Dymaxion.

April 18, 2013

Why I don’t use the word “Roya” when I mean Coffee Rust.

I don’t want to appear critical or persnickety about this, I really don’t. And some may see this as a tiny triviality; ridiculous to even mention when the problem of coffee rust is so huge and is affecting so many people. I accept these criticisms, but nevertheless I think it is important enough to write about.

When speaking English some people use the word “roya” when speaking about Coffee Leaf Rust, or Hemileia vastatrix. Roya is the word in Spanish for “rust” (both the kind that affects metal and the kind that infects plants), and therefore, Spanish-speaking coffee farmers use the word when talking about the disease. Why has it become popular to use the word roya instead of rust by English speakers in the middle of an otherwise English sentence? I’m not sure, but let me explain why I think it is a bad idea.

But first, some history: coffee leaf rust was first identified in the 1860s in Ceylon by the (English-speaking) Reverend H.J. Berkely, and correctly placed in the order Pucciniales, with the group of fungi called “rusts”. As we learned from Dr. Mary Catherine Aime at the recent Symposium, rusts are among the oldest known crop pathogens- wheat rust was known even to the ancient Egyptians! Anyway, its Latin name became Hemileia vastatrix, (after the half-smooth appearance of its spores, and the vast effect on coffee plantations). Its common name remained Coffee Leaf Rust, and this is the name by which it has been called since then. When translated into local languages, it’s usually just to translate “rust” into that language: “rouille” for example, the French word for both metal-rust and coffee leaf rust.

This brings to mind my first objection to the word roya in English sentences. It’s a rule of thumb when speaking a language that you should use words of that language unless there is a better word in another language. This helps with clarity. For example, if I am talking about Sicilian bread in general, I use the word “bread” not “pane”. However, if there is a kind of bread for which there is no translation- sfincione, for example- I should use that untranslatable word. Using the Sicilian word in this case correctly identifies that bread as a uniquely Sicilian thing, which does not exist anywhere else. It is completely restricted to one locale, and therefore has only one word for it- in its local language.

And this is my larger objection to the use of the word roya when talking about coffee leaf rust. Coffee rust is the most destructive coffee pathogen in the world. It wiped out the coffee industries of Ceylon and Java in the 19^th century, and still affects crops in Indonesia. It’s present in Africa as well, where it is in fact indigenous. This is a universal disease with a global impact.

When we use the word “roya” in an otherwise English sentence, we localize this problem in Spanish-speaking Latin America. Perhaps subconsciously, we are saying “This is a Latin American disease with a Spanish name.” In this way, we distance ourselves from the problem, implying it is a foreign disease with a non-English moniker. We also incorrectly imply that there is something special about Latin American coffee rust that makes it different. It’s not different. It’s the same exact fungus that plagues coffee farmers worldwide. It’s a global problem, that touches all of us.

I have no doubt this is unintentional. I know that most of my comrades use “roya” because it was in the Spanish language that they first heard of the disease, or because they are trying to express solidarity with Spanish-speaking coffee farmers by using their word for the fungus. But language is important- and it speaks volumes. By speaking of coffee rust in our mother tongue, we express that it is our problem too; that it is universal and important and personal. And that’s why I always call the villain by its name, coffee leaf rust.

12:16pm | URL: http://tmblr.co/ZeAmmxizxH3i
(View comments)

(Notes: 6)

February 16, 2013

On Coffee Rust.

This is my first post of what I’m sure will be many on the subject of Coffee Leaf Rust- aka “Roya”. I’ve been posting little bits of info through social media, and it’s become the topic which has consumed many of my days lately. I just wanted to share a bit of thinking on the topic, and outline some of the things that are going on out there.

It’s scary, the news about rust. The countries of Guatemala and Costa Rica have declared states of emergency because of the epidemic, and estimates on the reduction of this year and next year’s crops run from 20% to 40%. Fear is running high: coffee people all over the world are wondering- what’s going to happen? What can be done?

