Almond bark (the candy coating) seems to have no almond in it, why is it called almond bark?
-
4I... I don't know. I was unfamiliar with the candy coating version of it, just with the "almonds on chocolate" version. I checked the USDA and FDA regulations, since surely there was some regulation allowing the use of the word "almond" on a product with no almonds in it. No hits. I've sent emails to two of the major manufacturers, to see if they have any information.– Joshua EngelFeb 6, 2017 at 19:47
-
3It's anarchy! they shouldn't be able to just call it something that it isn't– SdarbFeb 6, 2017 at 23:27
-
1It is a little odd. Usually there are specific regulations, or at least a ruling, with grandfather clauses for products that people are expected to understand and probably won't be confused. But if there's one in this case I couldn't find it, and I certainly was confused. It may just be that nobody has ever petitioned the USDA or FDA about it.– Joshua EngelFeb 7, 2017 at 16:40
-
2I agree, "almond bark" is a bad name. It's worse than "almond bite". 🙃– verboseFeb 10, 2017 at 10:25
Add a comment
|
1 Answer
According to a representative from a company that makes it, it's packaged with the words “make your own almond bark".
So "almond bark" (the coating) is a key ingredient in "almond bark" (the candy with almonds). Over time, according to the representative, the ingredient became called with the same name as the candy.
-
3The rep asked not to be quoted. (I should have asked before posting; I hadn't expected to be turned down. She's apparently very concerned that the answer might be interpreted in a context about allergens, which has potential legal ramifications.) Feb 6, 2017 at 21:14
-
3She asked not to be quoted, but I did update it to include a paraphrase that makes the answer more explicit. Feb 6, 2017 at 21:27