Good Food Awards Accepting 2011 Coffee Entries With Revised Criteria
*Update: Fascinating discussion abounds in the comments section of this feature. Read on!
The Good Food Awards is accepting new entries for the second annual competition, and due to the big controversy last year, the coffee criteria has been updated for 2011. A lot of great coffees in 2010 were disqualified due to the shaky and indirect language of the GFA organizers. But we’re still confused: the coffee section’s original copy appears unchanged:
The winners of the Good Food Award for coffee will be distinguished by exemplary flavor – sweet, clean, well developed body, balanced acidity and phenomenal aromatics. To qualify for entry, roasters must emphasize fairness and transparency from seed to cup, and certify that their coffee beans are grown without the use of pesticides or herbicides.
However, there’s a link to new criteria…
In order to be eligible for a Good Food Award coffee producers must attest to the following:
• The farm or co-op is either certified organic or in transition to certified organic at the time of harvest.
• There is price transparency throughout the supply chain.
• The four fundamental principles of rights of work as declared by the United Nations International Labor Organization are observed: Laborers have the freedom to associate and have a right to collective bargaining, there is no compulsory labor, there is no hired child labor, and there is no discrimination in respect of employment and occupation.
Our question: why is coffee the only category that requires organic certification? Why not beer, cheese, charcuterie, chocolate, spirits or pickles? There’s even an exception for preserves containing non-organic sugar. Why? The GFA explains in a footnote:
Sugar and fruit included in small quantities (i.e. lemon juice) are not required to be grown organically due to barriers in cost and access in some regions.
Really? GFA, “barriers in cost” and “access in some regions” is exactly why several great coffee producers face challenges with organic certification.
I hear ya Jer.
My point is that we should all just relax and take things as they come, differentiating between when it’s productive and when it’s not to parse things and pick them apart.
I get your point about sort of half-assing the organic certification requirement. What makes sense to me, though, is that unlike the other GFA categories (with the exception of chocolate), coffee is grown and cultivated in other countries, almost all which are “developing economies.” Especially in light of last year’s debacle, it highlighted the need to articulate criteria that would be easy to understand, and would actually have some “teeth.”
It’s not an organic coffee awards competition. It’s a competition for “tasty, authentic, and responsibly produced” coffee. One way to get the “responsibly produced” criteria checked off effectively is to require the organic or in-the-process-of-going-certified-organic on the cultivation end of things.
What we’ve gotten as the published criteria, from the little I’ve heard, is the result of much discussion, debate, and consensus-building. Anyone who’s gone through discussion, debate, and consensus-building can understand that the end-product would be some semblance of cobbled-together ideas that arguably represent the process more than it represents the core values and goals.
I’ve heard rumors of similar corresponding debates and “controversies” in some of the other GFA categories. For better or for worse, “tasty, authentic, and responsibly produced” brings out people’s passions. I’d argue, though, that coffee is the most complex of all the categories, and in more ways than one. Maybe part of the awards this year should be a battle-royale match among all of the winners of some kind, defending their craft vs the others. That would be some shit!
Shit, Trish. You’re the best.
Has anyone considered that the real rub might be the issue of traceability? A lot of people in the industry do not know how coffee is (or in most cases not) traced to origin and its practices….let alone the consumer. And the consumer is what GFA targets. It’s a moving target, people. We think that our products are imminently traceable, or we just claim it because we want it to be so.
So the questions from this so called “Nick” character and Jeremy boils down to the same thing. Do we give up entirely, or keep trying to figure out what sustainability means?
I’m willing to keep trying and I feel like what GFA went through last year helped kick the door open for the real discussion: is there added value to the cup when it’s sustainable, or will we just keep our quality blinders on?
Also, do I get to cup this year? Who is in charge? Call me, I can send a CV.
