FROM THE PUBLISHER

RECENTLY, AN INDUSTRY FRIEND and I were discussing the roles of larger national and international coffee organizations in advancing and supporting the specialty coffee business. It’s a subject that seems to be on the forefront of many people’s minds; it was even a topic at the National Coffee Conference (NCA) held last March in Boca Raton, Fla.
     The NCA was one of the organizations we were discussing; the other was the International Coffee Organization. Both of these organizations certainly have strong ties and have historically represented the interests of what I will call “big market coffee.” However, both have also taken notice of the emergence of specialty coffee, and have made some attempts to include the interests of the specialty producer, importer, roaster and retailer. The NCA recently announced a partnership with Cup of Excellence which I believe is an excellent way to get some of the large NCA members to begin recognizing and purchasing specialty coffees.
     However, the influence of big market coffee companies over these organizations leads them to activities which require us to be at the very least skeptical of their aims. For example, the NCA runs an unbiased-sounding website (www.coffeescience.org) dedicated solely to promoting the health benefits of coffee. As people who sell coffee for a living, we are responsible for the claims we make about the effects of our product on people’s health.
     The tea industry has already seen the effects of this, and suffered two recent setbacks from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). In May of 2006, the FDA issued a letter in response to an industry labeling request, stating that “FDA concludes that there is no credible evidence to support qualified health claims for green tea or green tea extract and a reduction of a number of risk factors associated with cardiovascular disease.” Eleven months earlier, the FDA had already issued a similar statement regarding the lack of evidence that drinking green tea reduces the risk of cancer. These statements, which were picked up in the national press, came after years of the tea industry promoting the health benefits of green tea. This is clearly an area where coffee professionals and organizations that represent the coffee industry must tread very carefully.
     The ICO is energized in a different direction, which also requires some healthy skepticism from specialty coffee roasters. They are in a full-throttle campaign to increase coffee consumption among consumers. This effort is aimed at increasing consumption in producing countries and in emerging markets, as well as in mature markets. If promotion of increasing the quality of coffee to increase consumption is a major component of this effort, then it does not inherently run counter to the desires of specialty coffee roasters. However, the term “quality” has many meanings depending on who makes the definition and for what purpose. In some circles, quality coffee is defined as any coffee which lacks other components (such as chicory or sugar). Skepticism in this case is warranted, the specialty coffee industry cannot sacrifice the overall quality of coffee in the name of increasing consumption.
     Obviously, there is a need in the coffee world for these large organizations. However, they do not always represent the interests and goals of the specialty coffee roaster. Which of course leads to the question: How can those interested in advancing specialty coffee influence these organizations? I’m not sure what the answer is to this question, but I know nothing will happen if I don’t take the first step.

     Regards,
     Connie