First and foremost, the most important thing coffee people can do is educate themselves on the subject of Coffee Leaf Rust, which has been central to the coffee story since the middle of the 19th century. Ever wonder why we call coffee “Java” yet relatively little coffee comes from there today? Coffee rust is the reason: it decimated coffee plantations in Java and resulted in the global center of coffee production moving from there to South America. Coffee Rust- because of its destruction of the once-flourishing coffee plantations of the British colony Ceylon (now called Sri Lanka)- is known as “The Reason the British Drink Tea.” Emma Bladyka of the SCAA wrote this great scientific backgrounder on the subject, which covers much of what is scientifically known about the disease. The always astute James Hoffmann wrote an excellent post outlining the economics of the situation, and asks some great questions about what the future looks like. And, as I’ve said before, Michael Sheridan’s coverage from the Colombian perspective on the CRS Blog is world-class.

I’d like to bounce of these publications a bit, and offer my own bit of perspective. Parenthetically, I should mention- that as James points out- this is exactly why institutions like the SCAA (Specialty Coffee Association of America), WCR (World Coffee Research), origin-country associations and other organizations are so important. And, as director of SCAA’s Symposium, I can tell you that this is EXACTLY what we designed the Symposium for: to be able to help coffee leaders navigate our industry’s path through these treacherous waters.

In that capacity, we’ve added a Rust segment to the Symposium’s program, which will outline reactions, responses, and solutions to the problem of Coffee Rust. This complements a segment we’ve been working on for months, on Coffea genetics- which is a crucial part of this story (more on that in a sec). But first:

Short term reactions, medium-term responses, long term solutions.

As i was writing the description for the Rust segment of Symposium, I realized that there are three layers to the subject of Rust and coffee. Short term, there are the reactions: coffee farmers and coffee farming economies will react in a variety of ways: some farmers will change their agronomic practice, increasing fungicide use or embracing more exotic management principles. Rust-affected farmers will do whatever they can to get through this year, and brace for the next (as Bladyka points out, rust damage often has effects that last two or more years). In the medium term, focus will- and should be- put on good agricultural management and replanting: many farmers will increase fungicide use, but this can have negative impacts and must be closely managed to prevent environmental damage. An increased emphasis will be put on rust-resistant varieties; many farmers have already started clearing their farms and replanting. And this points to the necessary long-term solution of the problem: to address the genetic susceptibility that most cultivated Arabica varieties have to Coffee Leaf Rust.

So, what can we do? First thing we should do is self-educate. Nothing is worse than rumor and misinformation during a crisis. Read the above and what will be forthcoming from reliable sources (I know of a few great Rust-oriented publications coming down the pike). The Symposium will be a great place to learn more.

Second, reach out to your partners. This is a time when the coffee network we’ve worked so hard to create is tested, and when it can show its value. Reach out to your supply network, and see what is needed. Coffee farmers will be needing money to rehabilitate their farms, and only some of it can come from coffee sales.

Third, I know of at least one coffee rust response action already underway (stay tuned for news). This will focus on education, rehabilitation, and prevention of disease. Good agricultural practices are more important now than ever, and during the next few years, farmers will be challenged to learn and enact techniques to help them recover. Plan on supporting these response actions when they emerge (more on this to come).

Finally, be engaged with your coffee institution. SCAA is supporting WCR and PROMECAFE (and others) in organizing a Rust Summit in Central America this spring, helping harmonize and magnify the industry’s response to the outbreak. And, very very importantly, World Coffee Research is engaged in researching and developing coffee as a plant; identifying the genes that make coffee both susceptible and resistant to coffee rust. And this is what I was mentioning before- it’s why we’ve had a Coffea genetics session planned at Symposium this year. Understanding coffee as an organism, and developing its critical genetic resources is the way we can find a solution to this problem. So- this is critical- if you’re not signed up to help WCR do this, now is the time to do it. You can pledge any amount, and you should. Do it right here.

That’s it for today, more to come.

5:08pm | URL: http://tmblr.co/ZeAmmxeIM-_Y
(View comments)

(Notes: 11)

February 5, 2013

El Salvador.

Next month, I’m headed to El Salvador for the first time in a little while. I’ll be helping lead a trip for some coffee people, and it’s got me reflecting on all of my experiences in that country, and everything she has taught me.

