Naming blends: Truth in labeling or just a con?
There was an interesting piece on the website a few days ago that highlights an important issue. A report on the Hawaiian coffee industry shows that the growers actually lose out because blends containing as little as 10% Kona coffee are allowed to be sold as “Kona blend.” The argument goes that the growers lose out, because much of the benefit that should have gone to them goes instead to the middleman who is exploiting the good name of Kona. This is not something new, however—in fact it is widespread with coffees from a number of high priced origins—but I certainly agree that it is deceptive and, to my mind, misleading.

But looking at it from the other side of the coin: how is a roaster to describe a blend? It is understandable that he would want to highlight the most expensive ingredient in the pack, so what is wrong with clearly stating that it is a blend of coffees that includes that particularly expensive origin? Fair enough, you might say, but as with so many things in life, it is totally dependent upon where you draw the line. Is it okay to call a coffee a blend of X when the blend only contains 1% of X? I don’t think so, so where is the line—at 10%, 50% or where?

A difficult issue for sure, but this is all about truth in labeling—an important issue and one that I suspect will plague the industry for some time to come. There is, of course, yet another side to this issue, and that is when the origin of the coffee is deliberately disguised so that it is presented as something else.

Under EU legislation, the origin of a product is the last place it is substantially transformed. So, it is possible to argue that origin of the coffee is not the country where it is grown, but the country where it is roasted. A blend could be presented as a British, French or Italian coffee. Nothing wrong with that, you might say, if the blend reflects the expertise that has gone into the blending and roasting that coffee, and especially if the blend does not contain one single dominant origin.

But there is a fine line between misleading the customer and paying tribute to the true origin. To my mind, there is only one way around this dilemma, and that is to be truthful on the label and list all the origins in the blend. Is this is giving away commercial secrets? Not really. I suspect that only those who have the most to hide would come up with such a pathetic excuse.