Thanks for the dialogue Peter. Honestly, when I first learned of the new requirement (thinking that certification was required as a roaster), my first thought was “well, here’s the reason to finally get certified.” And that is a really great thing about programs like GFA; it motivates companies to be better and makes people think. Despite how my posts sound, I really do support GFA and will participate.
One final thought on this subject before I end my internet personality debut:
The problem last year seemed to stem from agrochemical use, pesticides, herbicides, etc. There are a great many farms that don’t do those things and also have good farming practices. Let’s say that they don’t know any better, they don’t prune their trees, they don’t build their soil, but their quality is excellent. Quality being so high already that given the proper tools it could be amazing coffee. But as it stands, even if their production was low the quality was so great that the price given more than made up for yield being 20% lower. Is that not both economically sustainable and at a lesser level environmentally sustainable?
I heard first that the GFA rules were to either be certified organic, or you could get a document signed by the farmer that he/she doesn’t use agrochemicals. I liked that, and was hoping to see that allowance.
It was confusing to see that allowance thrown out; and my thought is if you’re going to require certification, you’d be better served by standing behind that certification all the way, including the roaster. Especially if you want to drive that point home for more than the inner circle of coffee world, but you want to drive it home for the consumer as well.
Not requiring it, in fact, questions the validity of roaster certification in my eyes. If you’re going to market this forward-thinking idea to the public (and you should), you legally can’t say that all entrants in the competition are organic if they don’t come from organic roasters. If you can’t make these statements, and the consumer doesn’t learn anything from it, then what’s the point? That’s where big change is made; educating the consumer so they demand more sustainable practices, making the old ways obsolete. The consumers dollar is their vote, after all.
Thanks again Peter. And Nick, you know that I was just messing with you, right?
jer-
Hey Jeremy-
I really value this dialogue too. I think there are many myths and misunderstandings about organic, and I hope our dialogue is inciting some curiosity.
You write:
“The problem last year seemed to stem from agrochemical use, pesticides, herbicides, etc. There are a great many farms that don’t do those things and also have good farming practices. Let’s say that they don’t know any better, they don’t prune their trees, they don’t build their soil, but their quality is excellent. Quality being so high already that given the proper tools it could be amazing coffee. But as it stands, even if their production was low the quality was so great that the price given more than made up for yield being 20% lower. Is that not both economically sustainable and at a lesser level environmentally sustainable?”
Not to keep arguing over this issue, but I really disagree that there are a “great many” farms that don’t use agrochemicals and also have good farming practices. The very small number of uncertified farms who don’t ever use agrochemicals I have seen were essentially ignoring their farm. This is not “good farming practices”, it’s “no farming practices” and it’s a bad thing. If a farmer is managing his farm and CHOOSING not to purchase and use agrochemicals, he has a very strong incentive to certify, even (and perhaps especially) if his quality is good; since a coffee with an organic certificate of spectacular quality gets a double premium.
Here are the principles cited by the GFAs that apply to agricultural practices:
-Ingredients are grown without synthetic fertilizer, pesticides and herbicides and are GMO free.
-Growing practices are chosen to promote healthy soil and biodiversity
-Water and resource conservation and recycling are practiced
Now, we could have a sort of entry where the farmer fills out a form where he promises that the above are practiced, as you mention. But it was the opinion of pretty much everyone that any farmer who can attest to the above is already certified organic, or in the process of becoming certified organic. AND, certified organic has the additional benefits of preventing the kind of confusion that happened last year.
Really, it seems like if your values are the above, then you must have certified organic!
You say: “Let’s say they don’t know any better, but their quality is excellent.” OK, that could happen, but that is a really dangerous place for a farmer to be in; not knowing any better. A farmer who doesn’t know how to manage the fertility of his farm (either by using agrochemicals or soil-building), who doesn’t know how to deal with pests, who doesn’t know what to do in the case of a disease is in grave danger. This is a huge problem for small coffee producers, and we have an obligation to help fix it. One way to help is to support the organic premium, since it places a premium on the kind of farming that, most experts agree, is the most sustainable farming practice out there.
