A new study commissioned by the Kona Coffee Farmers Association touts the benefits of legislating that all products sold with the label Kona Coffee within the State of Hawaii should consist of 100% coffee grown in Kona. While in agreement with the concept of truth in labeling and believe that the origin and percentage of coffee in blends should be identified on packaging, I disagree with the assessment that a 100%-only restriction would benefit the Kona coffee industry (but may be a windfall for other coffee growers in Hawaii outside of the Kona district).
Colleague Shawn Steiman makes a detailed technical analysis of the report on industry blog Roaste. I recommend that you read it.
The study makes two additional assumptions that are incorrect:
1) All Kona coffees are good and desirable. False. Unfortunately, 100% Kona Coffee does not necessarily equate to 100% ‘good’ coffee. Being the only coffee Q grader in Hawaii and one who is presently engaged on a project funded by the USDA to grade coffees in the state, I find that the far majority of 100% Kona coffees I have sampled directly from farms or on retail stores shelves to be of marginally acceptable quality and most a poor value for their high selling cost in comparison to other world origins.
A rare few are exceptional, but these coffees have largely pursued a strategy of developing and and marketing their own estate label brands instead of relying on the Kona appellation moniker to justify their high cost to consumers. In the commercial coffee trade outside of Hawaii, 100% Kona Coffee often occupies the same “exotic” designation as Jamaica Blue Mountain Coffee, Nepal Coffee and even kopi luwak coffee, all high-priced novelties that has some measure of fame on the primary basis of marketing and inordinate cost rather than commercial viability. This market position must change in order for the origin to survive and no amount of labeling will influence the purchase decisions of commercial traders or roasters — only taste will change the impression of professionals.
2) All Kona coffee blends use 90% inferior commodity grade coffee to complete their products. False. Although I have not worked on behalf of any company to develop a Kona coffee blend, I find it highly unlikely that commodity grade coffees from other origins are being used in typical Kona coffee blend products sold within the State of Hawaii. More likely, specialty grade coffees from Central or South America would be used for this purpose to create a mild and nondescript flavor, as taints and faults in commodity grades would be easily identifiable to even the most novice palate as undesirable. There is no direct correlation between price and quality where coffees of differing origins are concerned, so any assumption that coffees being used for blending are inferior to domestic Hawaiian coffees on the basis of price is incorrect.
The study concludes: The blenders’ loss in the No Blending case would be offset by the benefit of improving consumers’ perception of the quality of “Kona Coffee” by avoiding attaching that appellation to a product whose taste is indistinguishable from commodity coffee.
Unfortunately, the greater problem is that most Kona coffees ARE indistinguishable from the coffees used for blending, thus creating a market opportunity for lower cost and subsequently better value blends that approximate the same result.
The only sustainable solution for Kona is to innovate, develop and improve the flavor profile of Kona coffee to match modern commercial and consumer taste preferences through research and then enact strict quality standards for harvesting, processing and eventually roasting. We must make Kona coffee more desirable for use in modern methods of extraction, like espresso, and provide some objective assurance of quality and traceability for coffees produced to justify the high cost of operating in Hawaii. We must add value, not simply restrict use.
I urge the Hawaii Legislature to not restrict the free market from purchasing Kona coffee blends. In the absence of a blended sales outlet, the price of Kona coffee will collapse, as surplus supplies flood warehouses and Hawaii store shelves, thus creating further hardship for American farmers already hindered by the cost of doing business in the U.S.A. and unique costs of operating in Hawaii.
Furthermore, Hawaii does not exist in a vacuum and is not so distant from the U.S. Mainland or Japan as it may sometimes feel. As prices fall, Kona coffees will merely be sold off to other markets that do not operate under the enforceability of Hawaii’s State laws, further hindering small farmers who cannot reach store shelves on foreign shores.
Business as usual is not the answer, but neither are market restrictions. Make Kona coffee something identifiably unique and of great value, then consumers will no longer be satisfied by anything less than 100%.
Consider this, a group records a song, plays the recording while lip-synching and we vilify the group. A student submits a paper where he contributed 10% of the content and fails the course because it was not mostly his content.
I have no issue with people creating a blend using 90% foreign coffee and 10% Kona, but don’t put KONA on the label. It is NOT a Kona blend, it is a foreign blend containing 10% Kona.
Just last week aat a major warehouse store I bought White Cranberry/Peach juice. The main ingredient listed on the back in order of quantity was not cranberry, it was not peach, it was APPLE!
I felt duped and that is the same feeling people have when they think they bought Kona and got 10%. Why can they put Kona on the label when it is a minute portion? The state says they can. The blenders have blocked efforts of the farmers to trademark the name Kona for roasted coffee, because it will hurt their sales.
I as a farmer would rather work harder to sell my 100% Kona than try to offset the massive amount of blend that disappoints the public.
Our local Target here has 44 rows of 10% blend and 4 rows of 100% Kona. The small farmer can’t sell in these stores because the UPC barcodes required for the bags costs $750 for the first year and $150 each additional year.
It is no wonder that Kona farmers are working as hard as they can to overcome cheap blends, lack of ability to sell in most stores and legislators who bend over backwards to the blenders with the money.
Mike, I think that you need to do a little more reading at your local market — ingredients rarely match the product label.
Continuing on your same music theme, I suggest that this situation is more similar to one involving the band Journey, who played a sold out concert here on the Big Island in March last year. As I recall, the average ticket price was about $50-$60 each and those who attended had a enjoyable time singing along to the rock band’s greatest hits.
However, just like your story with the fruit juice, those concertgoers were duped! It was not the original band that recorded those hits, but lead singer Steve Perry was replaced — and by a foreigner! (Filipino, actually) Why was the crowd not outraged?
The market reality is that the the new singer is pretty darn good, sounds like the original singer and the crowd didn’t really care if Steve Perry and his trademarked nose were there or not; NOR would many have attended the show at, say, $1,500 per ticket to lure Steve Perry to perform in person. The band blended in a new member to meet market demand.
Farmers in Kona must face reality, which is, unless something is done to add value to the products currently sold as 100% Kona coffee, the market will not support the cost of your products. Legislating market restrictions or quotas will only backfire and will harm the same people that the most zealous supporters of labeling hope to protect.
If your coffee is truly great, submit it to the Coffee of the Year competition at this year’s Specialty Coffee Association of America conference in Anaheim. An independent jury of highly skilled tasters will be carefully evaluating each coffee and awarding winners. Maybe after your coffee wins you’ll have no problem selling in competition with lower-priced alternatives, but then again, maybe the results will just reiterate what the market is already telling you… Kona has no divined right to be #1.