coffee-forum.net
Promoting coffee discussion.

Main
Date: 10 Jan 2007 16:06:19
From: Marshall
Subject: Kona coffee farmers state their case
http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?f5d5b3b0-419a-4e92-9f50-9bae71e3691b

shall




 
Date: 11 Jan 2007 14:11:20
From: konapage
Subject: Re: Kona coffee farmers state their case
It's all about politics! Those wanting to maintain the 10% are well to
do processors and substantial contributors to the politicians.

My wife and I are Kona coffee farmers and sell only 100% Kona coffee.

Aside the bean imperfections there is no noteable flavor difference in
the grades of the beans, imho.

Mahalo,

konapage

Robert Harmon wrote:
> Howdy shall!
> I wonder why they want the bar set at 75% & not 60% (or ??)? Sounds a bit
> arbitrary to me. I agree that there needs to be a standard & the higher the
> better in my mind. But for me statistical analysis would help make their
> argument more meaningful. And also, there's an argument to be made that
> anything less than 100% should not have Kona printed anywhere on the bag.
> --
> Robert (Something's require more thought than a press release provides.)
> Harmon
> http://tinyurl.com/y5ga2z
> http://tinyurl.com/pou2y
> http://tinyurl.com/psfob
> http://tinyurl.com/fkd6r
>
> "shall" <mrfuss@ihatespamearthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:6n3aq29kqkqf8pckpvv9dpmh53cr5o6agu@4ax.com...
> > http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?f5d5b3b0-419a-4e92-9f50-9bae71e3691b
> >
> > shall



 
Date: 10 Jan 2007 17:26:36
From: Robert Harmon
Subject: Re: Kona coffee farmers state their case
Howdy shall!
I wonder why they want the bar set at 75% & not 60% (or ??)? Sounds a bit
arbitrary to me. I agree that there needs to be a standard & the higher the
better in my mind. But for me statistical analysis would help make their
argument more meaningful. And also, there's an argument to be made that
anything less than 100% should not have Kona printed anywhere on the bag.
--
Robert (Something's require more thought than a press release provides.)
Harmon
http://tinyurl.com/y5ga2z
http://tinyurl.com/pou2y
http://tinyurl.com/psfob
http://tinyurl.com/fkd6r

"shall" <mrfuss@ihatespamearthlink.net > wrote in message
news:6n3aq29kqkqf8pckpvv9dpmh53cr5o6agu@4ax.com...
> http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?f5d5b3b0-419a-4e92-9f50-9bae71e3691b
>
> shall




  
Date: 10 Jan 2007 17:48:36
From: Marshall
Subject: Re: Kona coffee farmers state their case
On Wed, 10 Jan 2007 17:26:36 GMT, "Robert Harmon"
<r_h_harmon@Zhotmail.com > wrote:

>Howdy shall!

> And also, there's an argument to be made that
>anything less than 100% should not have Kona printed anywhere on the bag.

Then how would an honest roaster who spent big bucks for good Kona
beans label a blend with 75% Kona?

Actually, I doubt there is a ket for such a blend. For what it
would have to cost at retail, I'm sure customers would opt to pay a
little more and get 100% Kona.

I'm also curious about the lower quality Kona beans mentioned in the
press release. If the 10% blending stops, will growers meet a new
demand for lowest quality Kona beans for the new 75% blends? How bad
are low quality Konas? I have no idea.

shall


   
Date: 10 Jan 2007 22:43:24
From: Lavarock
Subject: Re: Kona coffee farmers state their case
shall wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Jan 2007 17:26:36 GMT, "Robert Harmon"
> <r_h_harmon@Zhotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Howdy shall!
>
>> And also, there's an argument to be made that
>> anything less than 100% should not have Kona printed anywhere on the bag.
>
> Then how would an honest roaster who spent big bucks for good Kona
> beans label a blend with 75% Kona?

He would say "Contains 75% Kona Coffee, 25% Columbian Coffee" for
example. However, as I explain below, that needs only be done in the
state of Hawaii IF PASSED, because this is not a Federal law.
>
> Actually, I doubt there is a ket for such a blend. For what it
> would have to cost at retail, I'm sure customers would opt to pay a
> little more and get 100% Kona.

We think so too, thus if someone wants to create a special tasting blend
and is willing to put 75% Kona in it, we are willing to allow them to
ket it using our name. If the product does not taste good, there
would be an easy and cost-efficient way to see if it was the blend that
was substandard or Kona Coffee in general.
>
> I'm also curious about the lower quality Kona beans mentioned in the
> press release. If the 10% blending stops, will growers meet a new
> demand for lowest quality Kona beans for the new 75% blends? How bad
> are low quality Konas? I have no idea.

All things will be revealed to you below in the link! :) Actually the
PRIME beans are acceptable by many. Note that in the PDF, some
imperfections are by weight and some are by count! Prime is defined as
no undesirable taste nor aroma when brewed.
>
> shall

There are a few items in this whole thread that I can respond to.

Many farmers would prefer that there not be a blend, but since consumers
are purchasing it, should it be a valid product? There is precedence for
blends (fruit drinks, coffee, wines) where the name of one product is
used (sometimes) to induce the public into thinking they are buying
something they are not.

Current Hawaii law says that a 10% Blend is legal (I believe this was
pushed through many years ago when the price dropped out for Kona
Coffee). You cannot call a product a Kona blend if it contains less than
10% Kona Coffee.

Blenders say there is a ket for cheap blends and the farmers say that
by allowing this, it hurts the reputation of the product. Informal
discussions with consumers shows many of them are fooled by the name,
rather than are buying a product specifically for taste.

Experts say that the consumers are not tasting Kona in small
proportioned blends and thus it does hurt the Kona name to be labeled
with such a name.

Hawaii has specific requirements regarding what can be called Kona (or
any other regionally-named Hawaii coffee). The grading is more strict
than foreign countries. Here the grading covers not just the size of the
bean, but how many imperfections there are (such as how many sour or how
chipped the beans are. The worst beans that can legally be sold as
"Kona". These can have no more than 15% bad beans (of which only 5% can
be off-tasting), the rest I assume can be chipped.
http://www.hawaiiag.org/hdoa/pdf/qad-greencoffeestd.pdf

So even the worst 100% low quality Kona beans could taste fine by
themselves, especially if the smaller beans were roasted apart from
larger ones so the roast was a bit more even.

What standards are used for importing of the other 90% foreign beans to
be used for blending? You readers would be better experts than I. What
is the lowest grade bean that could be imported to be blended?

As for this Council vote, it is a recommendation to the State to pass
legislation. Even if the state were to agree, it would only effect
coffee sold in the State of Hawaii or to Hawaiian citizens.

Since there is no Federal law, someone on the mainland can (and has
been) sell something called Kona Coffee to the public when in reality it
has not 1 Kona bean in it. That is legal until there is a Federal law
regarding Kona (and other Hawaiian) Coffee.

So why do many say they can live with a 75% blend labeled as Kona? There
is a precedence with Napa Wine (which may be blended). Why not 100% like
Vidalia onions? They appear not to be blending onions (75% Vidalia
onions and 25% other), thus the suggestion was that for "blends" 75% was
already acceptable or other products and there might be testimony or
scientific evidence already showing that in blended products, 75% was
discernible, or a fair compromise, while lower percentages were not.

The vote also specified that the labels had to include the origin of the
remainder of the coffee. That way if they are using a wonderful coffee
from an exotic country, it will only enhance their image, but that if
they are using the dregs of the coffee worlds product, and have to
announce that, they may have to rethink their sales plans.

Would 75% be profitable to blenders? We think not. Blenders are already
taking 10% and 90% low-cost foreign coffee and charging the equivalent
of what 40 % Kona would cost. An example, 1 pound of 100% goes for $21.
These blends are going for perhaps $4 for 7 ounces.

Many farmers said they don't mind having Kona in a bag and have Kona
labeled as a component as long as there is not chance the public is
fooled by the name and or contents. The public does not appear to
understand that a 10% Kona Blend is 10% Kona and usually 90% Foreign
coffee. The US has been pretty good about changing labeling to inform
the public of contents, rather than advertise the explanation and
leaving the labeling as not clear.

As an aside, recently a law was passed that allows one to add a "Made in
Hawaii" label to items to which "... has had at least fifty-one percent
of its wholesale value added by manufacture, assembly, fabrication, or
production within the State.". Thus you could import macadamia nuts from
Australia, roast them here and call it "Made in Hawaii". A "Made in
Hawaii" label, in my opinion, is just as misleading to the public and
the Kona Blend name is.

The other problems is that no law appears to or can) address the
Tradek issue. A company calling itself "All Kona Coffee Company" does
not need to place any Kona Coffee in a bag. The public sees "All Kona
Coffee" on the name of the product and does not know that it is a
company trade name. The contents description could just say "Contains:
Coffee".

So our blend fight is only 1 of many fights going on.


--

They said that someone has to live in Hawaii ad I raised my hand first!


   
Date: 10 Jan 2007 10:57:45
From: I->Ian
Subject: Re: Kona coffee farmers state their case
On Wed, 10 Jan 2007 17:48:36 GMT, shall
<mrfuss@ihatespamearthlink.net > wrote:

> How bad
>are low quality Konas? I have no idea.

A couple of years back the missus accompanied me on an expedition to
sample Kona coffees. We drove almost 1000 miles on the Big Island to
sample as many growers as possible in 10 days.

Some growers had excellent trees under a canopy and were very
selective in the picking. Others had very scruffy looking trees out in
the open, stripped all the berries at once and sold them to
aggregators. Not all were willing to sell us green.

We came home with a fair selection of green beans and roasted them to
City+ on a profile similar to CoffeeCuppers.

Brewed for 3 minutes in a cafetiere, the worst are undrinkable.

I agree there is probably little ket for a 75% blend. IMO, great
Kona is a delight on its own and distinctive enough to be enjoyed
unalloyed.

Perhaps an ecomomist on the board can predict what would happen to
Kona prices if blends were disallowed. Perhaps I'm being elitist, but
surely the disappearnce of the dreck in every tourist shop and hotel
room would do much to raise consumer consciousness. I see little
percentage in selling 90% crud with a big _KONA_ on the label and
having Joe Regular think "This tastes just like Folgers"


    
Date: 10 Jan 2007 09:58:39
From:
Subject: Re: Kona coffee farmers state their case
On Wed, 10 Jan 2007 10:57:45 -0800, "I- >Ian" <someone@nowhere.com>
wrote:

>On Wed, 10 Jan 2007 17:48:36 GMT, shall
><mrfuss@ihatespamearthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> How bad
>>are low quality Konas? I have no idea.
>
>A couple of years back the missus accompanied me on an expedition to
>sample Kona coffees. We drove almost 1000 miles on the Big Island to
>sample as many growers as possible in 10 days.
>
>Some growers had excellent trees under a canopy and were very
>selective in the picking. Others had very scruffy looking trees out
in
>the open, stripped all the berries at once and sold them to
>aggregators. Not all were willing to sell us green.
>
>We came home with a fair selection of green beans and roasted them to
>City+ on a profile similar to CoffeeCuppers.
>
>Brewed for 3 minutes in a cafetiere, the worst are undrinkable.
>
>I agree there is probably little ket for a 75% blend. IMO, great
>Kona is a delight on its own and distinctive enough to be enjoyed
>unalloyed.
>
>Perhaps an ecomomist on the board can predict what would happen to
>Kona prices if blends were disallowed. Perhaps I'm being elitist, but
>surely the disappearnce of the dreck in every tourist shop and hotel
>room would do much to raise consumer consciousness. I see little
>percentage in selling 90% crud with a big _KONA_ on the label and
>having Joe Regular think "This tastes just like Folgers"

A letter I sent in to the Editor of our largest paper--might help...

"Currently coffee companies only need 10% of Kona coffee in their
blends to sell it as “Kona blend”. Many of the blends do not even
list where the remaining 90% of the coffee comes from. We believe that
this labeling is intentionally misleading and uses the Kona name to
sell an inferior coffee.

For over 14 years Kona Coffee farmers have tried to increase the
required percentage of Kona Coffee in blends from 10% to 75% in order
to call it Kona. A similar California law requires that named
regional wines such as Napa, must have a minimum of 75% of Napa Valley
grapes in order to call it Napa. We consider Kona as valuable a
brand name as Napa

The Hawaii Island County Council recently passed a Resolution to
increase the minimum amount of Kona coffee in Kona blends from 10% to
75%. In order to make this a legal requirement, the State Legislature
will have to pass similar legislation. We believe that this
legislative action is needed to protect Kona Coffee’s international
reputation as a world class coffee.
Cecelia B Smith
President, Kona Coffee Farmers Association"



beansatsmithfarms.com
farmers of pure kona
roast beans to kona to email


   
Date: 10 Jan 2007 18:38:03
From: Mud Pup
Subject: Re: Kona coffee farmers state their case
shall wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Jan 2007 17:26:36 GMT, "Robert Harmon"
> <r_h_harmon@Zhotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> And also, there's an argument to be made that
>> anything less than 100% should not have Kona printed anywhere on the bag.
>
> Then how would an honest roaster who spent big bucks for good Kona
> beans label a blend with 75% Kona?

Starbucks "Pacific Sunrise". ;)