When coffee growers succeeded more than 20 years ago at distinguishing pure Kona coffee by law from mixtures that only partially include the Hawaii-grown beans, they came up short on the clarity they now seek. They now want blenders to include all the coffee types and percentages in their recipes — but that would be excessive. For coffee consumers, the current information on packages is adequate to help distinguish purity from mixture.
The law enacted by the 1991 Legislature has been workable, if somewhat bland. Allowing and advertising blends including at least 10 percent of Kona coffee, producers of Hawaii coffees mixed with beans from afar must specify them as such on the package but in tiny type. However, 10 percent Kona blended coffee generally is shown on packages in large type.
Already, the existing law seems to suggest that packaging of Kona blends include the sources of non-Hawaii coffee beans. However, that information is not required, so is rarely found on Kona-blended coffee packages. Blenders should be pushed to divulge, if not the specific percentages of the beans, at least the location sources.
For example, the Kona Coffee Farmers Association proposes that a bag containing one-tenth Kona coffee be required to include on the label the sources of the other 90 percent — for example, 30 percent from Costa Rica, 30 percent from Colombia and 30 percent from Panama.
"If you bag up potatoes grown in Maine and try to pass them off as Idaho potatoes, the Idaho commission will sue you," says Bruce Corker, owner of the Rancho Aloha coffee farm on Hawaii island and a board member of the Kona Coffee Farmers Association.
Comparing that with blended coffee is apples and oranges: Potatoes are not blended.
That is not to suggest that 10 percent Kona blended coffee is as tasty as pure Kona — it surely is not, as most coffee fans would attest. But that is why the blend, while more expensive than non-Kona brands, costs less than 100 percent Kona.
It is up to the pure Kona makers to "sell" consumers on the value of their delicious product. Of course, a major part of the reason for higher prices for Kona has been excellent marketing; some coffee fans would debate that Kona is essentially indistinguishable from some other pure Hawaii coffees, such as those grown on Kauai, but costs twice as much.
Jim Wayman, president of Hawaii Coffee Co., a major coffee blender, argues that including information about beans used from specific parts of the world would be impossible because the sources can quickly change. Given modern technology, that remains to be seen, but Wayman’s argument that including specific percentages would disclose his formula to competitors is understandable.
Hawaii is the only state in the country to farm coffee beans, and the gourmet quality is recognized worldwide. The blending of Hawaii coffees with those from other parts of the world poses little threat to the industry — and existing law requiring the necessary "10 percent" or "100 percent" Kona information is adequate in helping the buyer make an informed decision on which brew to choose.
