Rainforest Alliance

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.

[Note: as of 2020, Rainforest Alliance has updated its labeling requirements and now requires 90% certified beans in order to carry the seal.]

Non-certified beans allowed in coffee labeled as 100% Rainforest Alliance certified.

Product labels are a tricky thing. Marketers use all sorts of colorful language to entice consumers to buy their products. The extent of regulations governing the truthfulness of product labeling depend on the product and the country.

A fine example, the one I harp on here all the time, is the label “shade-grown coffee.” There is no legal definition of the term “shade-grown.” Therefore, this label can be slapped on any coffee, including coffee grown in the sun, or from farms with only a few shade trees This might be done out of either ignorance or a desire to capture the market (see more on this here), because these coffees usually carry a price premium.

Enter third-party certifications, which are designed to reassure buyers that the coffee they purchase is grown under particular standards and conditions, verified by an outside organization. The two “eco-certifications” for coffee which include shade criteria are Smithsonian Bird-Friendly and Rainforest Alliance. Smithsonian Bird-Friendly certification deals exclusively with shade growing methods (it also requires organic certification), while Rainforest Alliance certification includes less rigorous shade criteria (quick comparison here), as well as standards relating to other aspects of farm management.

Smithsonian Bird-Friendly: What’s in the bag
When you buy coffee with the Smithsonian Bird-Friendly (BF) seal on it, 100% of the beans in the bag came from a BF-certified farm, or certified portion of the farm. Period.

Rainforest Alliance: What’s in the bag
When you buy coffee that carries the Rainforest Alliance seal, it may contain as little as 30% certified beans. The amount should be specified on the bag; an example from Caribou’s house blend is shown here. The mere fact that this is allowed (especially for large roasters like Kraft) is disconcerting to many people, consumers and roasters alike. But at least the amount is disclosed on the packaging.

If there is no minimum content indicated on a package of coffee that carries the Rainforest Alliance seal, that is intended to mean that all the beans in the bag come from Rainforest Alliance certified farms. Sometimes the package or advertising even reiterates that the contents are 100% certified beans. However, there is a little problem with this.

Rainforest Alliance: When 100% might actually equal 81%
I learned at the Coffee Conference I attended last fall that packages labeled 100% Rainforest Alliance certified can actually contain much less than that without disclosure to the consumer. This is because players at both ends of the coffee supply chain are allowed to mix in up to 10% non-certified beans without penalty.

This information came directly from a Rainforest Alliance representative. It was in response to a question from a Rainforest Alliance certified coffee farmer who attended the conference. He asked if producers could mix in a percentage of beans from non-certified parts of their farms, and if so, how much. The Rainforest Alliance rep responded that she thought it would be up to 10%, the same amount of non-certified beans roasters and retailers are allowed to mix in their products.

Therefore, a package of Rainforest Alliance certified coffee, marketed as and believed by the consumer to contain 100% RA-certified beans could conceivably only contain 81% certified beans (if the roaster/retailer mixed in 10% non-certified beans into a shipment from a producer that only contained 90% certified beans, 90% * .90 = 81%).

I hate to rip on Rainforest Alliance, as I think they’ve done some great things for sustainable coffee. This, however, is not one of them. Many roasters I’ve talked to think that the “30% rule” tarnishes a great certification, confuses or misleads consumers, and indicates too much concession to corporate interests. Although most coffee people I’ve discussed this with don’t agree with them, Rainforest Alliance at least has their rationale for doing this. The additional 10% “slop” allowance, though, seems to defy explanation. It’s not permitted for coffee labeled 100% organic or 100% Bird-Friendly. If a coffee carries a 100% seal, it should contain 100% certified contents. That seems pretty simple to me.

(UPDATE: Please read the comment section — it includes a reply from Rainforest Alliance as well as my response and that of a TransFair representative — and my follow up-post which in there is a lengthy reply from the Smithsonian Bird-Friendly folks.)