Organic coffee

This article appeared in the SCAA Chronicle, the publication of the Specialty Coffee Association of America, now the Specialty Coffee Association.

Of all the certifications and labeling schemes that appear on consumable products, ”organic” is probably the most familiar, and perhaps the most intuitively appealing. But even as demand grows, there is also a growing awareness that our perception of the purity of organic agriculture or understanding of organic certification may not completely align with reality, and that organic agriculture, even in compliance with certification standards, is not a panacea. But is it worth it?

As an ecologist, I believe that the most serious peril of non-organic coffee is harm to people and the environment at origin. And I believe that the coffee industry—supplier of a globally ubiquitous product grown by millions of people around the world—has a very special and central role in the promotion and evolution of the organic movement.

Let’s talk about some of the perceived shortcomings of organic food products which have particular relevance to coffee. The first is that organic produce is generally not more nutritious than conventionally grown produce. Coffee is not consumed for its nutritional benefits, so this is unlikely to influence coffee buying one way or another.

Pesticide residue on foods is a major concern to consumers, but some recent work has determined that organic foods may not be any safer than conventional foods. This is true for coffee, where little or no chemical residue is likely to remain once the beans are removed from the fruit (the part exposed to pesticides), dried and hulled, roasted at very high temperatures, ground, then brewed in water.

Finally, ”organic” doesn’t necessarily mean ”high quality.” Organic coffee is often grown under a canopy of shade, and shade-grown coffee tends to ripen more slowly. Slower growth may intensify flavors, resulting in a better-tasting cup. This subtlety may not be discernable by the average consumer, and of course any coffee, carelessly harvested or processed, can result in a lousy cup.

If organic coffee is not healthier and doesn’t taste better than conventionally grown coffee, why should buyers favor it, especially given its higher price?

What is at stake?

Pesticides that are banned or highly restricted in the U.S. or Europe are still being used in many coffee-growing countries, including some that are highly toxic. Even illegal pesticides are still obtainable and being applied. Improper storage, inadequate personal protection, and lack of training for handlers of pesticides are not uncommon in the developing world, and result in farm workers being directly exposed to toxins.

Even if these toxins aren’t lethal, the effects on non-target organisms (including humans) may consist of reproductive impairment, weakened immune systems, abnormal hormonal function, cancers, genetic mutations, altered foraging and predator-avoidance behavior, faulty thermoregulation, and/or neurological effects. Use of herbicides also eliminates larval and pollinator host plants, transforming the base of food chains. These effects can occur even when chemicals are administered correctly, and are exacerbated when mis- or over-applied.

What I find most frightening is that there is no testing to determine what happens when multiple products are used concurrently or sequentially, or what happens when they combine with other chemicals (synthetic and natural) in the environment or in organisms. We don’t know how different climates or soils influence these interactions, or their long-term consequences. The number of potential combinations of substances, circumstances, and settings is mind-boggling, yet these synergies and their impacts on ecological and human health are essentially unknown!

According to the World of Organic Agriculture 2016 report, coffee is the world’s largest single organic crop. While comprising only two percent of all organic cropland, it covers over 20 percent of organic permanent cropland, and over half of the permanent cropland in Latin America, where the majority of organic coffee is grown. Moreover, coffee is grown in the tropics—home to some of the world’s most biodiverse areas and complex ecosystems.

Organic economics

Coffee farmers are largely motivated by economics. Organic agriculture often incurs substantial costs. Hand weeding, pruning of shade trees, and implementation of integrated pest management adds additional labor costs. Particularly daunting is the production or acquisition of large volumes of organic compost for fertilizer; synthetic fertilizers are not allowed due to high fossil fuel use in their manufacture and their limited use in promoting healthy soil. If a farm has a wet mill, the waste pulp can be used for fertilizer, but it will not be enough to meet the heavy feeding demands of coffee, so additional sources will need to be located. The hurdle of securing adequate organic fertilizer often contributes to yields for organic coffee growers that are lower than the inflated yields of high-input coffee—by over 30 percent in some cases.