Santa Adeliada was the first Salvadoran coffee I really got to know, and I still remember how it tasted when I used to buy it in the early 2000s. Warm, brown-sugary and perfectly round, it created a coffee flavor archetype for me, and remains one of my best and most important sense-memories in coffee. As I learned the story of Santa Adelaida, I became even more intrigued. It’s one of the only true coffee collectives- where a farm is owned and run by a democratic collective- that I’ve ever heard of. I love that coffee, and I miss it all the time.

In 2003, I had one of the biggest coffee epiphanies ever. I was tasting through the winning lots from the inaugural Cup of Excellence El Salvador, and I detected a mistake: someone had clearly confused the samples, and put a Kenyan coffee in there with the Salvadors by accident. I was in the middle of losing my cool when I got a call from Geoff Watts, who was calling about that very coffee. “Did you notice the variety?” he said. I hadn’t looked, but it was listed as simply “Kenya”. People had been talking about that coffee, Geoff said. It was apparently planted with a variety brought from Kenya sometime in the past, and it tasted JUST LIKE a Kenyan coffee. It was then that I realized the primary importance of botanical variety in coffee flavor, a subject which has captivated me ever since.

Later that year, I traveled to El Salvador as a Coffee Corps volunteer. I was teaching a bunch of roasting classes for Salvadoran coffee people, and doing some consulting for the Consejo, which I came to know as one of the greatest organizations in Specialty Coffee. Anyway, one day I was working at my desk there, and this woman marched in. She seemed nice, but without introducing herself said: “I hear you’re a coffee expert. Tell me what you know about African coffee drying.” I wondered who that woman was, and whether the question had anything to do with the mysterious Kenya-like coffee from the Cup of Excellence. Turned out it did, the woman before me was named Aida Batlle and that farm was called Finca Kilimanjaro. It was her first year farming coffee, and she had already won the Cup of Excellence. She wanted to learn more, to do more, to understand why her coffee was so great and to make how to make it better. We became instant friends, and that has become one of the most important coffee relationships of my entire career.

Later that same week, I hooked up with Geoff and we headed out for the Cinturon de Oro, as it is called, the “Golden Belt” of Salvadoran coffee. I remember how weird it was, that pretty much all of our favorite coffees came from this little zone right on one slope of the Ilamatepec volcano. We’d visit the farm of one producer whose coffee we loved, and it would be right next to another farm we just happened to have as a favorite. It was weird. That day taught me the importance and mystery of microclimate on coffee flavor.

Later, we hooked up with Emilio Lopez-Diaz, who piled us in his pickup to show us his pride and joy- El Manzano farm. I’d never really met someone as completely carried away with coffee farming as Emilio. He was talking about coffee processing techniques, advanced fertilization strategies, and picking like he was a winemaker or something.

In the years since then, I’ve traveled a bunch of times to Salvador, and it keeps teaching me new things each time. It has an incredibly special place in my heart. I was thrilled that the first trip i’ll lead on behalf of the SCAA will be to El Salvador, that place that has already taught me so much. And we’ll be visiting all of those places and people- Santa Adelaida, the Consejo, Aida Batlle, the Cinturon de Oro; and Emilio Lopez-Diaz is leading the trip with me. It feels perfect somehow, like a circle or something.

11:51pm | URL: http://tmblr.co/ZeAmmxdVqjJw
(View comments)

(Notes: 10)

February 2, 2013

The rarest fruit in Indonesia, and how it changed the way I talk about coffee.

The fruit stands of Indonesia are glorious. On the islands of Java and Sumatra, these temples to tropical fruit overflow with all types of strange and delicious delicacies: the impossibly delicious manggis, buah naga (dragon fruit) lengkeng (dragon’s eyeball fruit), and the giant, intimidating durian. But there is a special place reserved for the most precious fruit of all- right next to the cashier where she can keep an eye on them- the wuah shing tong.

Wuah shing tongs are round, deep red, and don’t need to be peeled before eating. They are miraculously juicy and crunchy at the same time. Indonesians love them, but they are a rare delicacy, since they need to be imported from far away. I heard about wuah shing tongs for a long time before I ever saw one.

Right about the time I took this picture, I had this conversation about the fruit:

me: “Oh! A wuah shing tong is an apple!”

Indonesian friend: “what?”

me: “It’s Washington. It’s an apple from Washington.”

