One of C&C’s favorite roasters, Caffe Pronto in Maryland, has just received Bird-Friendly certification from the Smithsonian Migratory Bird Center. Most people associate the SMBC certification with farms, but roasters may also participate. Obviously, they need to sell SMBC certified coffee (although not exclusively), and contribute $0.25 per pound of certified SMBC coffee to Smithsonian, which goes to support the certification program.
[NOTE: Rainforest Alliance standards have undergone several revisions since this post was first written. There is now no criteria for canopy cover and tree diversity, and native vegetation criteria do not have to be met for six years. The Bird-Friendly standard outlined below has been slightly revised, in part to align with requirements for certifying chocolate; while the older criteria are listed the new standard is still much more stringent than the RA standard. This post should only be for historical reference.]
I recently reviewed a paper, Field-testing ecological and economic benefits of coffee certification programs, that included a summary table of the criteria used for shade certification by Rainforest Alliance, and Smithsonian Migratory Bird Center (under the “Bird-Friendly” trademark). I thought it would be useful to post a summary here, with a little commentary.
SMBC’s criteria are mandatory, while RA has no required criteria for shade management — the standards below are one of the optional criteria (more on the RA standards and scoring can be found here).
| Criteria | SMBC | RA |
| No. tree species | >10 | >12/ha* |
| No. trees/ha (mean) | na | >70* |
| % allowed to be Inga trees | <60 | na |
| % shade cover | >40 | >40* |
| No. of shade layers | 3 | 2 |
| % leaf volume in each shade layer | ||
| ….. >15 m (emergent) | >20 | na |
| ….. 12 to 15 m (backbone) | >60 | na |
| ….. <12 m (understory) | >20 | na |
| Epiphytes required? | Yes | na |
*As of April 2009, standards were modified from the previous version, February 2008. In the old standards, one requirement was for at least 12 native tree species and at least 70 trees per hectare; now it is an average of 12 native tree species, with no minimum number of trees per hectare. Previous criteria stated a minimum of 40% shade cover, now the standard specifies this minimum only on cultivated land.
As noted in the previous post, the criteria having to do with vertical stratification — the number of layers of vegetation and the leaf volume in each — are critical components for preserving a rich mix of species. Many ecological studies support the key role of structural diversity (sometimes referred to technically as floristic heterogeneity) in increased biodiversity — of many types in many ecosystems well beyond the realm of coffee growing. This is the classic schematic illustrating the various coffee production systems and their layers of shade diversity, from a paper by Patricia Moguel and Victor Toledo [1].
Here is a new graphic from SMBC that also illustrates this continuum:
As you can see from the table above, Rainforest Alliance requires (if this criteria is used) only two layers of shade, while Smithsonian requires three. RA has no standards for leaf volume in the shade layers. In short, RA certified farms that use these criteria would have still have structurally-simpler habitats (closer to commercial polyculture) that would likely not support as much biodiversity as farms that met SMBC criteria (closer to traditional polyculture).
A further note. SMBC inspectors visit farms and set up a number of plots and measure various vegetation parameters following methods used in typical ecological studies. The aforementioned paper reports that “Rainforest Alliance inspection auditors rely heavily on data provided by farm managers” (who are not ecologists), and confirm data provided during visits by various estimates and extrapolations.
As an ecologist myself, I am more comfortable that SMBC offers the more stringent, reliable assurance that coffee is grown sustainability if one is comparing certification schemes. And not to beat a dead horse, but the usual caveats apply: there are pros and cons of certification, and many uncertified farms grow coffee sustainably, meeting or exceeding the strongest criteria.
More on SMBCs criteria here, and in the “certifications” category of C&C.
[1] Biodiversity Conservation in Traditional Coffee Systems of Mexico. 1999. Conservation Biology 13:11—21.
Field-testing ecological and economic benefits of coffee certification programs. S. M. Philpot, P. Bichier, R. Rice, and R. Greenberg. 2007. Conservation Biology 21:975-985.
This study looked at the ecological (vegetation, ants and birds) and economic (yield, revenue) aspects of coffee growing for eight cooperatives in Chiapas, Mexico. Farms were certified organic, organic and Fair Trade, or uncertified. None were certified shade-grown, so farms were examined to see if they would meet shade certification criteria.