Certification fees also play a role. Organic practices are verified by annual inspections, and producers pay, at some level, for certification, including accommodating inspectors and paying for their travel. These expenses, combined with lower yields and increased labor costs, are often not sufficiently offset by the price premiums paid for organic coffee, which are typically around 20 to 25 percent. This can make organic production unappealing to farmers. And since one of the requirements for organic certification is segregation from conventional coffee throughout the supply chain, there are financial burdens for importers, roasters, and other players in the supply chain as well. A portion of all these costs are of necessity passed on to consumers.

I don’t want to minimize the benefits of some agricultural chemicals, or oversimplify the complexities in growing coffee in environmentally or economically sustainable ways. But for decades we’ve been taking a risky gamble with our environment. Other coffee certifications have various restrictions on pesticide use, but only organic (and Smithsonian Bird-Friendly, for which organic certification is a prerequisite) prohibits most of them. There’s no denying that chemicals which are allowed under organic certification may be just as toxic as those that are not, but under organic rules their use is restricted to specific situations.

Many uncertified coffee farms may be considered ”passive organic,” because they forego some or all chemical use due to expense or ideology. But unless they are certified, there is no way of knowing if, when, or how they use chemicals, or if they are following the many other essential environmentally-friendly practices that are mandated in organic certification standards. These encompass soil and water quality and conservation measures, and maintaining or enhancing biological resources, including supporting biodiversity.

Obtaining organic certification and fully embracing its philosophy is an enormous accomplishment, especially for farmers in developing countries where resources, technical support, and capital may be lacking. While many organic farms were or are helped by initial grants or other funding, some will require continued effort to preserve and advance organic practices. The coffee industry is in the position to aid in these activities by providing expertise, facilitating partnerships, and encouraging innovation. Larger industry players could help finance initiatives outright, and all front-line coffee providers have an opportunity to engage and educate the public on the importance of organic coffee, the challenges it presents to farmers, and the role of higher premiums in fostering and stabilizing organic production—indeed, helping it to prosper. Organic certification is a commitment to sustainability that deserves to be rewarded with our dollars.

Some time ago, I provided posts on pesticides that are commonly used on coffee, and a brief overview of organic coffee. A recent NPR story, Organic pesticides, not an oxymoron, put the topic of the definition of “organic” (at least how it is defined and regulated in the U.S.) back in the news. I thought it would be appropriate to clarify this as it pertains to organic coffee.

First, all organic agricultural products sold in the U.S. are regulated by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s National Organic Program. All of these products, whether produced in the U.S. or not, must adhere to NOP standards. The USDA accredits other agencies to certify organic products using the same standards.

The use of the USDA Organic seal indicates a product is at least 95% organic unless 100% organic is specified. However, because coffee is a single ingredient product, a bag of organic coffee is 100% organic beans.  Mixing of organic and non-organic forms of the same ingredient are expressly prohibited. If the coffee had flavoring or some form of secondary processing aid that was not organic, then it couldn’t be labeled 100% organic but that is an exception.

As the NPR piece points out, organic certification does not mean absolutely no chemicals are used in production. Organic certification excludes most manufactured pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers. A list of substances that are allowed and prohibited are found in the Code of Federal Regulations. Examples of products that are allowed include soap-based herbicides and pesticides in certain circumstances, and botanically-based insecticides like neem and pyrethrum. It does not mean that any naturally-occurring toxin is okay to use or intrinsically safer just because it is natural. Plenty of natural toxins like arsenic or nicotine are prohibited. Allowable substances are on the list because they are typically less toxic in recommended doses than synthetics, more specific, and break down in the environment faster.

Many of these substances don’t apply to coffee, of course. Most relevant to coffee farming is that various copper- and sulfur-based products are allowed in some situations. This includes copper sulfate and hydrated lime (calcium oxide), the main ingredients in bordeaux mixture which is used as a fungicide, particularly against coffee rust. It is further specified in the rules that copper-based materials must be used in a manner that minimizes accumulation in the soil.

There are two very important stipulations on the use of allowed substances. One, the producer must demonstrate that natural biological or cultural methods are insufficient to control or remedy whatever problem is to be addressed by an allowed substance.  Only after these methods have proven unsuccessful can producers turn to the allowed substances. The organic standards include practices that should help reduce, minimize, or eliminate the need for pesticides and other agrochemicals — organic agriculture is a whole approach to ecosystem stewardship, not just the absence of artificial chemicals.