Indonesian friend: “It’s called a washingtong.”

me: “Ok, but it’s really FROM Washington. Washington is a state. You know, Seattle? Like Starbucks is from Seattle.”

Indonesian friend: “Washingtongs are from THERE?”

me: “Yeah! And that state was named after our first president!”

Indonesian friend: “HAHAHAHAHA Your first president was named washingtong!!”

After about 5 more minutes of this hilarious discourse, it dawned on me that to this Indonesian, washington is a fruit name, and secondly the name of a place (and a person). And that’s like our situation in coffee.

I was standing in Java when I had that conversation, and saying “java” to most Americans is exactly the same as saying “coffee”. Amazingly few of my neighbors in California even know that Java is a place, and those who do often say “The Island of Java” when talking about the place, to make it clear that there is a place which entertainingly has the same name as coffee. When I first worked in coffee, Sumatra was the name of the coffee drinker’s coffee; it was a code word for strong, thick, intense coffee. Sumatra meant a certain flavor, a kind of exotic, spicy strength. I still remember the day it dawned on me- standing behind an espresso machine- that Sumatra was a place, and that the coffee was from that place. It seems stupid now, but I had never made the connection before that day. That’s because- in general- we decontextualize coffee’s origins when we use country of origin as simply a label on a coffee.

Coffee is this rare opportunity: every single day we in the global North serve or drink something from a completely different part of the world. That place has an identity and a culture and a people and a language and a politics. Coffee can spark a curiosity about the world, and lead people to discover what our brothers and sisters are doing in Sumatra and Ecuador and Burundi, and how they live, and how we can all get along better. But that can’t happen so long as we reduce geographic locales to nicknames for foods: we have to use our language and our labels and our websites to remind ourselves that there are real people and real places behind the coffees we celebrate. That’s why you’ll never hear me say “The Colombia” for a coffee or even “The Colombian”. I say “the coffee from Colombia” because I want to know the produce is from a place, or better yet I say “the coffee is from Nelson Melo in Colombia”, adding a fellow human’s name to the place and the produce. So anyway, don’t think I’m weird for doing that. It’s because of the washingtong.

12:58pm | URL: http://tmblr.co/ZeAmmxdEAO3o
(View comments)

(Notes: 28)

December 31, 2012

The Pledge I’m Making This New Year

So, yesterday, I was listening to NPR’s great story about 2013: A Tipping Year for Climate Change?, and particularly Bill McKibben, perhaps the greatest voice we have on human-caused climate change. As we now know for certain, the human race’s relentless use of carbon-based energy has dramatically changed the earth for the worse, and is putting us all in danger. And, although McKibben doesn’t mention it often, climate change is having a destructive effect on coffee too: coffee in the wild is threatened by climate change, which is threatening most of the wild coffee in existence, and cultivated coffee is also at risk. As coffee people, we know how important the climate is to great coffee: delicious coffee comes from the intersection of a great variety in a great environment: when the environment changes (due to climate change) and we have fewer resources for varieties (due to genetic restriction due to climate change), we have trouble. Besides the interest we have as global citizens to fight climate change, we coffee people have a more specific interest as well: to help preserve our favorite crop.

Unfortunately, the coffee trade uses carbon-based energy to do our work: carbon lurks in the embodied energy of synthetic fertilizer, it is used to fuel the trucks and ships that get coffee from the fields of the tropics to the roasters’ doorsteps, it is used to power the machines that roast the coffee, and it’s used to heat the water for coffee brewing and dishwashing in our coffee shops and kitchens. So, we have a responsibility to understand and minimize this carbon use, as a first step towards mitigating climate change. Right? Right.

So, where do we start? A good first step is called a LCA, or Lifecycle Carbon Assessment, which identifies the biggest carbon-intensive steps in the coffee chain. A number of these LCAs have been done, and although they all look at the lifecycle a slightly different way and have slightly different results, they all have a common final conclusion. The biggest carbon user in the chain of coffee is at its very end; at the coffee shop or kitchen. This result shocked me: the Counter Culture/Peregrine/Batlle study resulted in about 9 pounds of carbon used per 1 pound of coffee, and more than 80% of that came from the coffee shop. Lifecycle analyses I have seen typically find that somewhere between 60 and 80 percent of coffee’s carbon use comes from that final step, where we use carbon energy to light our shops, heat our brewing water, and cool our milk.