The authors found no significant differences in vegetation, bird or ant diversity, or percent of forest fauna on farms based on what type of certification they had. While none of the farms had the necessary complexity of vegetation layers that shade certification required, but the other vegetation criteria met by those farms nonetheless corresponded with higher ant and bird diversity. I think this emphasizes the importance of the specific criteria known as “vertical stratification,” or the percent of leaf volume in each of the three layers of vegetation in shaded coffee. I’ll talk a bit more about this in a follow-up post.
Organic farms had a higher number of tree species, and shared more tree, bird, and ant species with forests than uncertified farms or (curiously) those that were certified both organic and Fair Trade.
There was no difference in yield based on certification, contradicting a common perception that without chemical pesticides and fertilizers, yield will decrease.
Farmers with organic or organic and fair trade certification did not always have higher revenues than uncertified farms. Partly this was due to the costs associated with certification programs. Another factor was the differing market prices between the two years of the study. When market prices increased, the premiums for organic coffee rose, but the premium for Fair Trade coffee did not. This can dilute the relative increase for farmers in Fair Trade co-ops, and exposes a previously-discussed weakness in the Fair Trade model. I think the overall lack of substantially higher revenues in certified organic coffee also illustrates the need for some type of a) reform in the cost of certifications and/or b) an increase in the premiums paid to farmers for sustainable coffee — which would require willingness by consumers to pay more.
One of the major criteria a roaster must meet to get favored nation status on the left sidebar as a source of sustainable coffee is transparency. C&C is all about educating consumers on how to recognize and appreciate sustainable coffee. All the knowledge in the world won’t help a coffee buyer if the roaster doesn’t provide enough information on where they get their beans. If a roaster provides country, region, and co-op or farm it goes a long way in helping consumers understand whether the coffee was grown in a sustainable manner. When a roaster has a close relationship with a farmer, they can provide even more data on exactly how the coffee was grown.
Counter Culture Coffee has always been excellent about giving customers lots of information on each of their selections on their web site. They recently announced an expansion and refinement of this commitment, which they are calling “Source.” Each bag of Source coffee includes the farm or co-op’s real name; authentic production details and tasting notes; a precise roast date; a regional map; and vibrant, original artwork inspired by the community that produced it. Indeed, the whole point, noted in their press release, is to
“…achieve a deeper level of consumer education through real, transparent information about each coffee’s distinct seasonality, tasting notes, geographic and cultural origins, and artisan cultivation methods.”
This program goes well beyond marketing and consumer education. Like Intelligentsia’s Direct Trade, and similar “unbranded” programs by other roasters, Source is about working closely with farmers to improve coffee quality and the quality of life for farmers. Fair Trade is such a darling of the green set, but it’s certification is restricted to cooperatives, and does little to address quality. Programs like Source or Direct Trade can do even more than Fair Trade, including paying higher than Fair Trade prices straight to farmers for their crops. For example, Counter Culture paid a 153% premium to the Guarapamba farmers for their La Golondrina Microlot, one of the Source coffees.
Not all roasters can follow this model. Economies of scale make it difficult for very large roasters; they are profit-driven and treat coffee as a commodity rather than a specialty food crop. You simply will not find specialty-grade coffee and close relationships with farmers from corporate coffee roasters. Very small roasters often don’t have the resources to develop working partnerships with individual farms or co-ops (which is not to say many are not sources for sustainable coffees).
Hats off to all roasters who strive to follow this philosophy. Working to transform coffee from an anonymous caffeinated beverage to an identifiable crop, nurtured by real farmers on land that sustains people and biodiversity, is a model we’d be wise to adopt for all of our food. Only then can we choose to purchase sustainable products, increasing demand, and in turn take steps to help to transform the world.
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.
An article in Salon outlines a 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. Previously, about 20% of the farms were inspected annually. The growers and management of the co-op made sure all farms, not just those being inspected, followed the rules. Given the large number of small farmers in some co-ops and their often remote locations, this staggered inspection is the only practical way to certify these growers.
