Organic coffee

Coffee and the environment / Organic coffee

EPA bans pesticide carbofuran on coffee imports

In May, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced its decision to ban any residue of the pesticide carbofuran on food. The rule becomes effective December 31, 2009.

Carbofuran (sold under the name Furadan) causes neurological damage in humans, is extremely deadly to birds and fish, and is highly toxic through ingestion and inhalation. It is used on numerous crops, including coffee. It tends to be used on various types of mealy bugs that infest the roots of coffee plants, coffee root nematodes, and on the coffee leaf miner (Leucoptera coffeella). Coffee leaf miners have natural enemies in Latin America, so carbofuran is used against them mainly in Africa.

Earlier in the process of reviewing carbofuran uses, the EPA rules allowed the importation of rice, coffee, bananas, and sugarcane with carbofuran residues. This final decision reverses that, and countries exporting coffee into the U.S. must stop using carbofuran on their crops. While little pesticide residue remains on green or roasted coffee, the direct threats to coffee workers, wildlife, and the millions of migratory and resident birds from the application of carbofuran to coffee make its use dangerous.

The Food and Drug Administration is responsible for enforcing EPA regulations on food imports. Carbofuran residue on food has been banned in the EU for some time, so testing protocols are established. Exporting countries, and coffee exporters and importers, often engage testing and certification labs to insure there are no violations that could lead to rejected shipments or, worse, a ban on imports.

FMC Corporation, the Pennsylvania-based company that manufactures Furadan, recently announced that they are challenging the EPA’s decision on some technical and administrative grounds. They have contended that the chemical is safe, despite well-documented impacts on birds, lions, hippos, other wildlife, and humans. Reports are still surfacing about illegal use of Furadan by poachers to kill vultures (which attract attention to illegal kills) and small birds which are then sold for human consumption.

Improper pesticide usage (whether unwitting or purposeful), export of domestically banned pesticides to other countries, and the fact that we are just beginning to understand the dangers of cumulative and synergistic effects of multiple pesticides in the environment to wildlife and humans, all argue for support of non-chemical-based pest management. And that includes growing coffee under diverse shade with its biodiversity-based pest control benefits.

Update: In 2010, courts ruled the EPA had to once again establish residue tolerances for imported foods, including coffee.

Certifications / Organic coffee

Organic certifiers incorporating shade criteria

At least two organizations providing coffee certification services have incorporated shade criteria into their organic certification standards. Here is a bit about them, and some pros and cons.

Although requirements for organic labeling are usually established by national governments, independent agencies are licensed to provide inspection and certification services to producers. Two such organizations are OCIA International and Certimex (which operates only in Mexico). Both of these certifiers have personnel who are also trained in shade certification, because they are authorized by Smithsonian Migratory Bird Center to perform inspection for their Bird-Friendly certification. (Rainforest Alliance uses Sustainable Farm Certification, Intl., their own subsidiary).

Certimex

Certimex is using shade criteria as a requirement for organic certification.Great idea, except that the criteria is vague and undefined (“should grow under diversified shade” [1]). There is nothing wrong per se about adding in this type of wording, and anything that encourages some sort of shade preservation or restoration is a positive move. However,it offers no concrete assurance that compliance (which isn’t measurable) really does anything to preserve shade or biodiversity. We’ll have to see were Certimex goes with this.

OCIA

OCIA offers a separate certification for organic/shade coffee. The standards are more specific and provide quantifiable benchmarks that are similar to, but not as broad, as Smithsonian Bird-Friendly and Rainforest Alliance. They were, in fact, developed in cooperation with Smithsonian. I was able to obtain the 2008 OCIA International Certification Standards. Here are the ones specific to shade:

  • Rustic or traditional polyculture encouraged.
  • 40% canopy cover required.
  • Not more than 20% of shade trees can be non-native species.
  • Not more than 50% of the canopy can be made up of Inga species.
  • Shade must comprise at least ten tree species that are not Inga, Erythrina, Gliricidia sepium, or Grevillea robusta [Erythrina and Gliricidia are deciduous; they lose
    their leaves during the dry season (our winter), at a time when canopy
    cover is extremely important for both migrant and resident birds.  Grevillea robusta is not native to Latin America].
  • A single species of Inga cannot comprise greater than 50% of the trees in the production are.

These criteria, along with others for vegetation management and the organic criteria themselves, are quantifiable habitat-targeted criteria, not the sort of general or intangible environmental standards used by Fair Trade or Utz Certified.

The future of combined environmental criteria

Integrating shade criteria into existing organic criteria to create an “organic +” category is something that has been discussed for quite some time as an option to help achieve some sort of “environmental seal” for coffee [2,3]. In that sense, the OCIA standards are a positive move.

On the other hand, unless there is coordination among organic certifiers to use uniform (and scientifically sound/biologically relevant) standards, this runs the risk of just adding another label to a bag of coffee, creating consumer confusion, fatigue, or even distrust. In this case, so far as I know, OCIA is not actually adding another label or designation to the coffee. This is problematic to me. A roaster could legitimately market this coffee as shade-grown, but a consumer would have little or no clue as to what standards are being met, since there is no designation or explanation on the OCIA web site.

Ultimately, an “eco-friendly” type of seal that incorporates organic and shade standards will also somehow have to be regionally sensitive. In some regions of Latin America, coffee is grown at high altitudes where clouds provide shade and additional tree cover would be counter-productive, or is grown in areas (like the Brazilian cerrado) that wasn’t forested to begin with. Standards for preservation of native habitat in these areas would be more appropriate. Even in forested areas, different parts of the world will require different shade criteria.

[1] Dietsch, T., and S. M.. Philpott. 2008. Linking consumers to sustainability: incorporating science into eco-friendly certification. Globalizations 5:247-258.

[2] Commission for Environmental Cooperation and TerraChoice Environmental Services. 2004. Environmental and other labeling of coffee, the role of mutual recognition, supporting cooperative action. Sustainable Commodity Initiative, International Institute for Sustainable Development and United Nations Conference on Trade and Development.

[3] Rice, P. and J. McLean. 1999. Sustainable Coffee at the Crossroads. Consumer’s Choice Council.

Certifications / Coffee regions / Organic coffee

Kenya producing more organic coffee

A recent article notes that more producers in central Kenya are turning to organic coffee in order to take advantage of price premiums. This is welcome news, as over the last 15 years or so, Kenya has been one of the heaviest users of pesticides on its export crops, with around 60% of its pesticide use on coffee (primarily the large estates). The FAO reports that in 2001 (last year full data is available) Kenya used 303 metric tons of insecticides on its crops (215 of which were nasty organophosphates) versus 153 in Ethiopia and 69 in Rwanda.

Inadequate training, sanitation, and protective gear meant workers and the environment suffered from contamination. Less than 1% of Kenya’s total agricultural area is now organic, but organic agriculture stakeholders have formed the Kenya Agriculture Organic Network to support the successful growth of the sector.

Certifications / Coffee news and miscellany / Organic coffee

Organic coffee safe for now

Last week I posted about the recent U.S. Department of Agriculture ruling which will require every farm in a cooperative to be inspected annually in order to receive organic certification. It was feared this would make organic certification too expensive for small farmers and reduce the amount of organic coffee on the market.

Yesterday the USDA issued a statement that the rules for organic certification will not change at this time, but that the matter will be discussed further in the fall and amendments to the rules are a possibility in the future.

Hat tip to Samuel Fromartz, who authored the original article at Salon and has been keeping up with the issue at his blog Chews Wise.