But this is where we, as Enlightened Coffee Citizens, swing into action. The cool thing about we baristas and coffee shop owners being the biggest carbon user is that we can make the biggest impact on coffee’s carbon use. It’s TOTALLY POSSIBLE to reduce our carbon load, through diligent self-analysis and smart choices. To help, the SCAA and its Sustainability Council have pioneered a program called The Low Impact Cafe, which painlessly guides a coffee shop through the process of lessening its carbon impact (which has the extra added bonus of saving money!). I’ve had the joy of reviewing the just-about-to-be-released Green Guide, and it is a hugely valuable resource. At home, the simple awareness that heating water is a huge carbon user has shaped my personal behavior: I’ve totally abandoned rinsing filters with hot water (cool water works just as well), and by pre-measuring my water I only heat exactly as much as I will brew with.

I’ve taken a personal pledge to address my carbon use, and I encourage my coffee comrades to do the same. And that’s what New Years are all about, right?

3:24pm | URL: http://tmblr.co/ZeAmmxaeA0I4
(View comments)

(Notes: 4)

November 4, 2012

The Power of Expectation, or, Coffee and The Placebo Effect

So I became interested in the placebo effect recently, due to some non-coffee discussion I was having with some friends. I became fascinated- while I always thought of the placebo effect as people deluding themselves into thinking they are feeling better after taking a sugar pill, I came to learn that placebo is far more interesting and powerful. In many cases, people actually get better after placebo treatment, suggesting that placebo itself has some therapeutic value. Researchers suggest that the mechanism of placebo may be that cultural “cues”- a sugar pill that looks like a real one; an injection by a nurse; or the confident, soothing treatment of a doctor- might itself trigger healing in patients. In other words, the expectation of healing- even in the absence of a mechanistic therapy- has an important role in medicine.

What does that have to do with coffee, you ask? I’m getting to that.

One of the articles I read referenced this study, which looked at expectations and brain response to these expectations. In this case, researchers used the Pepsi Challenge, polling research subjects on their preferences in colas. In a totally blind tasting of Coke and Pepsi, preference among the tested was about even. However, when subjects knew what they were tasting via visual cues, tasters had a strong preference for Coke (even people who previously preferred Pepsi). They also preferred Coke labeled “Coke” to Coke in an unlabeled cup. And here’s where it gets interesting: when researchers did MRIs on these people, they found that their brains actually responded in a different way after being exposed to the “Coke” brand, with stronger signals in the part of brain connected to “appetitive aspects of reward”; i.e. the positive feeling of satisfaction of bodily needs. The researchers suggest this might be related to “cultural information” about Coke- a lifetime of exposure to the brand, and positive feelings about it, which in turn create the expectation of enjoyment. This leads to people actually preferring it. Pretty neat.

All of this supports the idea that expectations are powerful- and they actually change the perception of things we taste. It’s sometimes said by coffee people that “It’s what in the cup that matters.”, as if all of the other things- packaging, brand messaging, brewing theater, marketing copy, environments- are all relatively unimportant in comparison to flavor. However, it seems that these things- as “cues”, as cultural information, as builders of expectation- are actually an indispensable overture to the perception and appreciation of flavor. Coffee names, packaging, and descriptions are an integral part of the coffee experience, not just “marketing”. Also, the interaction of the coffee professional- the barista or coffee merchant- is absolutely essential: not just in preparing a delicious cup or roast, but in building context and expectation.

In Italian, it is said “Si mangia prima con la testa, poi con gli occhi, e dopo con la bocca.”- We eat first with the mind, then with the eyes, and finally with the mouth. While reviewing the excellent research done in The Specialty Coffee Consumer Report 2012, it’s clear that our customers intuitively understand this. Reviewing the responses of the focus groups, it’s overwhelmingly clear that coffee lovers crave an immersive experience of coffee, which includes a complex set of emotions, sensations, and rituals. A complete coffee experience is a multifaceted event, which includes thoughtful engagement, aesthetic context, tactile experience, and finally flavor and caffeine stimulation.