Since farms must pay inspectors, the added cost could prove to make organic certification too expensive for small farmers. Should this ruling really be enforced, it would surely drastically reduce the number of farms offering organic coffee (big plantations would be able to afford it). Stripping the added revenue brought in by organic certification would drive many small farmers out of the coffee business (the ruling covers all organic crops, by the way). Hello land-clearing, pastures, drug crops, and other far less ecologically-friendly alternatives. For a bit more, a little backgrounder on organic coffee and why it’s important from Bloggle, and a deeper post at the Gristmill blog on how this ruling will impact farmers in the developing world. I’ve also written a series on coffee pests, pesticides, and organic certification.
This was an (apparently overzealous) administrative ruling in response to an appeal by a Mexican farmer who was denied certification. I’m not familiar with how binding these rulings are and how they are codified and enforced. But the coffee industry and consumers have started to mobilize. And Nora Edison and Chris Neumann of Sweetwater Organic Coffee Roasters sent me a link to a petition to be sent to the USDA asking them to reconsider their policy change. They are seeking 10,000 signatures, so it can’t hurt to sign on:
Book: Organic Coffee: Sustainable Development by Mayan Farmers by Maria Elena Martinez-Torres. This book is based on a PhD dissertation, but has been skillfully adapted and is very readable while still preserving the excellent information including tables, charts, and references. The book explains the history of coffee farming in Chiapas, Mexico, including growing techniques and political and social considerations. The author ties it all together with chapters on the economic and ecological benefits of organic coffee farming. A really worthwhile book that is very helpful in understanding organic coffee.
Article: Ethical Certification — Sustainability with a Rich Aroma by Ethical Corporation magazine. Contrasts, compares, and discusses three certification schemes: Rainforest Alliance, Fair Trade, and Utz Kapeh (which has just changed its name to Utz Certified), from a European perspective. Frames the discussion around McDonald’s decision to serve Rainforest Alliance certified coffee in all its UK stores and the controversy around that move. It branches out into the various other certification programs and their costs and requirements, and wades into organic certification and even Starbucks and the trademark issue. Wide-ranging (obviously) to the point of wandering, not too deep, but offers some interesting facts.
[
Update: Millstone was one of the coffees acquired by JM Smuckers, but it has now been discontinued. This post is for historical reference.]
Last month, a number of coffee bloggers, including C&C, received an offer from a public relations firm offering samples of Millstone Coffee Company’s organic line. Millstone is a coffee brand of the global conglomerate Procter & Gamble.
There are five certified organic varieties in this line (update: as of 2011, after being acquired by Smuckers, there are only three in the line, neither is Rainforest Alliance certified). One is Fair Trade certified. Another is Rainforest Alliance (RA) certified. I asked the PR rep a series of questions regarding these coffees. My questions, the answers from P&G relayed to me via the PR firm, and my further comments are below.
Arabica or robusta?
My question: For all types, are they 100% arabica beans? Or do some or all have some robusta beans in them? If they do, can you provide a percentage, and the country of origin of the robusta?
Millstone replies: All Millstone Coffee flavors and roasts, including the 100% Organic line-up of Fair Trade and Rainforest Alliance certified coffees, are made from premium Arabica coffee beans.
My comments: This is not a straight answer. My 50/50 cotton shirt is made from cotton, but half of it is made from polyester. Searching the entire Millstone site does bring up many mentions that only the top 15% of arabica beans are used in their coffees. I don’t know what that means. Along with robusta? Top 15% of what? The word “arabica” is not on any of the web pages for four of the five coffees in this organic line; it is on the Nicaraguan Mountain Twilight Blend, but 100% is not indicated. It is not in the promotional material for this line for this line I received. Four bags I got had handwritten labels so I don’t know what is on the usual bags. The Rainforest Reserve came in a valve bag, which did read “100% certified organic arabica beans,” which could still be considered ambiguous.
Given the added appeal and marketing cache of labeling coffee “100% arabica,” I can’t imagine why, if this line is all arabica, that this specific wording is not trumpeted from every bag, brochure, and web page.
