Keeping it Kona
Local farmers vs. Big Coffee

by Hadley Catalano

It seems like society has become fixated on the concept of elite, brand name products. It can't be just bottled water anymore, it's got to be Perrier or Fiji. As odious as this "bou-tique branding" may seem to some, it has brought many favorable outcomes to small in-dependent farmers and growers around the world. It's not just the bottled water companies that are benefiting, but wine, onion, cheese, and closer to home, coffee farmers who are seeing a higher demand for their real-deal products. Some consumers are willing to pay top dollar for the genuine item.
Unfortunately, authenticity is not always being provided. Often cash-hungry corpora-tions are selling inferior generic products using the specialty branding concept - de-valuing the brand appeal and thereby affecting the small, independent farmers who pro-vide the authentic version.
Europe has begun to stop by outside processors who are using traditional regional names as generic names from taking advantage of local farmers. In 1992 the European Union established the Protected Designation of Origin (PDO), Protected Geographical Indication (PGI) and Traditional Specialty Guaranteed (TSG) laws specifying geographical re-quirements to protect regional foods. The purpose is to ensure that only products origi-nating in that region are allowed to be sold as such.
The industry's Food Production Daily reports that in October 2005 the European Court of Justice ruled that cheese makers outside a designated area of Greece are prohibited from calling their product "feta." Once the PGI status is granted, other food makers can either stop calling the product by the protected name or move production to that designated area and use the same sourced ingredients and processes. Cheese makers outside the protected region have until 2007 to stop using the name "feta."
The United States usually opposes geographical protection; many names protected elsewhere (such as parmesan cheese) are common generic terms in the US. Many American manufacturers want the same legal protection for their products the EU court gave to the feta cheese producers in Europe.
Closer to home
The term "Kona Coffee" gets tossed around and generally disrespected by many large corporations climbing the economic name game ladder, and it's putting a foul taste in the cups of Kona coffee farmers.
Over the years Kona farmers have been fighting to protect the coffee bean they grow - much as the onion farmers from Vidalia, Georgia and the Napa Valley vintners have won protection for their crops.
Kona Coffee is grown on approximately 670 family farms in a 22-mile district of North and South Kona known as the "coffee belt;" its flavor is shaped by climate, geography and specific traditional growing and processing methods.
Authentic Kona Coffee is known for its unique aromatic characteristics and mild, fine flavor, so it is not surprising that large off-island processors want their beans to be asso-ciated with it.
But many larger corporations do not support 100 percent Kona Coffee. Instead, they are selling "Kona blends" - with only 10 percent Kona beans and the other 90 percent from elsewhere. These mostly-not-Kona-coffee blends, usually processed off-island, are al-lowed to carry the Kona label. This not only deceives customers, but associates lesser quality coffee with the name Kona. True Kona Coffee must be grown within the Kona growing region and meet the Hawaii Department of Agriculture (DOA) standards for 'prime' or above grade.
Blended battle
Coffee organizations on the Hawai'i Island are fighting an uphill battle to protect what is rightfully theirs.
"Do we need a blended coffee?" asked Roger Dilts, President of the Kona Coffee Council (KCC) and owner of Aloha Farms. "It degrades the product, there is no control over contents and it confuses the customers. If you want to blend coffee, don't call it a Kona blend, call it a Hawaiian coffee blend. The people selling the blends are making money on the backs of the Kona coffee farmers … there is no one in the Kona coffee community that doesn't want to see truth in labeling laws."
Another group involved in the struggle is the Kona Coffee Farmer's Association (KCFA), a group of farmers that split from the KCC earlier this year.
"We have been looking into what other trade organizations are doing to protect their name," said Joachim Oster, member of the KCFA and owner of Athena of Hawai'i coffee. "We're at risk that if our Kona name gets used too widely so its protection can no longer be enforced.... We'll be in danger of becoming another Philadelphia Cream Cheese."
Oster notes that Vidalia onions are protected by law; the state of Georgia prosecutes and misuse of the trademarked name. The KCFA is looking to the state for the same type of protection on roasted Kona Coffee. Currently the Dept. of Agriculture only holds a "100 Percent Kona Coffee" trademark logo for green (unroasted) coffee beans leaving the dis-trict. This coffee must be certified by the state. However, there is no trademark protection or certification for roasted coffee, and enforcement has been less than enthusiastic, both here in Hawai'i and among out-of-state processors and roasters.