So, how do we craft the coffee experience, which begins so long before the coffee ever hits the coffee drinker’s lips? Since the expectation of quality seems to be an essential prerequisite to the experience of quality, our responsibility includes crafting the overture with the same skill with which we craft the beverage itself. Of course, some of us know this intuitively: most great coffee professionals put great care into the way they introduce a coffee to the consumer: the coffee’s name, the environment of the coffee space, the kind of cup, and the nonverbal cues which accompany the coffee. However, all too often, we dispense with these details for the sake of expedience, or even tradition. What kind of signal does a paper cup send about the coffee that’s in it? What about a porcelain cup? What about the shape of the cup? What about the decor of the coffee shop, the expression on the face of the barista, the confidence with which they present the beverage? What about the logo and language on the menu or the coffee bag? Does it stimulate “the appetitive aspects of reward”? Does it build expectation in such a way that the can perceive the quality that’s in the cup?

This is what makes the kind of work represented in that SCAA study so vitally important. Understanding the cultural meaning of coffee- of the symbolic language of coffee, of people’s prejudices and fantasies about it, and their built-in expectations of coffee are indispensable to the creator of a coffee brand, or the person writing marketing copy, or the barista. Deep knowledge of these things will allow us to build complete coffee experiences, which clearly begin with the mind.

2:42pm | URL: http://tmblr.co/ZeAmmxWc50pb
(View comments)

(Notes: 19)

November 3, 2012

caffeinated-caricatures asked: hi have you used a bellman cx25 before? it's a stovetop espresso maker; sadly there are not much brewing advice out there regarding it and as a relatively new kid in the block, im having trouble pulling the right shots.. (sometimes way too bitter, sometimes no crema etc). would be great to hear from you! Thanks:)

I used to own one of these, but sadly I never got even decent coffee from it :(. But don’t give up! I’d try incorporating some good advice from this video: http://www.squaremileblog.com/2009/01/21/videocast-4-stove-topmoka-pot/

good luck!

5:26pm | URL: http://tmblr.co/ZeAmmxWXq2OU
(View comments)

November 3, 2012

cjhildebrand asked: I'm working towards opening a shop, Arlington Coffee, and I'm wrestling with the method in which I will do single cup brewing. What do you feel should be considered in this decision and what is your preferred method for a retail setting?

Congrats on opening your shop! One of the oft-overlooked benefits of single-cup brewing in shop is the opportunity to expose your customers to brewing at home using the same method. Therefore, I’d choose a method that was easily adaptable to your customers’ homes, and I would sell a brewing “kit” that mirrored what is used in the shop. My current fave is the Kalita Wave system, sold in the US by Wrecking Ball Coffee. Also good would be a Bonmac dripper or Beehouse dripper paired with a glass server, say from Hario. Good luck!

5:23pm | URL: http://tmblr.co/ZeAmmxWXpB_b
(View comments)

(Notes: 2)

October 20, 2012

For Californians only: On Proposition 37

I am proud to be a dedicated proponent of Organic agriculture and food activism, and I’ve worked hard to promote transparency in food supply chains and labeling. I’m a strong proponent of good, sound, strong regulation, and I believe we need increased vigilance in food and agriculture, and we need to get serious and address the negative impacts of agrotechnology, chemical conventional farming, soil damage, and monoculture.

So it might surprise you to hear that I plan to vote against Proposition 37 (AKA the GMO Labeling Law), and I think you should, too.

I’ve carefully read the text of the proposition itself, and lots of analysis on both sides of the argument. I’ve talked with people I respect about it. This one’s a tough one for me, because I’m passionate about consumers’ right to know about their food. If it was simply a labeling law aimed at giving people more information about their food, I’d be for it. But it’s not, and I’m not. Here are a few reasons why:

1. The proposition system is a terrible way to make law. California’s proposition system has a tendency to create badly written law, designed to appeal to the public’s fears or passions: from tax revolt (Proposition 13) to anti-immigration sentiment (Proposition 187) to anti-gay marriage (Proposition 8). In some cases, the best intentions lead to bad outcomes (Proposition 65, more on this later). In any case, I think we should all think very carefully before putting law, with all its complexities, up for a public vote. It’s a weird, bad system we have- from the guys in front of Target pressuring people to sign petitions they don’t understand, to the frenzied, simplistic advertising on both sides. This proposition is cut from that very same, bad cloth.