Second, the rules state that the use of allowed substances must “not contribute to contamination of crops, soil, or water.” I’ll also add that most of the allowed substances are only permitted to be used in specific situations or on particular crops (or non-food uses).

I’ve mentioned this before, but it bears repeating. I don’t believe the danger of non-organic coffee production is to the people that drink the end product. By the time the coffee cherries are removed from the trees, the beans inside processed, roasted, ground, and brewed, little or no chemical residue is likely to remain. The potential danger of non-organic coffee is harm to people and the environment at origin. Inproper storage, inadequate protection, and lack of training routinely expose farm workers to chemicals. Pesticides that are banned in the U.S. or Europe are still being used in many coffee-growing countries, especially older broad-spectrum insecticides which are highly toxic, but relatively inexpensive. Pesticides kill tens of thousands of migratory birds on their wintering grounds. Contamination and mortality of tropical resident wildlife is not well studied. And synthetic fertilizers, particularly nitrogen, not only have a large carbon footprint, but contribute to water contamination.

Organic certification is a commitment to sustainability. It deserves to be rewarded with our coffee-buying dollars.

As a result of researching posts I’ve written here, my thoughts on organic coffee have evolved. I have at times noted that many coffee farms may be considered “passive organic,” but are not certified, and that a lack of certification doesn’t mean the coffee is not sustainably grown. That may be true, but it is more nuanced than that. I’ve come to understand some farms may not use chemicals, but that doesn’t mean that they are following the principals that are encompassed in organic farming (practices that are codified and verified in organic certification standards).

Obtaining certification is a big accomplishment, especially for many farmers in the developing world where technical support and capital may be lacking. There are real barriers, including cost, and in sometimes lower yields.  It requires a lot of increased labor. Organic certification represents much more than not using chemicals — which are unlikely to show up in your coffee cup anyway. Organic certification is a commitment to sustainability. It deserves to be rewarded with our dollars.

Coffee bag photo by Chris and Jenni, used under a Creative Commons license.

My recent post “Farmers are abandoning organic coffee — and it’s your fault” generated several interesting comments. The message — that despite increasing demand for organic coffee, the prices buyers are willing to pay are not enough to cover the added cost of organic production — is not new and has been fairly well researched. A couple of people commented that lost yields (less coffee produced per unit of land) under organic methods are often overlooked when discussing overall organic production costs.

How much yield is lost under organic coffee farming methods, and what causes it? I looked at several peer-reviewed papers that examined the costs of organic versus conventional coffee production that included information on the difference in yield in the two systems.

The difference in yields
A paper comparing 10 paired organic and conventional farms in Costa Rica [1], found that five of the organic farms met or exceeded production of their conventional counterparts over a three-year period, but that the average mean yield of the organic farms combined was 22% lower than that of the conventional farms. They calculated average organic yield as 1080 kg/ha of green coffee, versus 1386 kg/ ha for conventional.

Two studies from Mexico [2,3] indicated yields 28 and 44% lower for organic farms versus conventional. In Nicaragua, the organic yields were 33% lower than conventional (789 kg/kg versus 1183) [4]. Yields for organic coffee were calculated at 43% lower for Costa Rica, but equal in Guatemala, and only 2% lower for Honduras [5].

In the latter study, this discrepancy between countries was attributed to variations in technification levels. The majority of Costa Rican coffee is conventional, high-input and high-yield, bolstered by years of industry support for higher-yielding varieties and technification. Yields for organic coffee are much lower in contrast. On the other hand, there is less organizational,financial, and logistical support for farmers in countries like Honduras. Their conventional coffee is not as technified and it’s yields are lower, and not much better than organic.

What causes lower yield?
Whether organic or conventional, coffee yield depends on many factors, including annual climatic factors and varying densities of both coffee and shade trees. While some loss in productivity comes in organic production is related into increased use of shade (which can result in fewer flowers, and therefore fruit, per plant), the main culprit is the difficulty in obtaining enough organic fertilizer.

