Understanding Shifting Coffee Identity Standards
There are times in the history of an industry when discussions and decisions must be made regarding the definition, identity, or purity of a product.
MARIO FERNÁNDEZ, Technical Director of the Specialty Coffee Association, traces the debates around coffee’s identity, from the first to the third wave.
Oftentimes, a global consensus is not reached, and the question is resolved according to each country’s legal framework. The most extreme example of this is probably the legal definition of “beer.” In the US, for example, you may use malt for beermaking, of course, but also a lot of other “stuff,” too: “rice, grain of any kind, bran, glucose, sugar, and molasses” can all be used as substitutes for malt; you may also use “honey, fruit, fruit juice, fruit concentrate, herbs, spices, and other food materials,” and even “flavors and other non-beverage ingredients.”[1] It’s interesting to contrast this to the definition in Germany, where “only barley malt, hops, yeast, and water may be used to prepare bottom-fermented beer.”[2] We are not judging who is right or wrong, or which beer might be better, but it is interesting how the definitions of the same product can vary so dramatically in different contexts.
In the case of coffee, it would seem every “wave” has brought its own discussion about identity or purity. The first wave debated if a product with a coffee substitute such as roasted chicory, roasted barley, or even roasted chickpea could be called “coffee.” The question in some countries like Spain and Mexico included torrefacto coffee—how much burnt sugar can be added to a roasted and ground coffee product and still call it coffee? The second wave brought us a large, but brief, boom of flavored coffee beans. Just as you can still find first and second wave coffee available in today’s market, coffee substitutes or flavored coffee beans are still available, but the question of its’ purity has largely been settled by the market itself: in the case of coffee substitutes, through a clear label statement of ingredients other than coffee, and in the case of flavored coffee beans, mostly through the extended use of flavored syrups as add-ons to the final beverage.
Elements of the third wave have reopened the debate again, especially as processing methods draw more and more attention from the whole industry as a means to differentiate coffee, this time from the point of view of adding materials (“stuff”) other than coffee during post-harvest processing. At first glance, it would seem the points of view about this question are split between the group we could call “pro-stuff” or “innovators,” and the group we could call “anti-stuff” or “purists.” The “pro-stuff innovators” argue that the idea of “100% pure” coffee doesn’t exist: some amount of foreign substance always enters the beans during processing. “Innovators” also vouch for the producers’ freedom to innovate, seek differentiation, and add value to their product, citing the craft beer industry as a model. The “anti-stuff purists’” strongest arguments, on the other hand, are transparency and fair play: consumers should have the right to know when anything other than coffee has been added to the beans, especially for allergen and other health concerns. A specific concern also is the case of green coffee competitions: how fair is it for producers to enter coffees with added flavors of any kind to compete in the game of green coffee quality? Would not that be equivalent to doping at the Olympics? As we move upwards in the scale of coffee quality, the debate gets even more heated, with the “innovators” crying for the right to make coffee better, and the “purists” pleading for respect.
However, while it’s easy to lay out the two sides of the argument, the question is not quite as clear as the strength of these arguments might indicate. There are two aspects of this debate that make it trickier to settle than the ones from the other two waves: first of all, whatever enters the coffee bean during processing is still going to be roasted, and many compounds would either be degraded or simply volatilized; in most cases, this largely reduces the impact of adding “stuff” to coffee during processing. Second, there is a continuum of ways in which “stuff” can be added to coffee during processing, from adding a starter microorganism during fermentation all the way to adding artificial flavors, which makes it difficult to reach consensus about what is still coffee and what is definitely coffee plus something.
Here are some of the ways in which “stuff” may be added to help provide a better sense of this complicated continuum:
Extended or intense fermentation. One could argue that microbes landing on the coffee and fermenting the mucilage are non-coffee “stuff.” However, practically all coffee, regardless of its processing method, goes through some level of fermentation. Placing the border of purity here would leave us with no “pure coffee.” But what about the innovative fermentations some people are doing these days? Extending the fermentation or aiming for a more intense fermentation does not necessarily imply more “stuff” was “added” to coffee, as the microbial populations may develop from those already existing in a normal fermentation. These extended fermentations certainly have the potential to impact flavor dramatically, but it would be extremely difficult to claim that the resulting product isn’t “pure coffee” anymore, considering that what we usually understand as coffee has also gone through fermentation.
Microbial starters. One could add a microbial starter to control the fermentation and potentially achieve specific flavors, in a similar way to how breweries or bakeries use their proprietary yeast. In essence, this is no different to a “regular” coffee which has gone through wild fermentation, except that the control over the fermenting microbes is much larger, and the impact on flavor can be better gauged. Are the microbial starters a more “foreign stuff” than the wild microbial population in coffee fermentation?
Fermentation adjuncts. Some people add flowers, herbs, fruit juice, etc., to the fermentation vat or at some other points along the process. The impact of these adjuncts on flavor is not easy to assess; in most cases, one is just giving more food to the microbes. The effect of those adjuncts in flavor after going through fermentation, drying, and roasting is usually negligible, though there could certainly be some compounds that are able to diffuse into the beans and endure the process. At any rate, these adjuncts are clearly some intentional, non-coffee, non-microbial “stuff,” and in the worst-case scenario they could be potential allergens.
Flavoring agents—before drying. It is certainly possible to infuse the beans with natural or artificial flavoring agents before drying. This is probably not too different to the practice of adding adjuncts, except that the likelihood of impacting the cup flavor is largely increased when one deliberately adds a substance that can diffuse into the bean and resist the following processing steps and roasting.
Flavoring agents—during or after drying. Once most of the moisture has been removed from the beans during drying, it becomes very easy for oil-soluble volatile compounds to be absorbed in the oils of the coffee beans. If a bag of parchment coffee is placed by mistake next to detergent, fuel, or fertilizer, it might become contaminated. The same principle, though, can be applied to achieve a specific flavor in coffee. Parchment coffee can be flavored by storing it in the same room with herbs or spices. Green coffee can be flavored by keeping it, for instance, in a bourbon barrel. In these cases, the added “stuff” is usually pretty conspicuous, and the process is usually presented to the end consumer as an interesting innovation, though sometimes the procedure is not disclosed to the buyer.
Where do we draw a line between fair innovation, for the sake of adding value to a product in the middle of a price crisis, and clear adulteration? This is an urgent industry discussion, to which there is, perhaps, no single answer. After all, flavored roasted coffee beans still have a home in the market, which means all the options to add “stuff” to coffee mentioned above and the others to come will find their share of enthusiast consumers. But there are some easy ways to orient ourselves: if the added “stuff” has the capacity to be allergen, please declare it! And, in coffee competitions (from green bean to barista competitions), organizers would do well to issue a policy about where they place that border for the sake of fairness. But perhaps the most interesting discussion in this debate, resurfaced by the third wave, is precisely at its’ core: those retailers taking pride in the quality of the coffee they serve. Will they side with the innovators or with the purists? Where will they draw the line?
From a coffee producing family in Mexico, MARIO FERNÁNDEZ has tried to understand coffee for 27 years, under the light of food science. He recently joined the SCA as Technical Director.