Origins
My question:What specific regions, cooperatives, or farms do the Peruvian and Nicaraguan coffees come from? Are they grown under diverse shade? There is no mention of country of origin for the Rainforest Reserve, Organic Mountain Moonlight Fair Trade, or Mayan Black Onyx varieties. Can you provide this information (with region and cooperatives?)
Millstone replies: P&G doesn’t disclose information about the specific regions, coops, farms, etc. where the coffee is grown. This is all proprietary information that the company does not share publicly due to competitive reasons.
My comments: This answer is nonsensical. A roaster might want to protect the source of an exceptional, small-lot coffee, available via auction, so that the competition doesn’t try to outbid them. Why make a such a secret out of where you get your mediocre, inexpensive beans? Maybe, like Nestlé, P&G doesn’t even know where they all come from. Or, like Kraft, would rather you didn’t know.
No matter why they won’t divulge origins, the fact that a consumer cannot easily find out where their coffee was grown — and therefore if it was produced in an ecologically-friendly way — is unacceptable.
100% Rainforest Alliance-certified beans?
My question: What percentage of the beans in the Rainforest Reserve variety are Rainforest Alliance certified?
Millstone replies: A medium-dark roast, Millstone’s 100% Organic Rainforest Reserve coffee comes from the forested slopes of Latin America, where the high-altitude volcanic soils have produced high-quality coffees for centuries. And because the beans are 100% certified by the Rainforest Alliance, you can feel good that you’re giving back to farmers and the environment with each and every cup.
My comments: I asked this question specifically because big roasters have been using only the minimum amount of RA certified beans that are necessary to carry the RA seal (30%). I’m wasn’t quite sure that “the beans are 100% certified” is the same as 100% of the beans are certified.
Just to be sure, I wrote to Rainforest Alliance. They replied that the Rainforest Reserve uses 100% RA-certified beans. Great! But the link they provided [now dead] was to Millstone’s Signature Collection Rainforest Reserve. It’s a different package and not marked organic. If this is the same coffee that has been relabeled or rebranded, why is one labeled certified organic, and the other not?
Determined to clear this up, I wrote to Millstone directly. I specifically asked if these were the same coffees (providing links to the product pages), why one was organic and the other not, and once again the percentage of RA-certified beans in the organic Rainforest Reserve. After a week, I received a reply informing me that there was lots of useful information on the web site that I would find helpful — but they did not give me any links or any answers!
I gave up. The answers to all of these questions should be simple, straightforward, and easily available to consumers.
Coming soon, the C&C tasting panel gives these coffees a try. Update: Reviews are posted here.
[Note: As of 2020, UTZ merged with Rainforest Alliance and created a new standard, which you can read about here. This post is for historical reference only.]
Fair Trade, organic, Rainforest Alliance, and Smithsonian Bird Friendly are the most frequently seen coffee certifications, especially in the U.S. Another seal is becoming more familiar. Founded by the Dutch coffee retail giant Ahold (but now run by a foundation), UTZ Certified Good Inside certifies “socially and environmentally responsible” coffee (and other crops), requiring adherence to their Code of Conduct.
UTZ emphasizes traceability and transparency in the supply chain. UTZ has strong chain of custody requirements, and tracking tools for both wholesale and consumer buyers.
The certification standards also include various criteria related to efficient farm management such as soil erosion prevention, minimizing water use and pollution, responsible use of chemicals, and habitat protection. Unfortunately, the standards in the Code that deal with the environment are quite general and lack specificity.
Certification requires compliance with mandatory control points; the number required increases over a four-year period. There are a total of 19 points in this chapter, 15 of which are mandatory after 4 years. Here are some examples:
The language of these standards leaves a lot to interpretation. What does “be in touch” mean? Warn park authorities about the agrochemicals headed their way? Invite them to the community pig roast? And while I agree that the land use restrictions should be mandatory, should 13% of the required points be devoted to compliance with existing law?