Yeah, you know I agree with you about pressing the point about certification to roasters.
Peter
Or, one can try to address any issues while they’re still addressable. Or at least work up a dialogue to make an informed decision of whether to invest time and participate, or whether it’d be better to steer clear, Nick, if that’s even your real name. I know that I dont have the reputation of engaging in these types of activities, but if I decide that it’s worth it I’m all in. I’d like to avoid a situation like last year; when even after we were disqualified, I still volunteered my staff and myself to hold events for GFA without so much as a “thanks for showing up.” Just trying to get a feel for the motives behind this decision “Nick.”
In the end, I support this form of public education (from afar). But there seems to be a select few who make these decisions, and it would be nice to hear the motives behind them. That’s all. It’s not that we don’t have plenty of coffees that qualify, but I’d rather not waste any time, energy or thought on this stuff, believe it or not. Seedling projects should raise support before making exclusions with without full and thoughtful explanations. Just a thought.
jer-
100% CERTIFIED ORGANIC COOOOOOOKIE!
Why does it seem that when things like the Good Food Awards shows up, people expend so much f-ing energy trying to poke it full of holes?
As cliche as it is, I think it’s appropriate: If you don’t like it, don’t participate.
More potential criticisms for people to choose from:
- Why isn’t there a requirement for sustainable (recyclable, compostable, etc.) retail packaging?
- Why isn’t there a requirement for low emissions during roasting?
- Why isn’t there a criteria for a minimum standard of water pollution during coffee processing?
- What about energy usage?
- What if the coffee farmer is an asshole?
Point is, Seedlings Project is putting on the GFA. They get to make up whatever rules they want. If it’s not appealing to you, don’t participate. Or, you’re welcome to get started developing your own awards program, find the necessary support, funding, etc.
Last year, there were multiple problems with the GFA coffee awards, the criteria, communication, execution, etc. They’re trying again, this time cleaning up the criteria to be more clear. The solution they’ve come up with is a valid solution., and I hope things go well through communication and execution. If it means your favorite coffee doesn’t qualify, either find a kick-ass coffee that does, or you’re free to not participate.
Sorry for venting, but I’m a little baffled by how people seem to feel the need to jump aaaallll over something like this.
Will Sprudge host a ‘Drama-Full Coffee Awards’?
Peter:
I didn’t mean that as an attack, let me rephrase it as a “confusing double-standard.” What is the goal of this requirement? Is it for marketing, or is it for certified sustainability? If it’s for certified sustainability, then you would have to argue that the consumer having the option and choosing to buy organic coffee would be a huge part of that equation. If the roaster buys a certified organic coffee but isn’t a certified roaster, they aren’t allowed to sell it as certified organic. Regardless of the differences in requirements for the producer vs roaster, my opinion is this: if the ultimate goal is to promote and raise awareness, then most if not all of those efforts are lost on the consumer if it can’t be marketed as organic. You say that Good Food Awards isn’t “pro-certification,” but then what’s the point of _requiring_ it at any stage?
Your last post makes it sound like any farmer that is using those farming practices should be certified organic. It sounds to me like you’re saying that it’s easy and affordable for them. Well, this isn’t always the case, especially if the farm is small and remote. If we really want to push things to the next level, let’s really go after a full non-profit free-to-the-farmer certification entity, where all the farmer has to do is make a phone call and an inspector shows up.
And yes, in fact I do know and buy from many farms that practice all or parts of organic farming for sustainability; some working their way towards full organic _without_ certification. We buy all the output of one farm in Colombia that has been essentially untouched for 40 years; shade trees, no fertilizers or agrochemicals, terraces, everything minus worm compost. In fact, the shrubs are (unfortunately) barely pruned. Would you argue that that is not sustainable? Should we market this term as “all natural?” I certainly wouldn’t want to have this 1 hectare farm have to go through the certification, lest the customer have to pay more but not get more. Yes, I do realize that I’m arguing this circumstance from personal experience that is indisputable (a trick I learned from this type of forum). But, would I be allowed to enter this coffee into the competition? Doesn’t sound like it.