2. Prop 37 enforcement is through public lawsuits against retailers. Proposition 65 was a seemingly straightforward proposition, intended to ensure safe drinking water, and allow the public to know when they are being exposed to toxins, and allow them to sue polluters. Sadly, due to the way the enforcement of the law has worked, it’s turned into a way for the legal system to be abused and harass businesses, via what are known as “shakedown lawsuits”. A number of coffee companies are embroiled in Prop 65 lawsuits right now. So, although the writers of Proposition 37 have tried to learn from the worst mistakes made in Prop 65, the enforcement mechanism is the same: lawsuits brought by the public against violators, who in this case would be those who label and sell food, for example a grocery store or food packager. Seems to me the right way to regulate labeling is the way we regulate ingredient labeling now- through federal agency- not through lawsuits.

3. It’s strangely and sloppily written. I’m no lawyer, but according to my read of the proposition (and other lawyers’ analyses), the word “Natural” on packaging is outlawed by Proposition 37 for any food which has been cooked, frozen, fermented, or milled (among other things). For coffee folks, this means you couldn’t label that Ethiopian “Natural” any more, since coffee is both milled and roasted. It’s weird! The writer apparently says that this was not their intention, but it’s in the law. And since enforcement is by public lawsuit, there is no possibility for discretion by any government agency.

4. It oversimplifies a complex issue. Plant breeding by genetic modification is an important topic, as are synthetic pesticide use, synthetic fertilizer use, plant breeding in general, genetic diversity, and the agricultural and health impacts of all of it. There are other breeding techniques not defined as “GM” by this law that people would find similarly scary. Or, maybe understanding GM would make it less scary than it seems. Either way, proper scientific dialogue at the national level, along with federal regulation (not this pipsqueak state-level labeling stuff) is what is actually going to make change in agricultural and food policy.

5. The exemptions. This law exempts dairy, meat from animals fed with “GM” crops, and alcohol made with GM crops from labeling requirements. Aside from the obvious special-interest angle here, it belies a larger issue: a huge bulk of GM crops (and other agrotechnological crops) are used to feed animals and make ethanol for alcoholic beverages and fuel. Proposition 37 is specifically designed to have zero effect on this sector, which is probably the part of agriculture that needs reform the most. If you’re worried about Bt corn and Roundup Ready Soybeans, those will still be out there, getting eaten by meat and dairy cattle, and used to make vodka.

I’ve thought long and hard about this, and I’ve done the best research I can. I understand that there is lots of energy around this proposition, and that lots of people I respect in the food industry have come out in support of Prop 37. I respect and love that energy and support, and I believe that this proposition comes from a really good place, but I believe it’s the wrong proposition. This saddens me, since I think that it’s important for the food community should come together and support good, strong regulation in food. You know what they say about that road that good intentions paves, though, and I think Proposition 37 is an example of that.

Here’s another argument from the same perspective, and coming to the same conclusion, from the Los Angeles Times.

By the way, there is a great and very simple way to avoid GM foods if you want to. Buy Organic. Organic guarantees no GMOs, and organic agriculture has lots of other benefits as well.

I welcome any discussion, as usual!

Best,

Peter

12:24am | URL: http://tmblr.co/ZeAmmxVczcD-
(View comments)

(Notes: 6)

August 14, 2012

A long overdue report on some coffee fermentation experiments.

Ok. So this update is a long time in coming; the summary of our casual experiments with different microbial agents in coffee. Lots of people have been asking about this, and I hate to have taken so long, but enough excuses.

And, before the summary proper, one disclaimer: this is not good science. It comes from the same place as science; i.e. the curiosity about how things work and what the effects of certain actions are. As I am not a biologist, my understanding of microbiology is limited. And, this experiment in no way followed good scientific rigor: the blinding was marginal, the controls weren’t perfect, we never repeated anything, and we had a ton of bias before even beginning the process. All the same, I feel that I learned something, and want to share that with others. I truly hope, however, that at some point there is a real scientific inquiry into some of the questions posed by this investigation, and helps us understand and control the fermentation phase in coffee.