Coffee requires very high amounts of nutrients. For instance, it takes about 2000 kg of organic fertilizer to supply 40 kg of nitrogen to a hectare of land, versus 87 to 267 kg of inorganic fertilizer [4].  Many farmers simply do not have the ability to produce or acquire the additional compost, manures, and other organic matter needed to sustain yields. This is especially true for smallholders with limited resources and limited means of assessing soil health and formulating the right corrective measures [6].

That is, it’s not just the cost of the raw organic materials, but also the labor involved. The Costa Rican study [1], for example, found that although more labor was expended for harvesting (those larger yields) on conventional farms, the organic farms spent more on labor in management. So much more added labor that the cost of collecting, preparing, and application of organic fertilizers ended up being as much as the conventional farms spent on all their non-organic chemicals.

The added expense of certification
The Costa Rican study [1] also found that net income between organic and conventional farms was similar if the cost of certification fees were not included. If they were, the organic price premium would have to be about 38% above the price of conventional coffee to generate similar net income as conventional producers, nearly double what was being received.

Lack of reliable price premium
In theory, the extra price per pound received by farmers for organic coffee compensates them for lower yields and added costs. In practice, this is often not the case.

It’s not unusual for organic farms to get no premiums. They have to sell their coffee as conventionally-grown because an organic processing mill is not available to them — one of the requirements for organic certification is segregation from conventional coffee throughout the supply chain. In Nicaragua, for instance, organic trade channels for small producers outside the cooperative membership were nearly non-existent [4].

These studies noted that price premiums for organic coffee were closely related to coffee quality. In Costa Rica, where overall coffee quality is high, both conventional and organic coffee received good prices on the market. No matter the origin, the higher the coffee quality, the less important price premiums for certification (whether organic, Fair Trade, etc.) become — the extra money paid to farmers for high quality, specialty coffee is a higher percentage of the total cost than the certification premium [5].

One analysis of the economic sustainability of organic coffee [7] summed things up:

“…there appears to be considerable injustice between the extreme preconditions demanded for organics’ by the largely urban consumer of the industrialized world and the modest rewards received by the organic coffee growers for their strenuous efforts. From an agronomic point of view, there is also considerable ground for criticism on the principles of organic farming when applied to coffee. … It is concluded that the concept of organic farming in its strict sense, when applied to coffee, is not sustainable and also not serving the interests of the producer and consumer as much as the proponents would like us to believe.”

What’s the solution?
The prohibition against any use of inorganic fertilizers prevents taking advantage of the many methods of efficient nutrient management developed in coffee production [7], and creates a barrier to farmers wanting to produce organic coffee. Frankly, as ecologist, I am far more concerned with pesticide application than fertilizer application.  I hate the idea of any more additions to the many certification schemes already available, but it would be helpful if there were some distinction in organic certification (e.g., “completely chemical free” and “pesticide free”). A best-case scenario would provide price premiums to farmers that used no pesticides, and mostly organic fertilizers supplemented with some synthetic nutrients. It would allow farmers to grow coffee in a far more environmentally-sensitive manner — including increased shade that could also provide further income from crop diversification — and still compete in the marketplace.

Another new certification isn’t going to happen, at least anytime soon. This brings us back to square one: know where your coffee comes from, how it is grown, and be willing to pay more to reward farmers for their efforts to make your world a little better place. If you are buying your coffee from a specialty roaster that has good relationships with their importers and/or farmers, information on how your coffee is grown is available if you make the effort to look or ask. Plus, you will be drinking better coffee and supporting farmers that are paid a quality premium.

[1] LyngbÁ¦k, A. E., R. G. Muschler, and F. L. Sinclair. 2001. Productivity and profitability of multistrata organic versus conventional coffee farms in Costa Rica. Agroforestry Systems 53: 205—213.

[2] Nigh, R. (1997). Organic agriculture and globalization: a Maya associative corporation in Chiapas, Mexico. Human Organization 56:427—436.

[3] Pulschen, L., and Lutzeyer, H.-J. 1993. Ecological and economic conditions of organic coffee  production in Latin America and Papua New Guinea. Angewandte Botanik 67: 204—208 (cited and summarized in [7].)

[4] Valkila, J. 2009. Fair Trade organic coffee production in Nicaragua — Sustainable development or a poverty trap? Ecological Economics 68:3018-3025.