There is no requirement for using shade trees. One mandatory point deals with this topic: “The producer uses shade trees whenever this is compatible with the local coffee production practices and takes into consideration the productivity.” I think it’s possible to interpret this as “all my neighbors grow sun coffee, so it’s compatible with local practices.” But although it’s unclear, I’ll give the Code the benefit of the doubt and take it that “local coffee production practices” means areas where the habitat does not include forest, such as the Brazilian cerrado. Still, the second part of the point clearly gives producers an out. Sun coffee is almost always higher yielding than shade coffee. That economic consideration can trump the requirement for planting shade trees. And of course, there is nothing about how many shade trees, what species to use, and other specific criteria that are meaningful for the preservation of biodiversity.
On the plus side, there has been an improvement and strengthening of the standards. In the 2006 version, this section had 21 points, but only one of them was specified as required, along with 11 of 12 “minor” points; the remaining were just recommended.
The bottom line is that UTZ Certified has the least stringent environmental criteria of any of the major certification programs.
The following graphs, from Standards Map, show the number of UTZ criteria or requirements related to the environment and biodiversity; this only indicates the number, not the strength, specificity, or mandatory/voluntary nature of the requirements. These do not coincide with numbers in the actual standards, but those developed by Standards Map to facilitate comparisons. See recent data, including comparisions and detailed information on all criteria, at Standards Map.
While environmental protection is not a strength of UTZ certification, they have found an important niche in focusing on capacity building for coffee producers, or creating “professional farmers.” This means assisting with methods that help develop the business and technical aspects of coffee farming, which in turn leads to an increase in quality and higher prices — a path to the road to sustainability. In my talks with UTZ representatives, I have been encouraged by their enthusiasm and plans for improving the standards and pushing producers to improving all aspects of their operations. Not all coffee growers have the ability to be marvels of eco-friendly production. I think UTZ certification gives them the framework to start from the ground up, and as their efficiencies and skills grow, hopefully move on from these basic standards to higher levels of certification.
UTZ Certified coffee is not extremely common in the U.S., but it is one of the fastest-growing certification programs in the world. A number of transnational companies use UTZ certification. Some would say corporate coffee companies are using UTZ as a way to exploit the ethical coffee market, and therefore UTZ is enabling greenwashing. I think that’s a valid concern. But very importantly, the chain of custody and traceability requirements of UTZ certification can help eliminate the kinds of sourcing debacles such as coffee purchased by Nestlé and Kraft being grown illegally in a Sumatran national park. In that case, Nestlé admitted it didn’t always know the precise origin of their coffee. Under UTZ certification, that can’t happen.
“Utz” means “good” in the Mayan language. True enough, their environmental standards are not “great,” but a baseline and a good first step up the ladder of sustainability.
Graphic adapted from Standards Map database of sustainability standards, International Trade Centre. — Used with permission.
Every so often when I am researching a coffee farm to determine if their methods preserve biodiversity, I come across one that uses “biodynamic” farming methods; some are even certified by the Demeter Association.
What the hell is biodynamic farming?
Biodynamic farming includes many of the concepts of organic farming and is based on the anthroposophical teachings of Rudolf Steiner, a philosopher and “social tinkerer.” In the biodynamic view, the farm as a whole is seen as an organism, with heavy emphasis on the spiritual/holistic aspect.
For instance, planting of crops is done according to cosmic rhythms to enhance, for example, pest control by blocking the fertility influences of particular planets on particular pests. The life forces of a farm are said to be strengthened by creating various homeopathic-like preparations (e.g., derived from flower blossoms stuffed into deer urinary bladders which have been placed in the sun during summer, buried in earth during winter and retrieved in the spring). These are then placed in compost piles or manure. According to the Biodynamic Farming and Gardening Association, “These preparations bear concentrated forces within them and are used to organize the chaotic elements within the compost piles.” Using these preparations is required for Demeter certification, and the certification standards are built around the elaborate development of these concoctions.
A study published in the journal of the Soil Science Society of America (64:1651-1659) comparing soils fertilized with biodynamic versus nonbiodynamic compost found no differences in the various soil biotic parameters measured. Another paper, in the Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, concluded that “Steiner’s instructions are occult and dogmatic and cannot contribute to the development of alternative or sustainable agriculture.”
