July 2009

Specialty coffee on NPR

The Kojo Nnamdi show, out of WAMU in Washington, DC, had a segment on specialty coffee this week. Guests were Counter Culture’s Peter Giuliano (gratuitous photo of Peter and I at right; I’ve been waiting for an excuse to post this); Ric Rhinehart, Executive Director of the Specialty Coffee Association of America; Ryan Jensen, owner of Peregrine Espresso in DC; and Dale Roberts, owner of Java Shack in Arlington, VA.

Last month the Washington Post also had a terrific article about Counter Culture.

While I’m giving some love to great coffee and Counter Culture, the new crop of their Finca Nueva Armenia is in, and it is as fantastic, if not more so, than it was when we reviewed it last year. This is organic and also certified Smithsonian Bird-Friendly (although not marketed as such by Counter Culture) — it’s as good as super-sustainable coffee gets.

More on the purity of certified coffees

My post, “When is 100% not 100%“? — regarding the amount of non-certified beans allowed in 100% Rainforest Alliance certified coffee — generated a lot of interest. Rainforest Alliance posted a comment, to which I replied. RA responded to my questions, and a Fair Trade representative (from TransFair USA) also chimed in, clarifying their position.

Now I’d like to post the comments of Robert Rice from the Smithsonian Migratory Bird Center (SMBC), the developer and guardian of Bird-Friendly certified coffee:

There seem to be two issues here regarding product purity: one with purity at origin and in manufacturing; the other with reduced percentages for marketing purposes that are stated on the package or end product.

I can certainly appreciate Abby’s statement about wanting to be honest with respect to the consumers. And I agree that there are situations or organizations with which the 100% stipulation could be difficult to meet. But this, to me, instead of accepting and allowing a more relaxed standard for product purity, is all the more reason to insist upon 100% purity along with a strictly controlled audit trail.

No one I know necessarily expects fraud along the chain, but history is a stern teacher. We know from recent years that cooperatives (and estate farms, too, most likely) have sent off quantities of “certified” organic coffee that far exceeded the production capabilities of the organization. The rule for organic was 100% purity–at least at the farm gate–and there are cases in which a coop lost its organic certification and the director lost all credibility with the coffee industry. A more notorious and egregious case occurred at the consumption end with “Kona” coffee in California, where Panamanian beans were re-packed as Hawaiian. Someone went to jail on that. Where money is concerned, it’s a challenge that we all confront with certified coffees. But there are also ways to address such behavior, such as sanctions, suspensions or expulsion.

Like organic and fair trade, SMBC has a audit trail and rules about separation of BF product that get addressed via inspection. While no one would claim such systems are fool-proof, a stated purity of 100% works to encourage the best efforts at keeping the “all or nothing” standard intact for all concerned, and realizing it as best as possible at the consumption end.

Stating up front that you’re going to allow 90% purity to leave the farm and allow that to be considered 100% can only work against you in the long run. If you’re expecting 10% “leakage”, then you may well get that much leakage on your 90% rule–and perhaps even more, given that those at origin know you’re not expecting 100%. It simply puts you in a difficult position from the start.

RA’s allowance for different percentages of the final product (i.e., Holiday Inn’s coffee carafes with the 30% RA certified labeling) is altogether another matter and is understandable from the marketing and getting-the-word-out perspective. SMBC doesn’t allow it, but we understand the reasoning behind it. But such statements on end-consumer packaging–where assumptions by consumers are made about what a certification mark implies–are distinct from the leakage allowance at origin/manufacturing/packaging.

As Julie stated in her blog, if only 90% is the purity level at origin and then again at manufacturing, a consumer could well be drinking a “certified” product that is only 81% pure. And if that is then used to create an acknowledged 30% certified coffee, you’re down to less than a quarter of the product being certified.

Our feeling is that if a certification mark is going to represent whatever it is that it states it represents, then strict standards and enforcement need to in place. In discussing this issue with many people, I’ve found that those who are concerned about environmental and/or social issues and look for such seals expect nothing short of 100% purity. We would all do well to work toward that high-water mark. By holding everyone along the commodity chain to the highest standards possible can we create reliable, credible coffee products that we can truly say link conservation to the market place.

Know your coffee birds: Baltimore Oriole

The beautiful Baltimore Oriole (Icterus galbula) is a familiar summertime sight across eastern North America (as is its western counterpart, the Bullock’s Oriole, I. bullockii; the two were once considered the same species). Their cheerful whistled notes and distinctive bag-like hanging nests are characteristic of woodland edges, open areas with scattered tall trees, and mature suburban neighborhoods. The brilliant orange and black plumage of adult males (young males, females, and juveniles are all duller) make the Baltimore Oriole one of the most colorful and arresting species of songbird in North America.

One reason these orioles are so beloved is that they are easily attracted to feeding stations which offer grape jelly or oranges sliced in half. Baltimore Orioles are also conspicuous in spring and early summer as they feed on the nectar and pollen of the blossoms of flowering trees. Although during most of the nesting season they feed on insects, as do most songbirds, it is this affection for fruit and nectar that hint at the habits of orioles on their Latin American wintering grounds.

Trees in the large genus Inga are popular shade trees in Latin American coffee farms. They are fast-growing, evergreen, easy to prune, and fix nitrogen in the soil. While their overuse generally does not benefit biodiversity if they are planted at the expense of a variety of other trees, Ingas do have wildlife value. They produce an abundance of flowers in the dry season (our winter) to which many birds are attracted. Nectar and pollen are important food sources for birds during the dry season, when fewer insects are available.

The nearly ubiquitous presence of Inga on coffee farms almost always assures the presence of Baltimore Orioles on these farms in their wintering range as well. In fact, surveys in Chiapas, Mexico found more Baltimore Orioles in coffee farms containing Inga than in farms with more extensive tree cover or in mature forest.

In areas where coffee farms have been converted to sun coffee, Inga-shaded farms have become important refuges for orioles as well as other species. Small flocks of Baltimore Orioles, working their way through coffee farms in the mid-canopy of Inga are a frequent sight from Mexico through Central America. Other flowering trees that are often grown as shade trees in coffee farms, such as Erythrina and Gliricidia, are also visited by orioles and other birds. Many of these trees are pollinated only by birds and provide farmers with fuelwood and fruit in addition to shading their coffee. A fine example of the interconnectedness of coffee, shade trees, birds, and people in Latin America.

Top oriole photo from Wikimedia Commons, bottom by JimGuy, used with permission; map by Cornell Lab of Ornithology.