#7: The Candy Hierarchy (Ten Best of the Decade from Half of the World's Fair)

Moving along (see here), the order of quality for Halloween candy has been a source of constant conversation for years in my family. Since my kids became full-on trick-or-treaters a few years ago, it seemed necessary to get down to the science of it. That led to the first hierarchy, in 2006, which was supplemented with revised versions in 2007 and 2008. The version below was posted in October 2008

i-ac69e654fb93f87bd732f27d1698fafd-#7 Candy Hierarchy.jpg

i-456f256f7013a11d64ca494c8c4b869e-redline.jpg

The data presented below were first published after Halloween in 2006. After further (non-anonymous) peer review, we pushed into the second phase of the research in 2007. We are proud to acknowledge that these earlier efforts--pilot studies, both--led to further funding. We've now been able to pursue the third phase of the work. Difficult work, yes. Labor-intensive, to be sure. Gut-wrenching, perhaps. But huge breakthroughs were in the offing. The hierarchy below includes the results of our continuing work.

i-4345c2eed288de5cd42c9ad4f9a3ff7d-Candy bar.jpg

To re-repeat our earlier claims to the report: this taxonomy is based on (even more) years of research and debate, on thorough testing and re-testing, on statistical comparison and quality measurement, on focus group testing, and on a series of FTIR scans that reveal various hydrocarbon peaks and whatnot.

The breakthrough news today is this: our biggest discovery this year was a new differentiation between the TOP and SECOND tiers. Weaker data analysis techniques earlier in the project had presented a distinct bi-modal cut, and we had -- erroneously, it turns out -- considered this an indication of two clear tiers. We were wrong. Further analysis, inspired by an outside consultant, showed that what we had considered one tier, the TOP-exclusively-chocolate-based-TIER, was actually two layers globbed together. The true TOP TIER is in fact a caramel-based layer. The exclusively chocolate-based tier (formerly TOP, and actually not even exclusively chocolate-based then, so what the hell) is lower. My hunch is that the caramel was just stuck to the other layer in earlier years, and we didn't notice. So we've acknowledged and added a new layer to the hierarchy. That should once and for all settle any disputes.

Also note the discovery last year, even if not as impressive, of the identity of Baby Ruth's place, which, as one reviewer saw it, "would appear to be the earliest surviving example of the evolutionary transition from the crunchy/chewy to the the dominant chocolate realm."

We also ask that readers recall the international controversy with the classification system over the last year. There were some troubling tensions in standards across borders and we're not afraid to blame the Europeans. For example, a team of Danish researchers, no doubt reading Kierkegaard in the shadow of Elsinore with windmills nearby, attempted to convince the academy that so-called "Super Piratos" deserved placement. This was rejected on appeal by a panel of experts playing Foosball in the break room at the National Academies. Just let's thank god the Aussies didn't chime in about vegemite.

Enough preamble, then. The 2008 Candy Hierarchy:

TOP TIER
(caramel, chewy, oh my classy)
Caramellos --- Milky Way --- Snickers --- Rolos* --- Twix

POST-TERTIARY
(not surprisingly, exclusively chocolate-based)
Hershey's Kissables --- Peanut M&M's --- Regular M&Ms --- Junior Mints --- Reese's Peanut Butter Cups --- Three Musketeers --- regular old Hershey Bars -- Reggie Jackson Bar

SECOND TIER
(also exclusively chocolate, after fending off a few intruders)
Kit-Kat --- Nestle Crunch --- Mounds --- Tootsie Rolls --- Whoppers** --- Dark Chocolate Hershey Bars --- Fair Trade Chocolate --- Butterfinger --- Pay Day*** --- Baby Ruth

THIRD TIER
(also referred to as the chewy range or, in some circles, the Upper Chewy or Upper Devonian)
Milk Duds --- Benzedrine -- Jolly Ranchers (if a good flavor) --- 100 Grand Bar
Almond Joy --- Candy Corn**** --- Starburst

BOTTOM TIER
(the Lower Chewy and Gummy-Based, also the Middle Crunchy Tart Layer)

Dots --- Lollipops --- Nerds --- Runts --- Trail Mix ---Swedish Fish --- Mary Janes --- Gummy Bears straight up --- White Bread --- Licorice -- Anything from Brach's***** --- Hard Candy --- Spree --- Bubble Gum --- Including the Chiclets (but not the erasers) --- Black Jacks --- LemonHeads --- LaffyTaffy --- Good N' Plenty --- Jolly Ranchers (if a bad flavor)****** --- Bottle Caps --- Smarties --- "those odd marshmallow circus peanut things" -- gum from baseball cards
Tier so low it does not register on our equipment
Healthy Fruit --- Pencils --- Lapel Pins --- Extra Strength Tylenol --- "anonymous brown globs that come in black and orange wrappers" --- Now'n'Laters --- Hugs (actual physical hugs) --- Whole Wheat anything

*These may be rolled to a friend.

** Whoppers blow.

*** Ever a mystery to us, as this caramel/peanut glob is an outlier.

**** Still no unanimous decision on the placement of Candy Corn, which as of 2006 remained unclassified, but as of 2007 had been tentatively placed in the Upper Chewy/Upper Devonian. 2008: no sighting.

***** Unless its something caramel, pronounced "caramel."

******Remains an outlier, since it is in no way "chewy." Further studies have not resolved this inconsistency.

More like this

The data presented below were first published after Halloween in 2006, here at The World's Fair. After further (non-anonymous) peer review, we pushed into the second phase of the research in 2007, as published here. We are proud to acknowledge that these earlier efforts--pilot studies, both--led…
The data presented below were first published after Halloween in 2006, here at The World's Fair. We were fortunate after that publication to receive further (non-anonymous) peer review and thus we re-present below the hierarchy with amendments and adjustments, but no retractions, this time just…
Although there were some intra-family disputes about what belongs where, we did derive a basic candy hierachy, and I do think it is basically sound. This taxonomy is based on years of research and debate, on thorough testing and re-testing, on statistical comparison and quality measurement, on…
Reposted from Halloween 2006. Since Ben shared his family's taxonomy of candy types, and it's Friday, after all, I thought I'd share some of things that we do with candy around our house and describe some fun things that you can do with candy at home. Materials and methods. First, you need some…

This is ridiculous. Reggie Jackson bar as second level? Hardly. Candy corn unclassified? Those are a non-chocolate top-tier. Yes they are. Make this right.

Um, don't you mean that science, nature, and candy are all wonderful? Why distinguish? Candy = science. Woo hoo!

When did Payday become 'exclusively chocolate', or even get any chocolate at all? I admit that it has been a couple or three years since I've had one, but I ate a lot of them growing up, and they never had any chocolate at all.

Perhaps I misunderstand your entire thesis.

This was excellent. One of the most amusing things I have read in a while in the NYT. Great job. Tho' I would put 3 Musketeers in the Top Tier.

Your omission of the chocolate caramel flavored dum dum lollipops is most disturbing.

When did Payday become 'exclusively chocolate', or even get any chocolate at all? I admit that it has been a couple or three years since I've had one, but I ate a lot of them growing up, and they never had any chocolate at all.

Perhaps I misunderstand your entire thesis.

When did Payday become 'exclusively chocolate', or even get any chocolate at all? I admit that it has been a couple or three years since I've had one, but I ate a lot of them growing up, and they never had any chocolate at all.

Perhaps I misunderstand your entire thesis.