This feels like pure numerology to me, with the entire argument being based on some vague numeric coincidence. I have no experience in food manufacturing, but I'm willing to bet there are much easier ways to mix dough at any desired proportion than the one described here.<p>Here's another, potentially simpler explanation: I am no pastry chef, but it seems these recipes often use a 2:1 mix of different types of chocolate (e.g. dark and milk) [1]. Now if the recipe contains 1/4 of one type and half of this of another type, that's 25% + 12.5% = 37.5%, which is about as close to 37% than 1/e. Ta-da!<p>And this is just one explanation I just made up on the spot; I'm sure one can find many others by playing around with the numbers. I don't know for sure what the real answer is or if there even is one (it could just be that marketing thought 37% sounded more elaborate than a round number like 40% while also costing less to produce and tasting the same), but one shouldn't forget to apply Occam's razor here.<p>[1] a quick Google search gives me this: <a href="http://www.talkfood.com/forum/showthread.php/3230-37-Chocolate-chips-cookies" rel="nofollow">http://www.talkfood.com/forum/showthread.php/3230-37-Chocola...</a>
This is incredibly confusing: 37% of what? By mass or by volume?<p>The answer about even distribution pre-supposes physical dispersion characteristics, but does not mention which measure of proportion is relevant (it would seem volume); nor any means of reliable testing. As another commenter has aluded, the "100% chocolate%" concept (even for the chocolate) is also at best inaccurate. So, this looks to be more of a coincidental alignemnet of numbers, and a game of causation/correlation. To wit: A cookie with 37% by volume of 72% chocolate is in no way the same cookie as one with 37% by mass of 40% milk chocolate. Either by taste, consistency, or chemistry. So, i would think any proper answer for this question would need to be robust the these particulars.
Reminds me of the movie "Pi."<p>"Max... You will find that thing everywhere... As soon as you discard scientific rigor, you're no longer a mathematician, you're a numerologist."<p><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d1IzNKIHhp0" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d1IzNKIHhp0</a>
All that and nobody figured out that the cookie isn't 63% things that are not chocolate chips. The Chips are milk instead of semi-sweet and so they are 37% Chocolate.<p>Just like these are not 28% not Chocolate bar.
<a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B004BR1C46?tag=itemsid-20" rel="nofollow">http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B004BR1C46?tag=itemsid-20</a>
I doubt it has anything to do with 1/e. Someone in marketing probably liked the number 37% and manufacturing said, "yeah, that won't cost us much extra". Nothing to do with infinite sums or the distribution of chocolate chips in dough. Just marketing.<p>For the same reason, why is Ivory 99.44% pure? Because 99.44% sounded catchier than 99%.
Clifford Stoll has a great chocolate chip cookie recipe in his book "cuckoos egg" - about his experience tracking crackers through international networks. (With cameo appearance from RTM and the worm).<p>I'd put it here but the experience of cutting / pasting on iPhone is painful. (Hints and tips gratefully received).