While many of the organic aspects of biodynamic farming are positive, biodynamic certification is mostly meaningless and basically a marketing ploy. Considering that farms pay a $470 fee ($310 a year for renewals) plus annual inspection fees and a 0.5% royalty on gross sales, the most notable thing biodynamic certification adds to coffee is cost.
KLM Royal Dutch Airlines joins Asiana Airlines (Korea) and ANA (Japan) in pledging to serve Rainforest Alliance certified coffee on all its flights. KLM serves 22 million cups of coffee annually.
This is a step in the right direction, but only a step. First, the commitment is for "at least 30%" of the coffee it buys to be RA certified. This is the minimum level allowable by RA for a product to carry the RA seal. It’s a familiar figure…remember the Yuban ad campaign?
According to the press release, the certified bean portion of KLM’s coffee comes from shaded coffee farms in the highlands of Colombia and the cerrado region of Brazil. I’m sure the Brazilian coffee isn’t shaded, since cerrado is savannah, not forest, and RA standards call for "Farms in areas where the original natural vegetation is not forest must dedicate at least 30% of the farm area for conservation or recovery of the area’s typical ecosystems." I have yet to find a Brazilian coffee I am comfortable with, because the cerrado area is so unique, biodiverse, and endangered that I am reluctant to encourage any further expansion of coffee agriculture there.
I can understand the charges of greenwashing reported in the press, as environmentalists correctly point out that airlines produce massive emissions that contribute to global warming. An industry spokesman made a great point when he said, ”While this is not a directly hypocritical move and it’s great that sustainable coffee is being used, it does not make KLM an ethical company.”
I tend to think that any move in the right direction is a good one, which I believe is the outlook taken by RA when they are criticized for what appears to be aiding large corporations green their images. If RA required 40% of beans to be certified to allow use of their seal, would that really thwart some companies from participating? Could they require a phased approach, with increasing volumes over time as a requirement? Frankly, it looks like there needs to be a "next step" beyond these first steps.
I’m sure once you examine the effects of the pesticides that are commonly used on coffee, you will agree that the workers, the environment, and the folks downstream are all better off if coffee is grown without pesticides. Careful cultivation and biocontrol makes it possible to combat many common pests and grow coffee without these chemicals. And you can support the farms that have taken these steps by purchasing organic coffee.
Organic coffee information
First, a few facts about organic coffee. Certified organic coffee means that it has been produced under standardized conditions, which are verified by inspections. Farms or cooperatives pay for certification, including accommodating inspectors and paying for their travel. American consumers often see the label on the left certifying organic products, including coffee. Requirements for this seal include no use of prohibited substances on the land for at least three years. This includes most synthetic pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers. Other certification requirements include a buffer between the coffee and any other crop not grown organically, and a plan that demonstrates methods the prevent erosion and other sustainable methods.
The USDA also accredits other agencies to certify organic products using the same standards. A common one for coffee is the OCIA. There are also various state agencies. The Eco-labels web site has much more information.
Many farms have never used any sort of chemical input on their coffee crops, often because chemicals are expensive and the farmers cannot afford to purchase them. The farms, or cooperatives they belong to, may not have the financial resources to pay to have their product certified organic even if they qualify, because it incurs various fees. These could be considered “passive organic.”
Other farms may be missing an element which disqualifies them from certification. While I believe all of the elements are important, I’d much prefer to buy coffee from, for example, a farm that judiciously applies small amounts of non-organic fertilizer and preserves 100 ha of native forest on its land than a certified organic farm that uses half its land for a cattle pasture.
That being said, if your coffee is not certified organic, it will take careful research to know if your coffee is sourced from farms that practice sustainable methods. Because a number of common coffee pests and pathogens are more difficult to control naturally when the coffee is grown in the sun, it’s often a good bet that organic coffee is also grown under shade. Certified organic coffee represents less than 1% of the market, an astonishingly low figure. Therefore, buying organic coffee is nearly always good for the environment.
A final thought: it is abundantly true that Americans apply more frightening chemicals to their lawns than most coffee farmers apply to their crops. And specialty coffee (e.g., not produced by the big four) is still one of the most rustically farmed crops in the world. I don’t think that makes it hypocritical to encourage and support organic coffee farming. As my mom used to say, “Two wrongs don’t make a right.”