[5] Kilian., B., C. Jones, L. Pratt, and A. Villalobos. 2006. Is sustainable agriculture a viable strategy to improve farm income in Central America? A case study on coffee. Journal of Business Research 59:322-330.

[6] Grossman, J. M. 2003. Exploring farmer knowledge of soil processes in organic coffee systems of Chiapas, Mexico. Geoderma 111:267-287.

[7] Van der Vossen, H. A. M. 2005. A critical analysis of the agronomic and economic sustainability of organic coffee production. Experimental Agriculture 41:449-473.

Photo by Leigh Wolf under a Creative Commons license.

See also:

Calo, M. and T. A. Wise. 2005. Revaluing Peasant Coffee Production: Organic  and Fair Trade Markets in Mexico.Global Development and Environment Institute. Tufts Univ., Medford, MA. PDF.

Rice, R. 2001. Noble Goals and Challenging Terrain: Organic and Fair Trade Coffee Movements in the Global Marketplace. Journal of Agriculture and Environmental Ethics 14: 39-66.

Photo by Leigh Wolf under a Creative Commons license.

A recent article in the Christian Science Monitor reports that at least 10% of organic coffee farmers in northern Latin America alone have given up and are returning to producing coffee with chemicals.

Why? Despite increasing demand for organic coffee, the prices buyers are willing to pay are not enough to cover the added cost of organic production.

Buyers aren’t willing to pay adequate prices because consumers apparently are not willing to, either. The U.S. is largest importer of organic coffee in the world. The buck, as they say, stops here.

A typical conventional coffee farm, the piece notes, uses up to 250 pounds of chemical fertilizers (usually petroleum-based) on every acre. I presume this does not include the substantial amount of herbicides and pesticides that are also used in conventional coffee growing.

Still, if farmers are not obtaining an adequate price premium for their organic coffee, the chemicals are still cheaper than the cost of composts (more volume needed than synthetic fertilizers), certification and audit fees, and significant additional labor costs, especially combined with typically-lower yields.

An FAO report cited three other studies that confirmed that the price premium for organic coffee is highly correlated with quality [1]. Thus, producers of organic, high-quality specialty coffee are more likely to cover their costs and make a profit, and continue to grow coffee organically. Producers of low-quality organic coffee sell their coffee at a low or no premium (often to purveyors of cheap organic coffee, e.g., Millstone, Yuban), realize no benefit to the added work and costs of organic production, and either bail out and go back to chemicals or rip out their coffee entirely and go with another crop.

What can you do?

• Pay more for organic (and shade-grown) coffees. Don’t expect the poor farmers in the developing world to subsidize a healthier world for you. It’s ridiculous.
• Don’t be completely wedded to certified coffee. The costs and complications involved in certification are formidable if not insurmountable for perhaps the majority of small farmers [2], even though many grow coffee with few or no chemicals. Take the time to research your coffee — virtually all of the roasters I recommend in the footer provide details on where their coffees come from and how they are grown. Be willing to pay for these sustainably-grown beans, as well.

When you take into account the fact that the soil and coffee trees on chemical-dependent farms become depleted many years sooner than on organic farms, or the costs involved in environmental and human health due to exposure to chemicals, primarily pesticides [3], “cheap” coffee is no longer cheap for anybody.

[1] Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. 2009. The market for organic and Fair Trade coffee. Study prepared in the framework of FAO project GCP/RAP/404/GER. Available online (PDF).

[2] From the ground up: organic coffee certification, production, and processing. Coffee Talk Magazine, November 2009 (PDF).

[3] See the section on The Environmental Dimensions of Coffee Production in the report, Coffee, Conservation, and Commerce in the Western Hemisphere, by the National Resources Defense Council.

See also:

How much is organic certifcation worth? Harvest Public Media.

Gaia Estate, a Bird-Friendly coffee grower’s perspective. Birds & Beans Canada blog.

Valkila, J. 2009. Fair Trade organic coffee production in Nicaragua — Sustainable development or a poverty trap? Ecological Economics 68:3018-3025.

Calo, M. and T. A. Wise. 2005. Revaluing Peasant Coffee Production: Organic and Fair Trade Markets in Mexico.Global Development and Environment Institute. Tufts Univ., Medford, MA. PDF.

Photo by Urvish Joshi under a Creative Commons license.