Climate change / Coffee and the environment / Research on coffee growing

Is coffee really at risk of extinction?

Recently, a paper was published in the peer-reviewed, open-access journal, PLoS ONE: “The impact of climate change on indigenous arabica coffee (Coffea arabica): predicting future trends and identifying priorities.”

It specifically looked at wild, endemic populations of Coffea arabica in Ethiopia (and a few points in nearby areas). In a nutshell, the authors created computer models using known localities, environmental conditions, and various climate change scenarios to predict current and future distribution of these populations. The models determined a reduction (ranging from very worrisome to nearly complete) in suitable locations in this region by 2080. This is no surprise. I’m not sure I’ve seen any models that do not show some impact on the ranges (whether expansions, contractions, or shifts) of plants and animals under any accepted climate change scenarios. And we all know coffee is a very climate-sensitive species, especially arabica coffee.

It is a big leap to go from what this paper actually examined and concluded to the shrill, frantic headlines and stories pumped out by mainstream  media. For instance, under the headline So Long, Joe? World Coffee Supply Could Be Threatened By Climate Change, US News and World Reports declared “Nearly 100 percent of the world’s Arabica coffee growing regions could become unsuitable for the plant by 2080.” This is way off base, given the study was only looking at wild arabica in the vicinity of southwest Ethiopia. The article also stated that “If Arabica becomes impossible to raise in its native areas, it could wreak havoc on the economies of the mainly third-world countries in which it grows,” which is ridiculous considering that coffee is already grown on millions of acres in dozens of countries around the world where it is not native. Likewise, Salon.com made the even more extreme statement, “By the end of this century, climate change could wipe out nearly all the world’s coffee” in their piece, Coffee beans at risk of extinction.

I could cite more hand-wringing examples of failure by news outlets to make an honest effort at reporting what this paper really said, but you get the gist. As a scientist, journalist, editor, and world citizen, this lack of accuracy disgusts me. First, there is no excuse for it; the paper is open-access and anyone can read it for themselves! Apparently, this dismal reporting stems from incomprehension, laziness, and/or incompetance on the part of writers and their editors, as well as a disregard for actually informing the public in favor of profit for the news outlet via sensationalism.

If you’ve read this far and want a more nuanced analysis of the paper, I’ll give a few of my thoughts.

I thought the  paper was thorough and well-conceived. The bioclimatic modelling used is pretty standard for looking at the distribution of species under future climate change situations. Computer models, of course, are as robust as the data one feeds into them.  In this paper, the bulk of the data used to model current distribution was based on unpublished field work done by one of the authors; the rest was from herbarium specimens or literature reports, some dating back to 1941.  Ergo, it is technically not possible to evaluate the quality of this data. The climate data emphasizes factors like temperature, rainfall, and seasonality. These are all critical for coffee growing, but the models did not integrate other important environmental influences on coffee production such as soil types, microhabitats, and ecological processes, and the authors acknowledge those shortcomings.

The results and discussion provided didn’t stray far beyond these limitations and delivered on the authors intended goals: to identify conservation, monitoring, and research needs for wild, native Coffea arabica. It established baseline data to help assess future impacts of climate change on these populations, having identified suitable localities for them.

Two paragraphs in the discussion are devoted to the implications of the findings for cultivated arabica coffee, and they are also presumed to be negative. Does this mean the news headlines, while not the subject of the actual paper, are true? Not exactly. The authors note that optimum cultivation requirements for arabica coffee will likely become harder to achieve in the face of climate change, productivity will probably be reduced, and more intense management (especially irrigation) will be needed.

Is the potential loss of genetic resources in these populations something to worry about? In their article Climate change threatens sweet smell of morning coffee, Reuters took a stab at trying to interpret what the paper had to say by writing, “Although commercial coffee growers would still be able to cultivate crops in plantations designed with the right conditions, experts say the loss of wild arabica, which has greater genetic diversity, would make it harder for plantations to survive long-term and beat threats like pests and disease.”  Indeed, a reason the authors focused on wild populations of arabica in their native range was that their genes may be valuable for breeding disease and pest resistance and climate resilience into commercially grown coffee. While this is logical, and maybe even likely, the paper did not provide detail on the genetic diversity, number of unique arabica strains, or other features of the coffee being mapped and modelled. In fact, the authors noted that genetic variation in wild arabica still needed to be assessed. Further, other more tolerant species of coffee (primarily Coffea canephora, robusta, and its hybrids) are being used in breeding programs today and probably hold the best hope for resilience in commercial coffee. (This is not to discount the importance of preserving these populations; I’m a strong believer that genetic biodiversity should be preserved regardless of it’s commercial value.)