"The luxury market worldwide has seen a big boom in recent years," said Oster. " People are looking to more specialty coffee and a more elevated coffee experience. They have outgrown Starbucks and are looking for an authentic connection to the foods they put into their body. They appreciate a more personal relationship to the farm, enhancing the farm tourism trend in the state along the way."
Both groups point out that many bags of coffee are sold to tourists who only see the name Kona, associate it with a cup of coffee they enjoyed at a local coffee shop or on a farm tour and buy that bag. They, understandably, buy the least expensive one, thinking it's 100 percent Kona, when in actuality it's a 10 percent blend.
Coals to Newcastle
Both the KCC and the KCFA agree that while they are not out to eliminate the blend, they do not want the name Kona used on bags that aren't 100 percent Kona.
"Kona growers do not object to a roaster developing a coffee blend in which Kona coffee is one of the ingredients," said Bruce Corker, KCFA member and owner of Rancho Aloha Farm. "What growers object to is the use of the "Kona" name in the labeling of blends which in fact consist of 90 percent non-Kona coffee."
The DOA has determined that the blended coffee is beneficial to the state.
"The blend has familiarized people outside the state with Kona Coffee. The blend keeps costs down to what consumers can afford," said Jeri Kahana, acting administrator of the Quality Assurance Division of the DOA. "If there isn't blended coffee, we could end up with coffee that isn't purchased. I wouldn't pay 30 dollars for a pound of coffee. Where, and is there, a market for that price of coffee?"
There have been small but persistent steps taken to increase the amount of Kona in the blended coffees. Two legislative bills, one to increase the amount of Kona to a minimum of 50 percent, the second to increase it to 75 percent, died in committee.
"It is thought, not proven, that by increasing the percentage in the blend that it would benefit the farmers," said Dilts.
"The 50 percent blend would still be a high price, its debatable, we have requested a study be done on the blended coffee," said Kahana.
Kahana said she was hearing varying opinions from other members of the coffee in-dustry.
"Where do you draw the line? Do you help small farmers or big farmers who produce and sell more and represent the state more?" Kahana asked.
"We need to get industry reps together and sit down and talk. We've conducted two meetings.... It's confusing and frustrating because everyone has their own agenda and issues, the small farmer, the big farmer all asking, 'how will it impact me?'"
Certified?
One idea is to require a mandatory certification process for all Hawaiian coffee. The concept of a certification to enforce labeling laws and trademark use has been brought up before to combat the problem of consumer fraud and counterfeit coffees.
But this idea caused mixed reactions from those in the Kona Coffee industry, where local farmers are allowed to roast without certification.
"By law it's mandated that all green coffee that is produced in geographic region, when moved out of that geographic region, has to be certified and that certification is paid for by the financially interested party.
"Exemption to that allows farmers to grow, mill [and] roast their own coffee and ship it out without having it certified. Some call it a loophole, as it could be lower grade and [they could] sell it as Kona. To protect the quality some want to have a mandatory certification," said Kahana.
"Currently there is no legal requirement that says you have to prove your Kona is Kona," said Dilts. "There is no required paper trail between green to roasted product. Once you get a trademark enforced, then you can get labeling enforced."
Coffee Goliaths vs. Kona Davids
But there are underlying problems with a potential "mandatory" certification of roasted coffee.
"The costs are a burden on small farmers - trying to figure it out as to who will pay the cost," said Dilts. "If all coffee was certified it would help to eliminate fraud. The state Attorney General [has] said that they will enforce the 100 Percent Kona Coffee trademark on all roasted bags if everything gets certified, once we've created a path of paperwork. The present system, operated by the DOA, doesn't work. It was designed to enforce origin, but there is no teeth to it." She noted that the DOA lacked the staff to enforce the rule.
The state has responded to demands by the coffee industry.
"There has been a proposal to expand the trademark to use for roasted coffee," said Kahana. "...I support the certification but I need to hear both sides though an open dis-cussion. We need to agree on a concept and how to implement it - some don't want to pay in order for them to sell, they would have to wait to the end of the season and have one inspection and then roast one lot vs. 20 lots they can't afford to inspect over the course of the season... On the other hand, the small farmers want control over their own product. They are selling the name and stand behind their product. It's the big farmers vs. the small farmers or the high volume industry vs. the private backyard farmers."
Imported green beans
The United States is the only coffee-producing country that imports foreign green beans into its growing region. Banning the importation of green beans would eliminate the on-island roasted blended coffees. Inspection would be important in verifying origin, and it could also mitigate another critical problem: possible introduction of coffee pests and diseases carried in on beans.