Pesticides birds, humans, and wildlife
Coffee without chemicals
(Updated) Even though many chemicals that have been found to be harmful to the environment have been banned or are strictly regulated in the U.S. or Europe, they remain legal to use in less-developed countries, including many countries that grow coffee (a 2016 documentary, Circle of Poison, covered this topic). This is troubling on many levels, beyond the fact that dangerous chemicals are being applied to crops.
For instance, workers in these countries may be less likely to be well-informed about the dangers of the chemicals, less likely to be provided with protective gear, and less informed about proper application methods (see this abstract, for example). These regions are also much higher in biodiversity and ecosystem complexity, increasing the risk to the environment.
Here are just some of the more common chemicals used on coffee farms to control major pests and pathogens (which were described in a previous post). I’ve included the World Health Organization classification, based on human risk. Click on the link for more information.
Endosulfan (brand name Thiodan) — used against coffee cherry borer. (UPDATE: As of early 2011, Endosulfan has now been slated to be banned globally, although it does not take place immediately. Here is a 2016 article about its continued use around the world.) Does not dissolve readily (but does degrade) in water and sticks to soil particles, so may take years to completely break down. Its breakdown products are more persistent than parent compounds. It is toxic to mammals, birds, and fish. Effects the central nervous system, and in animals causes kidney, testes, and liver damage. Class II (moderately hazardous). In Colombia, more than 100 human poisonings and one death were attributed to endosulfan use in coffee during 1993; more than 100 poisonings and three deaths were reported in 1994. Here is an article on growing coffee without endosulfan.
Chlorpyrifos (brand name Dursban). A broad spectrum organophosphate used against coffee cherry borer and coffee leaf miner. In the U.S., the Environmental Protection Agency banned most household uses in 2000. It is a contact poison. It has caused human deaths, and has been linked to birth defects. It is extremely toxic to birds, freshwater and marine organisms, bees, and other wildlife. It can bioaccumulate and effect bird reproduction. Class II. An article about chlorpyrifos is here.
Diazinon (brand name Basudin). Used against coffee borer. Not very toxic to mammals unless inhaled, it is nonetheless highly toxic to wildlife and beneficial insects, and acutely toxic to birds. In the U.S. where it is still commonly used on turfgrass, diazinon has caused the second largest number of total known incidents of bird mortality of any pesticide. Class II. Another profile here, and a Sierra Club Canada fact sheet here.
Disulfoton. A systemic organophosphate insecticide used against leaf miner. In the U.S., restricted use due to its high toxicity to mammals by all routes of exposure. It is also highly toxic to birds and fish. Secondary exposure and poisoning occurs after birds feed on insects that have consumed residue-laden plants; these insects are impaired by the disulfoton and are easier for birds to capture, compounding the problem. High levels of toxins can be attained in this manner and has resulted in avian mortality in connection with disulfoton use. It is delivered in granular form, which poses the threat of runoff and contamination of other crops when applied on slopes, on which coffee is often grown. Degrades or is metabolized by plants into harmful compounds that are very persistent in the environment. Class 1a, extremely hazardous (highest toxicity).
Methyl parathion (a.k.a. ethyl parathion, parathion). Organophosphate used against leaf miner. One of the most toxic pesticides, highly restricted in U.S. Very toxic to birds when ingested or through skin exposure. Also highly toxic to animals and fish. Persistent in soil and will bioaccumulate. Areas sprayed with this chemical should not be entered for 48 hours. It is banned in Indonesia and restricted in Colombia, but Pesticide Action Network reports that there is evidence that methyl parathion is not used safely in Central America and is regularly misused in developing countries. Class 1a, extremely hazardous.
Triadimefon (brand name Bayleton). Copper-based fungicide used to against coffee rust. Only slightly toxic to birds, little is known about its effect on humans, but it is suspected that there is potential for reproductive problems with chronic exposure. It has been found to induce hyperactivity in rats. The major concern is that long-term use of this and other copper-based fungicides is copper accumulation in soils, such as been found in coffee farms in Kenya and in Costa Rica. Copper toxicity has been found in other crops grown in these soils, and copper impacts other biochemical and biological processes in soil, and little is known about long-term effects in tropical ecosystems. The primary metabolite of triadimefon is triadimenol, which is Class III (slightly hazardous).
