and actually make chocolate with children from bean to bar. We choose to include the husks of the bean in our chocolate because they have been cleaned in a proprietary way which allows such, and because like the skin or husk of a sesame seed, we believe there is much nutrition that is otherwise lost. The chocolate industry, chicken farming industry, and fertilizer industry recognize at least some nutritional value in these husks because they are used in these other industries. By doing something outside the box and new, I am sure we will run into existing structures (including the FDA) that say we can't for many reasons, the least of which is that it just hasn't been accounted for yet. Every computer program will eventually crash because there is no way it can account for all unknown future cases. We are basically that computer crash.
All the best,
Sacred Steve
Dear Samantha,
Honestly, I am a chocolate newbie compared to you, and don't claim in any way to know as much as you do on the subject of chocolate. I only got started in 2005, and didn't finish building our factory until the end of 2006. That being said, I do have hard evidence on my claims of antioxidants done by an independent and reputable lab. The lab report is published on our website and I am happy to email it to you privately if you wish to see it. I am not trying to ram anything down anybody's throat and your negative response definitely is pointing out that you must be getting your buttons pushed or something? I am just standing up for what I believe in. Everybody is entitled to their own opinion and that includes both you and me. You may know a lot more than me about chocolate, and the very idea that I may even know one thing that you do not I feel is upsetting you to the point that you feel you have to put me down. Hearts, Sacred Steve

I think that there is a consensus that in order to accurately use the term bean-to-bar, the company must start with beans and end with finished chocolate for wholesale/industrial AND/OR retail sale. Wrapped and boxed bars or liquor (liquid or no), the final form is not the significant issue.

The question is - do they have to OWN ALL of the equipment or can they contract out some of the operations as long as the work is being done under close supervision?

In the end, I really don't care about the ownership of facilities issue as long as they are open and upfront about what they are doing - AND a company employee actually supervise each and every roast, grind, molding, etc. The moment they're no longer personally supervising each and every step of every batch they're contracting with someone else to do then, IMO, they are no longer bean-to-bar.

I am more interested in protecting the use of the terms, "origin" and "single-origin." From my perspective it's not a true single-origin bar if there is any added cocoa butter that is not from the same origin. So, the practice of using deodorized cocoa butter of unspecified origin in a recipe means that the chocolate is no longer single-origin, it's "origin chocolate with added cocoa butter of uncertain provenance."

Again, I am cool with this as long as people are up-front about it and specify the percentage of added cocoa butter that is not from the origin of the cocoa mass.

:: Clay
Yay! :-)
Jeez...I am now starting to "get" that I am starting to be grouped with the Xocai folks. PLEASE DON'T MAKE THE MISTAKE OF DOING THAT! I have been into raw foods since 1993, LONG before raw chocolate was promoted as a superfood by David Wolfe and his book on the subject, Naked Chocolate. David Wolfe was invited to become part of Xocai at their startup in about 2005, and he declined for reasons I will not mention.
Steve -

The fact that you're being grouped in with the Xocai folks can be laid, in part, at your doorstep. Your marketing of your product (and yourself) appeals to people who have already bought into your central concept. For people who have not already bought into the claims made for the raw lifestyle the claims you make - and the way you make them - comes across as unsubstantiated hype.

Now there might be a real difference that makes a difference in what you do. And I, for one, am willing to do some heavy lifting and be patient, and try to understand. Many people will just dismiss it as being kooky or weird.

What you may want to remember is that perception is reality for most people. And the perception that many people outside of the raw foodist community have is NOT the one you want them to have. Saying exactly the same things over and over and over again is not going to change their minds. If you are interested in winning them over you have to change the way you present your product, your company, and yourself.

I say the following as a colleague and a friend - and as someone who has friends in the raw food and raw chocolate world:

Now - you may not care about non-raw-foodists and from a business perspective I can understand that. However please understand that people are lumping you in with Xocai because they don't see any difference in the claims you are making and how you make them. Again - if you care - you are the only one who can move to change this perception. As I said, you may not care, but from my 15+ years of research into chocolate, chocolate marketing, and more, the burden is yours to convince us, not on us to understand you.


Member Marketplace

Promote TheChocolateLife

Bookmark and Share

Follow Clay on:
Twitter :: @DiscoverChoc
F'Book :: TheChocolateLife
F'Book Group :: LaVidaCocoa :: @DiscoverChoc

© 2014   Created by Clay Gordon.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service