"Stopping the importation of foreign green coffee into Hawai'i would be an effective way to lessen risks that coffee diseases and pests will be brought into the state," said Corker.

Pest risk
"Roasting effectively reduces the risk of importing diseases and pests that could affect the coffee trees. The US Constitution prevents unreasonable restraints on interstate commerce. States such as California or Hawai'i can keep certain agricultural products out if the exclusion is in order to prevent introduction of pests or diseases, but they cannot prevent importation to avoid commercial competition. However, clear and non-deceptive labeling can be required to prevent consumers from being misled."
"Banning imports to Hawai'i would stop blending here, but would not stop blending elsewhere. However, it appears that the majority of these blends are sold in Hawai'i - to uninformed tourists who think they are buying an inexpensive souvenir to take home or (more often) to send to friends and relatives," said Rick Funk, President of the KCFA and owner of Honu Kona Estate Farm.
"Retail sales of blends on the mainland appear far less common, most likely because there is no 'souvenir impulse.' It is likely that forcing retailers to blend on the mainland would reduce their overall sales."
According to the DOA's Plant and Quarantine Program statement, Hawai'i has the only 100-year-old coffee trees still producing coffee anywhere, because trees in other coffee growing regions have been plagued with diseases and pests. In the 1970s the rules changed so that fumigated, unprocessed coffee-including foreign and Hawaiian coffee sent out of state for decaffeination - were allowed into Hawai'i. All imported green beans have to be fumigated before entry to prevent the spread of coffee berry borer (CBB) and coffee leaf rust (CLR).
The fumigation agent is methyl bromide (MeBr), an odorless, colorless gas that has been classified as a Class I ozone-depleting substance. According to the United States Envi-ronmental Protection Agency Web site, in 1987, the Montreal Protocol was signed or-dering the phase-out. However, there was no alternative for coffee fumigation and it was cited as allowable because it fell under the Quarantine and Preshipment (QPS) exemption.
At the 2005 Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions, J.W. Armstrong from the U.S. Pacific Basin Agricultural Research Center in Hilo, presented a study, Methyl Bromide Alternative for Green Coffee.
"Importing green coffee into Hawai'i is the foundation for the roasting, blending, and brewing sectors of the Hawai'i coffee industry. Together, they are valued at over $116.7 million and provide about 500 jobs in the state," Armstrong stated. "The annual amount of imported green coffee exceeds 2.5 million pounds worth over $3.3 million."
While the importation of green bean does create some job revenue as well as eco-nomically sponsor the income of many statewide roasters, blenders and processors - who seem to be mainly concerned with the continued import of foreign bean into a region which they are potentially causing irreparable harm, in order to profit off the name of their location.
The DOA Plant and Quarantine program has tried to preserve the state's coffee trees. In 1980, they banned the importation of African bean under any circumstance because the MeBr fumigation did not kill prevalent pests or diseases found in the African bean - pests and diseases, including a version of CLR, that could be devastating to the Kona crop. However, the KCFA contends that recent research (published in the USDA's Coffee Fu-ture) shows that the potassium-bromide-resistant African strain of CLR, is now in the South American and Mexican growing areas.
"What is of most concern now is the news that African pests are showing up in South American coffees. So is methyl bromide still effective? We (KCFA) would like the HDOA to review the testing to find out. Large retail roasting businesses have blocked all attempts to have this review happen," said Funk.
"We have made it clear that we prefer to not have any green coffee imported anywhere in Hawai'i (coffee is grown on all major islands). It appears that the retail coffee lobby has convinced the HDOA that importation is important and has convinced them to support it, despite the risks to our farms."
According to Leslie Iseke, Plant Import Specialist at the DOA, "there is always a chance (that a disease) could affect the coffee here - nothing is 100 percent. Nobody has made an effort to stop the importation of green bean, but we get calls about labeling, which is not our department."
Iseke continued, "I don't feel I can comment right now about how a ban on importation would affect Hawaii. I can see the goods and bads. I would have to hear both sides. If you're a grower, then I can see where you would want to protect your product, but from [the viewpoint of] the roasters and processors - there isn't enough Kona coffee bean. We are in the middle."
Changes are coming to Kona Coffee. Whether the various interest groups connected by this important local crop can devise a mutually beneficial solution remains to be seen.
On the Web
Kona Coffee Farmer's Assn.
www.konacoffeefarmers.org
Kona Coffee Council
www.kona-
coffee-council.com

Top of Page