Cypermethrin. A synthetic pyrethroid used against coffee cherry borer. Generally low direct toxicity to birds, but ingestion via contaminated insects causes mortality in young birds. Extremely toxic to fish other aquatic organisms, and should not be applied any place where it may drift into water. Class II.
Next in this series: Resources on organic coffee, and further reading.
Coffee is an agricultural crop and like any other crop, when it is grown for commercial production at any large scale, farmers seek a way to maximize output. Often this means via the use of chemicals. These can be categorized into three broad groups: non-organic fertilizers, herbicides, and pesticides. This is the introduction a three-part series on pesticides in coffee.
Testing of green coffee beans contracted by the Natural Resources Defense Council detected traces of many agricultural chemicals. The high temperature of roasting reduces or eliminates many of these chemicals, but the primary concern regarding these toxins is how they effect the health of the coffee farmers who apply them, the surrounding communities, and their often severe impact on wildlife and ecosystems.
In this series, I will cover common pests and pathogens of coffee, the most common chemicals used on coffee crops for pest control and their effect on people and the environment, and finally information and resources on organic coffee and pesticides and birds.
As I was perusing a magazine, I came across an ad for Yuban coffee with the headline “The coffee you make can make a difference.” It showed their coffee cans, emblazoned with the Rainforest Alliance seal and a banner saying “Conserving the environment & supporting coffee farmers. Minimum 30% Rainforest Alliance Certified Coffee.”
Let’s examine. Who are we dealing with? Yuban is a Maxwell House brand, which in turn is owned by Kraft Foods. (More on which corporations own which brands here.)
How big a deal is it that Kraft is buying RA beans? While Kraft will purchase 12,000 tons of RA coffee in 2006, this represents a tiny fraction (I’ve calculated about 1.5%) of Kraft’s coffee bean purchases.
What’s with the 30%? Rainforest Alliance (RA) allows use of their seal on products with a minimum of 30% certified beans (a fact for which they are sometimes criticized). In order for Kraft to keep their prices so low (suggested retail for a 12-ounce can of RA-bean-containing Yuban is $3.89; a 13-ounce can of Maxwell House is $2.56), the other two-thirds of the beans in the can must be lower quality, likely technified/sun coffee. I don’t see any other way they can do it. The cost differential between certified beans and non-certified beans also means that I doubt Yuban will ever contain more RA certified beans than the 30% minimum required for use of the RA seal. (Update: As of January 2013, the Yuban can still indicates 30% certified beans. However, RA is requiring companies to scale up their percentages over time…read more here.)
Does this move really help farmers? While RA certification includes fair labor practices, and RA certified coffee usually commands some premium, the criteria does not set a minimum price paid to farmers. RA certification is cheaper for corporations that Fair Trade certification. Oxfam is still pressuring Kraft to agree to buy Fair Trade coffee.
RA cannot be faulted for their efforts in promoting and making sustainable coffee available to mainstream consumers. Nor can they really be criticized for partnering with Kraft, since RA certifies a product, not a company.
Still, it difficult for me to endorse supporting a corporation like Kraft which has a dubious ethical record (Responsible Shopper profile here). And while Kraft deserves some credit, as none of the other Big Coffee companies is making this type of effort, real environmental preservation and fair prices for farmers is far, far better served by purchasing sustainable coffees from small companies and roasters with relationships with their suppliers, especially those that provide information on the specific farms where their beans are sourced. Plus I guarantee it will taste better!
UPDATE! The January 2007 issue of Coffee Review goes over supermarket coffees, including this coffee, which is “dominated by a cloyingly sweet nut character, the calling card of inexpensive coffees of the robusta species.” Robusta tastes bad, and is sun coffee. Very bad! As for the Yuban Organic brand, that review notes it is recommended for “Those on a budget with a commitment to organic growing principles that transcends the desire to drink decent coffee.” Please also read the accompanying article or my post about it.
More information: