Comments on: Shade Grown Coffee — Just How Shady Is It?

By: Gretchen

Gretchen — Tue, 04 Sep 2007 15:16:27 +0000

Hi Doug,
All of the K-Cups you refer to contain certified content. The cups only have additional stickers if their content is less than 100 percent certified. The stickers serve to specify the percentage of content that is certified. The cups that do not have additional stickers contain 100 percent certified content and therefore don’t require a sticker specifying the percentage.

By: deCadmus

deCadmus — Fri, 31 Aug 2007 14:39:58 +0000

Gretchen followed up with me via email, asking for more information about the coffee roaster I’d referred to, above. To be fair to her, I should note that I was delayed in replying to her email, so I’m not surprised that she hasn’t yet responded.

I’m optimistic she’ll be along presently.

By: BirdBarista

BirdBarista — Fri, 31 Aug 2007 09:58:28 +0000

I was waiting to see if Gretchen (who works for Rainforest Alliance) would respond again. I have posed the same questions to them, Yuban coffee from Kraft. Gretchen replied that
the RA strategy is based on continuous improvement and scaling up over time. “We choose to work with big companies such as Kraft as well as the smaller specialty coffee and food companies because this is where we can make the greatest positive impact,” and “The fact that we have changed the way a large and influential coffee company does business is a big step in the right direction. And even more important is how Kraft’s commitment to buy that much certified coffee is making a difference on the ground.” I’d like to see some hard data on that, especially from a biological standpoint.

My question as to where the remaining 70% of the coffee in the 30% RA-certified Yuban comes from and how it is grown remained unanswered. I still don’t see that in the long run it makes a great deal of sense environmentally (or socially) to encourage consumers to buy from a company whose practices overall contribute to the problems RA is trying to solve.

By: deCadmus

deCadmus — Wed, 22 Aug 2007 03:14:51 +0000

Hi, Gretchen!

And welcome to the conversation. ;)

I know that it’s easy to tend toward oversimplification in order to make the scope of various certification systems accessible to the consumer. At the same time, I think it’s critical to do just that — to make it accessible, and transparent — so that folks purchasing coffee in the corner coffee shop or in a retail store understand how certifications differ.

It’s my understanding the the Rainforest Alliance label combines environmental and social criteria. On the ecological side is isn’t quite so strident as the SMBC “Bird Friendly” label — which is only ever paired with Organic certfication — and on the social equity axis it’s not quite so ambitious as the Fair Trade label — which is only offered to democratically run grower cooperatives. On the other hand the Rainforest Alliance has the opportunity to certify a larger base of coffee growers, many of which would not otherwise qualify for *any* third-party certification, and so would not have any particularly compelling reason to set stretch goals for either ecological or social equity concerns.

There is one area, however, where I perceive — rightly or wrongly — a “gap,” if you will. It relates to how the Rainforest Alliance label is applied to finished goods packaging, and I hope that you might clear up any misconceptions I may have.

As I understand it, the Rainforest Alliance label is to be used only on coffees or coffee blends that have a minimum 30% certified coffee as part of that package. This is significantly different from other certification compositions. For example, Fair Trade labeling is to be used only on packages of 100% Fair Trade coffee, and I believe the SMBC’s Bird Friendly label has the same 100% requirements. Why would the Rainforest Alliance choose such a radically different labeling practice?

Further, I’ve recently noted at least one prominent coffee roaster — and a Rainforest Alliance partner — that uses the Rainforest Alliance seal on packaging that has no Rainforest Alliance certified coffee in it at all. To their credit, they don’t directly suggest that the coffee inside *is* certified, but instead use the seal as they might any cobranded partnership. I would think that such a use of the seal might be construed as misleading… that it implies that the coffee in that package is certified. At the very least, it’s certainly confusing for coffee consumers, and I’d imagine dilutive of the efforts of the Rainforest Alliance program.

Thanks again, Gretchen, for stopping by, and I’ll look forward to your reply!

Best,

-deCadmus

By: Gretchen

Gretchen — Tue, 21 Aug 2007 17:23:53 +0000

Just to clarify, the criteria for Rainforest Alliance certification are more comprehensive than requiring shade. The certification focuses on sustainable farm management and has environmental, social and economic components, including ecosystem, soil and water conservation; wildlife protection; integrated crop management; dignified working and living conditions for workers; access to healthcare and education for farm children. Ecosystem conservation is one of the organization’s 10 principles of sustainable agriculture. Within that principle, to earn certification, farms must establish a conservation program that includes the restoration of natural ecosystems or the reforestation of areas within the farm that are unsuitable for agriculture. The program must include the establishment and maintenance of shade trees for coffee if the farm is located within a forest ecosystem.