Why not? Why not combine chocolate with potato chips? Call 'em, um, "Chocotato Chips." Yum.
I'm not claiming they'd qualify as health food. Sure, you could configure a veggie chip/organic chocolate version worthy of Trader Joe's. I call for a straight-out, Kroger-grade, Lays-and-Hershey's version, though. Something no worse for you than, say, a choco-inclusive snack mix; an innocent treat, when consumed in moderation.
You may think the combo odd, but I can cite chocolate-covered pretzels as a precedent. At the least, you should withhold prejudging Chocotato Chips. Let their proof lie in their taste.
I'd tell you what I think about the taste of Chocotato Chips had I tested them. This invention (unlike my semi-prone bike) hasn't made it to the lab, yet, though. I'm fasting today (in case you hadn't guessed), so Chocotato Chips remain, for me, for now, a purely theoretical food.
UPDATE: Aw, man. I should have searched the prior art, first. Somebody even beat me to imagining Pringles-and-chocolate sandwiches.
Hey, so what? Those edible inventions will never take off—they have too much fat for your average, sentient, non-suicidal consumer. For the same reason, I surmise, potato chip brownies have hardly revolutionized the snacking arts.
I'll tell you how to do it: Sprinkle twee chocolate chips on your potato chips (or in your Pringles). Googling that sort of Chocotato Chips indicates their novelty. That in turn indicates the non-obviousness of applying the chocolate chip cookie design to fried slices of potato foodstuffs. Those babies would nail the "utility" element required under U.S. patent law, after all. The novelty of Chocotato Chips thereby demonstates their non-obviousness; people reasonably skilled in snack manufacturing have already tried the obvious variations of potato chips. They haven't, however, made the non-obvious Chocotato Chips.
The "Chocotato" mark looks solid, too. It apparently remains unused in commerce. Take it and run, people! I don't want to make, sell, and distribute Chocotato Chips; I just want to taste them!
Thursday, September 08, 2005
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I dunno, ladies. You both appear to overlook what we food scientists have proven by experimental methods: Texture counts for more than taste. Indeed, our senses of taste are quite crude; smell does most of the work of creating flavor sensations.
Not to brag, but Chocotato Chips offer an irrestible combination of crunchy and melt-in-your-mouth smooth. (Or so I calculate, anyhow; I'm still fasting.) But gummy, mushy stuff combined with chocolate? I dunno. I'd think that sort of thing would hardly hit "Don't mind if I do have another, thank you," on the Hifferding texture scale.
Lizriz: Madness! Madness, I say!!
Z: Revenge? Not at all! It's simply that you and I are both well-rounded fellows, equally happy to ponder the majesty of the law or the marketing of convenience foods. In that, I daresay, we join a pantheon of greats. Have you ever tried Justice Holmes' "Spicy Clam Cookies" recipe? Or have you read the Trix Rabbit's treatise, "In Defense of Cereal Offenders: Animal Urges and Animal Rights." Great minds, bro, great minds. . . .
Alonso: I *love* "Chocotatas" and "Chocopapas"! Each rolls off the tongue even more smoothly than "Chocotatos." Sadly, however, both would perhaps give English speakers wrong impressions. Fault my demographic (red-blooded 'merican male) if you must, but "Chocotatas" makes me picture a busty mamasita stretching out a Hershey's-syrup-soaked t-shirt. And a "Chocopapa" would, of course, be the old rich dude trying to pick her up--a subgenre of "sugar daddy," in other words.
Granted, French is a problem. But don't worry; despite all their airs, the French will take up another language's terms quite happily if it suits their tastes. See, e.g., "le weekend."
Post a Comment