From my point of view, the farmer should be rewarded for the efforts of paying the fees, having the yearly inspection and doing the work. If he/she wants to do that and get paid a premium, then I support that. Four Barrel doesn’t encourage it though, as we’re not certified and we can’t sell it as such. We’re also small and cater to a small market, and I really don’t believe that we would sell more coffee because of it; in fact we would probably sell less because we would have to charge a premium for our efforts. We do however encourage and support farmers who practice the very same methods. And we know a lot of them.
By the way, feel free to call me a hypocrite if/when I enter coffee into the Good Food Awards, because after all, we’re not certified. Until then, we’ll continue to sell our certified “Drama-Free Coffee.”
-jer
Jeremy-
I think we agree that the optimal situation would be for both the farm and the roaster to be certified organic. I think the point this year was to take a number of steps to ensure that the coffees reflected the principles of the GFA, prevent the problems that arose last year, and present the fewest number of obstacles for greatness.
You’re right, Jeremy: I do think that any farm that is practicing organic agriculture should be certified. The only way that a farmer can get a reliable premium for their hard work (usually starting at about 20%) is to certify. Certification, while not easy or free by a long shot, usually benefits the farm in the long run by encouraging recordkeeping, soil testing, interaction with other farms, and the learning of new agricultural techinques.
As for your example of your “virtually organic” farm; as you mention it’s pretty hard for me to argue against your experience. I will say, however, that you describe a farm that is (“unfortunately” as you say) not pruning, and leaving their farm “untouched”. I would guess that their yields might be quite low… unsustainably low? And you didn’t mention anything about soil building, compost, or water conservation (all important elements of organic agriculture) except to say that they don’t have worm compost. I’m not trying to split hairs, or doubt your experience. But one point I will make is how suitable are either of us at evaluating the environmental practices of a farm? An organic inspector is trained to do this, and trained to do farmer outreach, and organic farming methods are based on about 100 years of the collective experience of agronomists, ecologists, and farmers.
And that’s one of the most compelling thing about certification: when a farm has certified, you KNOW what their farm management practices are, and they are consistent with what a large group of like-minded people have established as a standard of sustainable agriculture! It’s a very cool advantage to organic certification; it gives lots of information to both us as buyers and the farmers themselves.
Lastly, Jer, as a business owner I’ll let you know that getting certified organic made my business LOTS stronger. The tracking and recordkeeping, which seemed like a hassle at first, made my quality control better, my accounting more accurate, and my system stronger.
Peter
Well put Peter. I should clarift the intentions surrounding the statements about the farm though; it seemed to me that the problem last year was mostly around manufactured inputs. While the farm I mentioned is hardly certifiably organic, it does seem to fall into the category of sustainable. The yields are suprisingly average, and have been so for quite some time.
I do support the idea of roasters becoming certified organic too. I mean, people do it so there _must_ be some reason. Just kidding, sort of. But as it stands now, I have a great many other things that I’d rather spend the time, dedication, and money on first. I have a feeling that many of the smaller producers would share that sentiment.
jer-
Also Peter, I can take you many farms that meet these guidelines. “absence of agrochemicals, soil building, and water management on farms” and probably don’t even know certification exists. They range from 2 acres to 2 hectare.
Josh-
I used to believe that these farms existed: farms that were avoiding agrochemicals, making compost, building their soil, managing their farm, managing their water…. but I don’t think I have ever been to one in over a decade of visiting coffee farms.
Sadly, there ARE some coffee farms (not as many as some may think, though) where the farmer is essentially ignoring their farm, simply gathering coffee. This is not organic agriculture, it’s not any kind of agriculture really. They are not building their soils, they are not managing their water. I have a feeling this may be the kind of farm you are talking about.
