In the last few years, the Specialty Coffee world has been (controversially) infused by, well, infusions! And after years of discourse, following this year’s Best of Panama, arguably the most prestigious specialty coffee competition in the world, the Specialty Coffee Association of Panama took a hard line stance against infusions and other advanced processing techniques, proclaiming, “the market is flooded with altered coffees masquerading as specialty products, using deceptive terms like “co-fermented” or “thermal shock” to mislead buyers.”

While their final takeaway is slightly less hostile (“We believe altered or infused coffees should be categorized separately, clearly distinguishing them from genuine Specialty Coffee”), nevertheless the tone of the missive aims to elevate supposedly “authentic” coffee producers while degrading deceptive “masqueraders.” We think this kind of language is dangerous, and risks justifying perspectives in the coffee industry that are the result of colonial power asymmetries that have long defined coffee, where buyers with quite a lot less risk and precarity are able to condemn rural, economically disadvantaged farmers for not being “up to standards.” Of course, we also want our Puerto Rican coffee to shine, but not at the expense of condemning other producers.

Now, what is an “infusion” or “co-fermentation.” While we can’t get too detailed in this post about the details of coffee processing, to a certain extent all coffee undergoes fermentation. Coffee grows as a cherry, and after that cherry is picked (at peak ripeness!), you have to remove the cherry from the seed. There are two general processes to do this: washed and natural. For a washed coffee, you remove the cherry and all mucilage from the seed, then dry it until it reaches a desired moisture content. For a natural, you leave the cherry on while it dries to a desired moisture content, then you remove the cherry.

In both cases, sugar inevitably works a little magic on the coffee, hence there is some fermentation. Now, for “infusions” and “co-fermentations” producers either inoculate the coffee during one of these processes with yeasts and other microorganisms and/or allow the coffee to interact directly with other fruits, like strawberries, mangoes, and tangerines. It’s these latter two processes the Panama Specialty Coffee Association objects to. These kinds of coffee processing methods are really very new, having only emerged in the last few years; however, they have become very popular, as they can provide coffee with stunning new sensory characteristics. 

Check out this great article by Perfect Daily Grind for more information: Infused vs. Co-fermented Coffee.

For lots of coffee lovers, Panama is the holy grail of Specialty Coffee, with producers like Lamastus Estates, Carmen Estates and more regularly producing 90+ point coffees that command prices in excess of $500/lb. at auction. Indeed, many, like Scott Rao, mark La Hacienda La Esmerelda 2007’s win at Best of Panama with a Geisha that sold for $130/lb. as the moment Specialty Coffee really took off. And no doubt at Forgotten Forest we genuinely hope to bring that kind of astonishing market value to Puerto Rican specialty coffee. Indeed, long-ignored by specialty coffee, we were thrilled last year to receive a 92-point score for our Tanama Natural from coffee review (more coming this Fall!).

That being said, from a producer’s perspective, we think there is more to specialty coffee than scores and the “purity” of terroir. For example, we might look to this wonderful interview in Bartista Magazine with Colombian producer Elkin Guzman, a trailblazer of radical processing techniques who is now famous for his wild co-ferments (like these from Black & White and Brandywine). There, he states quite clearly, “If people hadn’t asked for bolder flavors, we wouldn’t have produced them.” A similar point is made by coffee educator and influencer James Hoffman. Check out hist Q&A! Weird Fermentations, etc. where, rather than fetishize “authenticity” and the “purity” of terroir, he states plainly, “If a producer can make more money, then broadly I’m behind it.” It’s worth remembering that coffee is a market, and producers, long on the less powerful side of that market, must, finally, give buyers what they want. Indeed, the same is true for all these Panamanian Geishas – it’s just a more rarefied market operating under a particular set of quality values.  

Hoffman points to coffee consultant and fermentation expert Lucia Solis’s wonderful series on terroir, where she discusses that this language of terroir oriented around “purity” and “authenticity” has its roots in wine, and was often used by more powerful and wealthy wineries to put down smaller less resourced operations. That is to say, terroir is not just a neutral descriptor of where a crop grows; rather, it is a strategic value-laden term applied to a product intended to make it fetch a higher price. While it has now taken on the meaning of “land,” it is more accurate to say that its origin is about expressing the superior quality of a wealthier land owner’s property over the holdings of a poorer farmer. Coffee scores, too, began as something far different than they’re generally used for today in these high-value auctions and competitions. Today’s use of quality scores, where 94 pts. can justify $100/lb. prices, have little to do with what scores were created for, which was to establish a quality base for farmers to sell their coffees into commercial markets. It was only with the implementation of the Specialty Coffee Association’s particular scoring system that scores became so tied to super high prices. It’s important to remember the history of concepts, especially when we put such a high value on their use!

We believe that calling these advanced processing methods dishonest and impure seems wrong and narrow-minded. The infrastructure of specialty coffee should be working to evolve in order to accommodate the existing reality, one where many folks are very excited about these advanced processing techniques, not punishing producers who are trying to create sensory profiles that are valued by consumers and open new possibilities for coffee. Of course, each competition is completely within its rights to do what they want, but it is worth pointing out that these institutions themselves are relatively new, hence could be open to change. It is also worth considering who stands to gain from such measures and who stands to lose. We believe all these coffees can be presented and valued. Given that these processing methods are so new, of course there is some legitimate confusion, and possibly some intentional attempts to create confusion. However, at the same time, we must remember that those producers of famous Geishas have long benefited from extremely disproportionate market access and the resources necessary to become global names in coffee. 

We come down on the side of transparency and traceability, with the belief that it is best for everyone the more is known about a particular coffee, a particular process, and, most importantly, about the situation of a particular farmer or collective, and that includes information that can never be simply reduced to a score. Indeed, the specialty coffee world is awakening to the stark reality that it won’t just be high-scoring super-expensive coffees that change coffee’s value distribution. This year, the Specialty Coffee Association released their “Equitable Value Distribution Findings,” which shows that while the majority of folks in specialty coffee would like there to be more equitable payments to farmers, in fact over the last few decades of specialty coffee farmers are on the whole are being paid less, while exporters and roasters are being paid more. At the end of the day, this is an economic issue that far surpasses all the hubbub about processing methods and co-ferments. Let’s work on making coffee fairer before we start denigrating those with the least power in the industry to change it. What do you think?