One point was made in the paper that I thought was not given enough emphasis. The biggest driver of the loss of wild coffee populations has been and is deforestation and land conversion, which themselves exacerbate climate change. We can sit on our hands and watch one of the models in this paper play itself out, with what the authors term as “profoundly negative influence” on coffee. Or we can encourage the production (and consumption) of coffee grown in an ecologically-sustainable manner, using carbon-capturing shade trees and sensible agroforesty techniques — and reward farmers for their troubles by paying more for eco-friendly coffee. The press  could make a real contribution by informing the public on the issues surrounding the sustainability of one of the world’s most popular beverages, rather than thoughtlessly spew out faulty proclamations with little basis in fact and no call to action.

More of my posts on coffee and climate change here.

Davis AP, Gole TW, Baena S, & Moat J (2012). The Impact of Climate Change on Indigenous Arabica Coffee (Coffea arabica): Predicting Future Trends and Identifying Priorities. PloS one, 7 (11) PMID: 23144840

Coffee-related products / K-Cups/Keurig brewers: alternatives

Review: Melitta JavaJig

Yet another player in alternatives to K-Cups market, this one by the century-old German company Melitta.  As the story goes, the company was founded by the inventor of the paper coffee filter. The Melitta Javajig is, in fact, as straightforward, reliable, and effective as one would expect from this well-respected company.

I’ve reviewed other reusable-and-use-your-own-coffee K-Cup replacements. The JavaJig is so simple, easy to use, and easy to clean that you immediately wonder why someone else didn’t immediately come up with this design.

The JavaJig has three BPA-free plastic reusable parts, plus a fluted paper filter that looks like a mini muffin tin liner. You place a filter paper over the upside-down black frame, slip the green outer sleeve over the frame, turn it over, add coffee (Melitta suggests an espresso grind), pop on the cap, and you have a pseudo-K-Cup ready to place in one of the many original style (not Vue) Keurig brewers. You do not need to remove the brewer’s filter assembly as you do with Keurig’s My K-Cup.

After brewing, the coffee and filter can be composted, the other parts rinsed, and you are ready to create another cup. Not only is this nearly foolproof, but it is dead easy to keep clean and there is no hinged lid that might snap off, as has been reported with the ekobrew or Solofill. The package includes two units, and they are inexpensive enough to have spares on hand if you feel lids may go missing.

I was able to get 12 grams of finely ground coffee in the JavaJig with a little tamping, but not packing. This is more than the insufficient 9 grams used in a standard K-Cup. There is space between the bottom of the green filter and the filter paper (thus, it does not get pierced like the bottom of a K-Cup). I tried a little manipulation of the filter to see if I could get it far away enough from the needle not to pierce the paper, but still allow for more coffee. It was too difficult to get the paper to cover the prongs, so grounds would easily leak out. Using a piece of regular coffee filter failed as it was too flimsy. By this time I realized that this amount of farting around spoiled the ease of use of the JavaJig.

Using fine grounds in some other devices causes back-up or overflow, but not in the JavaJig. The finer grounds also allow for more extraction. This is important not only because the older Keurig brewers just don’t have enough room or a long enough brew time for proper flavor development, but because the entire bottom of the JavaJig is the paper filter. Under the pressurized brewing, water goes through the grounds and filter faster than it would in a more enclosed environment, such as in some of the other K-Cup alternatives. I tried the JavaJig with 9 grams of coffee and two filters, with a 6-ounce cup; it worked, but did not slow down the brew time enough to make a difference.

Ergo, the JavaJig makes a cup of coffee comparable in strength and body to a K-Cup or similar substitute. It just suffers from the physical limitations and brewing method of the Keurig brewers themselves.

However, the resulting cup is much cleaner than the alternatives that use metal filters, since the paper filter helps eliminate sludge and small fines (for purists who can taste paper — not that they’d be likely users of this product — the assembled JavaJig and filter can be rinsed before filling with coffee).