Most of these farmers have some access to agrochemicals anyway. All over the world, I have seen NPK fertilizer on even the smallest farms. These farms are somewhat random in their farm management; applying chemicals when they have them, harvesting when they can. These are the farmers that need the most agricultural resources- both technique and materials. One resource is the coffee cooperative, co-ops, which can give them access resources (hopefully organic, but also synthetic).
The vast majority of farmers, particularly specialty coffee farmers, are managing their farms at some level. Many choose agrochemicals, many are managing their farm organically and have certified. What doesn’t seem exist in coffee, that I have ever seen, is a farmer that is actively managing his farm, eschewing agrochemicals and building soil and managing water, who has chosen not to certify. I’ve had this conversation with dozens of coffee buyers and agricultural professionals, and we all seem to agree on this point. As one of our task force said: “Why would anyone go to all the trouble of managing their farm that way without taking advantage of the higher price of organic?”
Again, though, I would love some specific examples of farms who are actively engaged in organic management, who have not certified.
Peter
“• Ingredients are grown without synthetic fertilizer, pesticides and herbicides and are GMO free.”
Interesting enough many certified producers, even in coffee, use some chemicals. They may argue the chemicals are organic but they’re still chemicals.
“• Growing practices are chosen to promote healthy soil and biodiversity”
Organic cultivation does nothing to take into account soil health or degradation and at it’s most basic level can contribute greatly to degradation.
I’m going to stop at these two for now. But will say it leaves out a large number of producers that will never be certified and yet have more sustainable practices than many certified growers. I had hopes for the GFA, hopefully they will move to actually promoting sustainability next year instead of promoting marketing labels.
Josh,
I’m familiar with this argument; that there are some synthetic chemicals allowed under organic certification. This issue has been a hot topic in organic agricultural circles for decades. The facts are that organic is the only certification that starts from a place of eliminating synthetic agricultural inputs and has established an institute of agricultural professionals with the express purpose of reviewing agricultural inputs for compatibility with this principle (OMRI, check them out). It is true, the legalese-minded will find some synthetic materials allowed in farming (for example, Vitamin C, which is synthesized from sugar).
Here we get into the common language use of a word like “synthetic”, and the legal/scientific use. Clearly, GFA is using the common language use, which is what OMRI and the organic movement also use as their guiding principles. You’re engaging in a logical fallacy called false dichotomy. One can do this with almost anything: you can use logical fallacies to prove black is white, that there is no such thing as distance, etc.
I don’t really see the point in this kind of logic. In this case, it seems to only be useful to try and challenge the legitimacy of organic agriculture or the Good Food Awards’ principles, both of which are pretty awesome, in my view.
Your second point, that organic agriculture does not address soil health or degradation, makes me feel like you might be confused. Organic agriculture is at its very core about addressing soil degradation and building healthy soils. That’s what organic agriculture IS, Josh.
Peter
Again, I don’t speak for the Good Food Awards, but I was on the standards task force, and it was my suggestion that we not require organic certification from the roasters (the other task force members agreed). Here’s why I made the suggestion:
1. The Good Food Awards isn’t a super pro-certification organization. It’s their opinion that “good” exists both within and outside of certification systems, and they want to be open to both. They made this abundantly clear to us. However, in coffee, when you’re talking about absence of agrochemicals, soil building, and water management on farms, you’re talking about Certified Organic farms. I don’t know of any coffee farms that are using an organic program of farm management but are not certified, and the other coffee experts agreed (if anyone reading this knows of any coffee farmers who are practicing organic agriculture and are NOT certified, please let me know!)
2. The GFA principles talk about absence of agrochemicals, soil building, and water management, which is what Certified Organic farming is all about. They DON’T talk about supply chain documentation or prevention of commingling, which is what Roaster (processor) Certification is about.
