Unpacking the Debate Around Coffee Identity: Insights from Re:co Spotlight, 2025 | 25, Issue 24
JENN RUGOLO, Specialty Coffee Association Innovation Officer, shares early insights from a project exploring the possibility of building a common language around green coffee identity.
In coffee, discussions of identity have often centered on questions of “purity.”
The first wave questioned coffee substitutes like roasted chicory, roasted barley, and roasted chickpeas; the second, the large—but brief—boom in flavored coffee; and the third, everything from species and processing methods to the intention and style of beverages and their service.[1] As the opportunities and capacity for distinctive and differentiated coffees have grown, so, too, have the number of methods and approaches to processing coffee.
Questions about coffee purity relate to cultural trends, but also to “identity standards”—the official rules about the composition, nature, and essential characteristics of a food product for it to be sold and marketed under a certain name. These standards, set by various regulatory bodies, help ensure consumers know what they’re buying and help facilitate trade between countries.
As coffee production has become more innovative, however, these legal definitions have become the center of heated ethical discussions about what constitutes “coffee” and who gets to decide. We—staff at the Specialty Coffee Association (SCA)—have been tracking and talking about the “processing revolution” since at least 2020, when the SCA’s Technical Officer, Dr. Mario Fernández-Alduenda, introduced the idea of all the different ways in which a variety of ingredients— from microbial starters and fermentation adjuncts all the way to flavoring agents—could be used to modulate the flavor of coffee during processing. The diversity of these potential ingredients is so broad that Dr. Fernández-Alduenda referred to it under the catch-all term of “added stuff.”
“Pro-stuff innovators” argued that the idea of “100% pure” coffee is a myth: some amount of foreign substance always enters the beans during processing. They also vouched for the producers’ freedom to innovate, seek differentiation, and add value to their product, citing the craft beer industry in many countries as a model. The “anti-stuff purists,” on the other hand, made strong arguments regarding transparency and fair play. They contended that consumers should have the right to know when anything other than coffee has been added, especially in light of allergen and other medical risks. A specific concern also emerged in the case of green coffee competitions: how fair is the addition of any stuff—but especially stuff that influences flavor—in competitions inherently focused on green coffee quality?
Earlier this year, just before Specialty Coffee Expo in Houston, Texas, we brought together industry representatives to learn about and discuss this issue, with the hope of reaching a shared understanding of what those impacted think should happen. We hoped to answer the following key questions:
1. Is this industry discussion really just about “stuff” and “no stuff,” or is it a proxy for more complicated questions of equity, access, or expectations of transparency?
2. Would a shared understanding of the topic’s complexities change the group’s perceptions? Would a common language naturally emerge if everyone had the same information?
3. What should the role of the SCA be in this situation? What actions could we take that are helpful? Which should we avoid?
Inspired by the structure of a citizens’ assembly—where a sample of the population is presented with information from subject-matter experts and interested individuals about a complex topic to generate a series of recommendations for a path forward—we wanted this event to serve those who are most likely to be directly impacted by any identity standard. Participants included coffee producer or processor institutional representatives, who are often asked questions about this topic; current practicing coffee processors, looking to gain more information about how markets understand and view infused coffees; and subject-matter experts, including academics and communicators who regularly engage with this topic. We also reserved a small number of seats for applicants who could demonstrate a clear connection between this topic and their work, experience, or perspective.
As we worked through a series of categorization activities and small-group exercises, many additional complexities emerged. During the process, we began to better understand why, even when a group has the same information about the topic, there is still tension around what language to use, and when. First, there are several different ways to categorize coffee along a “no-stuff” to “stuff” spectrum, and very few offer clear dividing lines. Some distinguish based on the nature of the additive, especially whether they consider it “natural” or “synthetic.” Some focus not only on “what,” but also on “why” something is added, for example, asking whether the ingredient supports or modulates the fermentation environment, or whether it’s added specifically to impart flavor. Others focus on timing, looking at when something was added—during the first stage of post-harvest processing, or later after the coffee was dried—to help determine whether they considered it a processing aid or flavoring agent. The question of creative intent behind an additive’s use (i.e., an idea of “craft”) also emerged.
Another key point of tension in what language to use, and when, relates to the purpose of a common language in the first place: if our goal is to alleviate confusion within the value system for the purpose of trade, which actors would benefit the most from increased clarity on this topic? Trade language is often dry and technical, but it presents challenges when considering the increasing importance of processing information as an extrinsic attribute driving value in coffee. One clear example that came up in discussion was that of “honey” processes, or in more technical language, “demucilaged” coffees. While there may be value in demystifying processing for consumers, it comes with significantly more risk for producers and sellers of green coffee. Would consumers presented with a coffee accurately described as “demucilaged” find it as attractive as a “honey-processed” coffee? A market assessment of co-fermented and infused coffees in Colombia that we shared with participants stated that there is an opportunity for sellers of co-fermented and infused coffees in different markets from those that have traditionally sought Colombian coffees. Will coffee sellers risk losing market opportunities if they feel pressured to explain to buyers—in technical language—the additives that they may have used?
At the time of writing (July 2025), we are still sifting through all the information we gathered in our short time with the group. In the coming months, we look forward to releasing more about the different areas we examined with the help of subject-matter experts, like the market assessment, as well as the outcomes of the categorization exercises and small-group activities, including the recommendations we received. In the meantime, I hope this small glimpse into this debate—whether you’ve been deep in the weeds since the very beginning or are just joining it now—helps to illuminate why it’s been such a difficult one to resolve. ◊
JENN RUGOLO is the Specialty Coffee Association Innovation Officer. Re:co Spotlight was made possible with the support of STORM Barista Attitude.
References
[1] Dr. Mario Fernández-Alduenda, “Understanding Shifting Coffee Identity Standards,” SCA News (July 26, 2020), https://sca.coffee/sca-news/read/understanding-shifting-coffee-identity-standards.
We hope you are as excited as we are about the release of 25, Issue 24. This issue of 25 is made possible with the contributions of specialty coffee businesses who support the activities of the Specialty Coffee Association through its underwriting and sponsorship programs. Learn more about our underwriters here.
