In January, we reported on a up-to-date bill proposed by Hawaiian lawmakers that would require more Kona in a bag of Kona coffee. The law at the time required at least 10 percent of the coffee to be Kona to be labeled as such. The rest could be… anything. That law has since passed, requiring coffee to be 51 percent Hawaiian to carry the label. But some in the Hawaiian coffee industry are concerned about how the legislation would negatively impact farmers.
As reported SF GateThe bill won’t go into effect until 2027 and was proposed as a way to protect both consumers from misleading marketing and producers from watered-down products. Some, like Rep. Nicole Lowen, who introduced the bill, see it as a victory. “The percentage of Kona coffee required to be labeled Kona should be 100%, but considering this is the first progress on this issue in over 30 years, it’s a huge victory.”
Others, however, are concerned about the real impact of the law. Shawn Steiman of Coffea Consulting AND Grok Coffee notes that while he is “philosophically in favor” of the law, 100% Hawaiian coffee is already available on the market, and people still gravitate toward diluted products. If those coffees now have to contain five times more Hawaiian coffee, they will likely also be priced higher, which could put consumers off.
“If it’s about creating a law that says we believe in this product and its identity, let’s do that,” Steiman said. “51% say, ‘We want to be truthful, but we don’t want the economy to collapse around us.’ It’s like hedging. That’s how I feel. The philosophy is, we’re protecting that identity. So let’s protect it. And then let’s just say 100% local is the way it has to be sold.”
The same opinion is shared by the owner of a specialist coffee roastery. Big Island Coffee Brandon von Damitz. “While we applaud the approach and effort, in our opinion the study does not sufficiently support the positive economic impact of raising the required minimum percentage of coffee grown in Hawaii.” Von Damitz continues, “The key question to consider is: Will people buying 10 percent Hawaii blends switch to buying 51 percent blends? We don’t think so. Will people buying 100 percent blends switch to buying 51 percent blends? Maybe, but probably not enough to compensate those who were buying 10 percent blends.”
The backlash illuminates a complicated issue. Yes, selling coffee under false pretenses is wrong. If roasters were advertising a coffee as single-origin but it was actually a blend—let alone advertising something high-quality like Gesha but with only 10 percent Gesha—people would be rightly outraged. But as it is, roasters could mislabel the coffee as Kona when it may actually be the smallest percentage of any coffee in the bag, allowing them to sell their product at a much more market-friendly price point that consumers have become accustomed to. If that price doubles or even triples, will it still be as attractive to consumers who are used to an artificially low price?
It’s a dichotomy of ideals versus impact. It’s clear that a change in the law is needed to protect both farmers and consumers, but how best to implement that change in a way that mitigates the negative impact remains an open question.