3. The GFA seeks to make as few obstacles to inclusion as possible, while still maintaining their values. In this system a great roaster who has not been that big on sustainable farming could reach out to an sustainable farm with spectacular coffee, roast it, submit it to the GFAs and be recognized for it. That’s progress and that’s what we’re all looking for.
I don’t get the hypocrisy accusation at all; could someone explain that to me please? Seems like the GFAs are taking a reasonable, respectful approach to setting standards for their award.
Peter G
So why aren’t the entrant roasters required to be certified organic? Seems a bit hypocritical.
It will certainly be an *interesting* cupping. Looking forward to it…
Here’s the deal from where I sit:
The Good Food Awards seeks to recognize foods that achieve that super-awesome trifecta of great flavor, good social values, and sustainability. As we know, in this age of industrial agriculture, bland food, and trade abuses, these are things worth celebrating.
Beyond just celebrating foods that have achieved this goal, the GFA seeks to encourage progress in food industries that still have a ways to go in these areas. This is the spirit of the Good Food Awards: progress.
So here are some more in-depth Principles from the Good Food Awards:
Good Food Awards Principles
The Good Food Awards were created to redefine ‘good food’ as being tasty, authentic and responsible. We aim to bring the American food system closer to the guiding principles listed below. We aim to set criteria for entry that are realistic and inclusive of food and drink producers who want to be part of building a tasty, authentic and responsible food system and have demonstrated commitment to this, while not making them so strict that eligible participants are limited to a small handful of products. The Awards are rooted in a belief that by including everyone with demonstrated intent to get better and better in all three areas, the American food system will arrive there much more quickly.
The Good Food Awards reviews and revises its category criteria each year under the supervision of its Committee Members to ensure that the criteria advance with the advancement of each industry.
The Good Food Awards Principles are as follows:
Tasty
• Food is delicious, bringing joy to those who consume it.
Authentic
• No artificial ingredients are used.
• Food is an expression of tradition and culture.
Responsible
• Ingredients are grown without synthetic fertilizer, pesticides and herbicides and are GMO free.
• Growing practices are chosen to promote healthy soil and biodiversity
• Local ingredients are utilized wherever possible.
• Water and resource conservation and recycling are practiced.
• Respect and fair compensation are core values within the production chain.
• Transparency and honesty is practiced with consumers.
• Direct, face to face communication is sought out between growers, artisan food producers and everyone in between.
• Good animal husbandry is practiced and farm animals can eat and behave similarly to how they would in the wild.
I think we all agree that the above are laudable principles. The way the Good Food Awards works is this: they go to leaders of each food category, and ask them to develop standards in harmony with those principles, which are developed into entry guidelines for each food category.
Our work was how to apply these to coffee. I volunteered to lead a task force to tackle the task. We were able to get together and discuss, and the group included coffee experts Andi Trindle, Jason Long, Aleco Chigounis, Geoff Watts and Jorge Cuevas. Just like last year, the “no pesticides, herbicides, chemical fertilizers or GMOs” thing triggers lots of discussion. It’s fair to say there was lots of disagreement about whether it is fair to ask farmers to grow coffee without these chemicals, whether it is economically viable, etc. One suggestion was to try to evaluate a farm’s sustainability based on an accounting of their agricultural practices, which might include some agrochemcials.
At the end of the day, we agreed that if the GFAs really want to celebrate coffees that meet the above principles, that we’re talking about organically grown coffee. And the coffee experts agreed that essentially all the farms we have ever seen who are not using agrochemicals and are managing their soil health are Certified Organic.
Not all of the task force or committee were necessarily happy with this conclusion, but I believe that all agree the logic is sound: if you are serious about supporting synthetic agrochemical-free coffee with an emphasis on such things as water management and soil building, you are talking about certified organic coffee.
I’m eager to go into this more in depth, including my own (strongly pro-organic agriculture) position. I’ll leave that for later in the inevitable discussion, however.