The beauty of the JavaJig, and the reason I recommend it over all the other devices I’ve used so far, is its simplicity, cleanliness, and excellent value compared to the others. The starter outfit includes two JavaJigs and 30 filters. The filters are around $0.07 each, versus $0.16 each for the other competitor that uses filters. It can also be used with loose tea with very good results.

Alas, this will likely be my last review of any sort of K-Cup or Keurig brewer alternative. I will post an explanation, as well as a summary, in an upcoming post.

Coffee news and miscellany

Sips: Brain dump from the hiatus

Yes, I’m still around. The last few months I have been not only busy with my real job, but also with buying a house, moving, and selling the old homestead. I’ve still been thinking about (and drinking) coffee; the print on the right is one of the first items I hung in the kitchen in the new abode.

Here is some of the coffee news I have been bookmarking and might have written about, had I had the time.

C&C will be getting back on track with research news, reviews, and the like shortly.

Corporate coffee / Dunkin Donuts

Dunkin Donuts coffee: still not eco-friendly

[There is a 2021 update incorporated into this post]

In 2009, I refuted the false statement made by Dunkin Donuts on Twitter that their coffee was shade-grown, and provided background on their coffee purchases. Let’s see if anything has changed.

According to their 2010 Corporate Social Responsibility Report, Dunkin Donuts purchased nearly 50,000 metric tons of green coffee in 2010. The report states that DD purchased 11,745 tons of Fair Trade (FT) certified coffee in 2010; it primarily (only?) goes into their line of espresso drinks. This amounts to about 23% of their purchases, but as we have learned, FT certification has little in the way of substantial, quantifiable environmental standards. They are so generic that I don’t include FT certified coffee in my assessment of eco-certified purchases.

On their website, DD mentions that a good percentage of Fair Trade coffee is certified organic, but never say that any portion of the Fair Trade coffee they buy is organic. I hate this kind of deceptive fact-dropping.

The report provides another example of resume-padding. It explains that back in 2008, DD provided a $70,000 grant to Rainforest Alliance, which helped three producer groups gain RA certification. There is no mention that DD purchases this coffee or that they intend to, only that they “are exploring additional opportunities to work with the Rainforest Alliance.” Let’s put the Fair Trade purchases and Rainforest Alliance grant in perspective. Dunkin Donuts boasts that as of the end of 2010, their FT purchases have returned just under $1.9 million to producers, impacting 30,000 people — cumulatively, since 2004.

2017  – 2021 update
Dunkin Brands, like many other coffee and restaurant companies, has undergone management reshuffling and changes in ownership over the past decade. The most recent sustainability report was dated 2017-2018, and is no longer available on their website, perhaps because as of the end of 2020, Dunkin was acquired by Inspire Brands.

This report noted:

  • A goal of sourcing 100% Rainforest Alliance certified coffee for their (one single variety) Dark Roast by the end of 2018. This variety was introduced by Dunkin in 2014 as 30% Rainforest Alliance certified, and the report indicates that it was still only 30% certified. Given that Rainforest Alliance’s allowing only 30% certified beans was highly criticized and appears to now not be permitted under RA’s new use-of-seal (and in fact, the seal no longer even uses the word “certified”), one wonders if Dunkin will bother sourcing any Rainforest Alliance associated coffee for this variety if they can’t promote it as such.
  • They announced a new goal of mapping their global coffee supply chain by the end of 2020. It’s never a good sign if a company doesn’t really know where their coffee comes from.
  • They noted having donated over $400,000 to Rainforest Alliance since 2010 (e.g., an average of $50,000 a year), and that they were now donating a percentage of the sales of each pound of Original Blend to World Coffee Research, and expected to donate $2 million to them through 2022 (e.g., an average of $400,000 a year). The WCR donation is the only goal the company commits to in their Sustainable Coffee Challenge profile.

Let’s put their financial contributions in perspective: their 2020 proxy statement shows that the 2019 salary of their CEO was $900,000 and his total compensation package was nearly $5.5 million! Total compensation of the top 6 executives for the year 2019 was over $13.2 million.

Nothing has changed, little effort has been made by Dunkin Donuts to source, sell, or meaningfully support sustainably-grown coffee. Furthermore, Inspire Brands is owned by the private equity firm Roark Capital, and therefore it’s likely we will not see much in the way of transparent metrics if we even see any sustainability reports in the future.

America, run from Dunkin.