Ok, enough preamble. On to the experiment. We know that fermentation in coffee involves ambient microbes, including wild yeasts. What we sought to do was understand if there was any flavor impact by introducing commonly available commercial yeasts and other microbes to coffee fermentation tanks. Thanks to the collaboration of Aida Battle at her “mini-mill” at Tres Puertas coffee mill in Santa Ana, El Salvador, we were able to conduct our tests over the course of a few days in February 2011. So here’s what we did: using coffee from a single day’s picking at Aida’s 100% Bourbon Finca Mauritania, we separated freshly-depulped coffee into 5 gallon buckets, inoculating each with 100ml of one of these fermentation agents:

1. Wyeast Bordeaux yeast

2. Wyeast Saison Ale yeast

3. Wyeast Malolactic Bacteria

4. Wyeast Brettanomyces

5. Wyeast Trappist ale yeast

There was also a control, which was un-inoculated. Each of these were left to ferment for 24 hours, then were washed in fresh water by hand and left to soak for another 24 hours in clean water.

There was a dramatic difference in fermentation activity between yeasts. The Bordeaux yeast was especially active, creating lots of foam and alcohol during the fermentation period. The Brettanomyces and Malolactic bacteria were less active, however the fermentation water developed a strong sour taste. The especially active fermentations were easier to wash, as the mucilage detached more quickly and completely. The coffees were patio-dried.

Here are the results from our cupping team, scores averaged:

Bordeaux yeast: dry, good fruit, some vegetal flavors. 85.5

Saison yeast: buttery, sweet, clean, 87.5

Malolactic bacteria: Savory, most acidity, good citrus. 88

Brettanomyces: Mild fruit, clean dry nut flavors, sweet and nutty. 86

Trappist Ale yeast: caramel, savory, some spice 86.5

The control Mauritania at that part of the harvest was 87. Now, given a normal margin of error for good cuppers of about 2 points, the results are definitely inconclusive in terms of a gross impact on the total quality of the coffee, as represented by total point score. In other words, in this test, microbial treatments didn’t have a strong effect on the point score of the coffee.

That’s not to say the coffees were unaffected by the treatments. The coffees were different, particularly in terms of fragrance and aroma. Acidity, sweetness, body, aftertaste, cleanliness, etc were generally unaffected, but the character of the aromatics was changed. Because of the way the cupping form works, this leads to essentially the same score, since the fundamentals of the coffee remain the same.

This was kind of a disappointing result for me, but not really surprising when you think about it. If sweetness and acidity are controlled primarily by ripeness and nocturnal-diurnal temperature swings, if cleanliness is controlled by clean processing, etc. etc. then these fundamentals of coffee will be maintained during normal good processing. Microbes like yeasts and bacteria may be able subtle changes in the perception and articulation of these characteristics, but may not be able to change the coffee fundamentally. Remember, that the untreated coffee will still have microbes in the fermentation tank, just uncontrolled ones from nature instead of inoculated ones.

Conclusions:

Once again, I must stress that this was not a scientific experiment, only a fun test designed to explore a possible hypothesis. I was able to draw a few conclusions, however:

1. Lack of a good quality metric: All of the fermentation experiments I have been involved with over the years- some with scientific rigor- have had the same weakness: our cupping protocol lacks sufficient precision to be a reliable metric for these kinds of quality experiments. This is a subject already explored by Dr. Tim Schilling and others, but there is a real need for better ways to taste coffee quantitatively, or for other metrics besides cupping panels.

2. I have a hunch that specific microbe type in the fermentation tank is a minor, subtle contributor to differences in coffee aromatics. I think it does make a difference, but a small one in overall coffee flavor. If I were a coffee miller, I might be tempted to inoculate fermentation with a microbe I liked- it seemed not to interfere with mucilage detachment, and could even help, and might limit the activity of other, definitely negative-tasting microbes.

3. Probably a more important pursuit than trying to establish the link between specific microbe type and flavor would be exploring ways to reduce water usage during wet processing. There is not conclusive evidence that fermentation adds much to coffee quality, and this experiment (though not about this question specifically) seems to support the position that activity in the fermentation tank- aside from the dramatic impact over-abundant acetic acid has on cup quality- plays a minor role in coffee flavor. Water use in wet-processed coffees is a huge problem for coffee producing countries, and establishing ways to maximize quality and minimize water use is really really important.