As for Sprudge’s question about why the other food committees did not reach a similar conclusion, I must say I am scratching my head. I know that the GFAs seek to “meet the food industry where they are” and not make an unreasonably high bar, but what I know about most of those food industries makes me believe that they SHOULD be demanding organic agriculture just as coffee has. But, then again, it’s not unusual for coffee to be leading the way when it comes to sustainability and transparency. We’ve been doing that for a long time, which the Good Food Awards has rightly acknowledged.
I hope I have helped shed some light on the matter.
Peter G
Just so that we are on the same page – Sprudge is faster than the GFA on website updates. The updated description of this year’s coffee category lie here:
“The winners of the Good Food Award for coffee will be distinguished by exemplary flavor – sweet, clean, well developed body, balanced acidity and phenomenal aromatics. To qualify for entry, roasters and coffee farmers must emphasize fairness and transparency from seed to cup, and be using third party certified organic beans. Once again, coffee is leading the way towards sustainability.”
Entries to open soon.
I had been working on a blog post about this today… you’ve scooped me!
I am once again on the coffee committee this year and have been involved in this discussion for a few months. Without rehashing what has already been discussed to death (mostly in the comments here at sprudge), last year mistakes were made early in our process that led to some unfortunate consequences as we got closer to the finish line. We started from the premise that we would have to really hustle to get people in coffee excited about entering at all in the inaugural year of a very bootstrapped program and ended up with a lot of unnecessary drama (but some useful dialogue too).
This year I made two suggestions to the organizers and the committee – the convening of a panel or task force to compile a more explicit criteria for entries and award qualifications, and the requirement that all entries be dually submitted by not just the roaster but also the producer who would additionally attest to adherence to the criteria.
Peter Giuliano (who was instrumental in helping to sort through last year’s muck) did some outreach and led a task force to address the criteria issue. There were a lot of long and sometimes very intense debates about where to set the boundaries for entrance. Ultimately, Peter and the GFA organizers concluded that only organic or transitional organic farms should be considered for this year’s awards program.
I think Peter if he chimes in can do a much much better job of articulating the rationale of that decision.
I counted myself among those who argued for something more inclusive. I believe that wrestling with the ambiguities of sustainability is ultimately something that we all have to do – on a personal level as consumers and a professional level as coffee people and food activists – and if we draw the circle _too tight_ it feels like a cop out.
On the other hand, these awards aren’t intended as an objective measure of what is the very best coffee or what is the world’s most sustainable coffee. We aren’t trying to take on the entire coffee landscape (at least not yet). It is a _process_ run by a group of passionate people that seeks to identify a handful of coffee producers/roasters that are worthy exemplars of what great coffee can be.
I think some people in coffee have doubts that certified organics as a category are as laser focused on quality as many of the conventional farms who have made names for themselves among coffee nerds. I think this presents a really excellent opportunity to overturn that thinking. We are assembling some really heavy hitters for our blind cupping jury this year and setting a very high bar for scoring to qualify for an award. I’m looking forward to seeing what emerges.
I hope none of my colleagues on the coffee committee and the folks at GFA mind that I’m sharing these thoughts here. It seems inevitable that there is going to be some impassioned discussion about these issues as we move forward and since our pals here at Sprudge didn’t ring any of us up for comment first (HI GUYS) I figured I’d do everyone a favor and just dive in.
“I think some people in coffee have doubts that certified organics as a category are as laser focused on quality as many of the conventional farms who have made names for themselves among coffee nerds. I think this presents a really excellent opportunity to overturn that thinking.”
Here here!
I work for a 100% certified organic roaster, and I have encountered this ridiculous notion time and time again in my community that because we’re 100% certified organic then we by our nature some how do not carry quality coffees. It’s an absurd attitude to have, and I’m sick of it.
The notion that a grower can’t maintain organic practices and also grow exceptional coffee is as ludicrous as saying that redheads can’t ride bicycles.