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. Improper 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.