New Law Requires There Must Be More Kona in Your Kona Coffee. Will it hurt farmers?

In January, we reported on a new bill proposed by Hawaii lawmakers that would require more Kona to be included in a bag of Kona coffee. The law at the time only required that at least 10% of a coffee be Kona coffee to be labeled as such. The rest could be… whatever. This law has since been passed and requires that a coffee must be 51% Hawaiian to carry such a label. But some in the Hawaii coffee industry are concerned about the negative impact the legislation will have on farmers.

As SF Gate reports, the law is not scheduled to come into effect until 2027 and was proposed to protect both consumers from misleading marketing and manufacturers from a watered-down product. Some, like Rep. Nicole Lowen, who introduced the bill, see it as a win. “The percentage of Kona coffee required to be labeled as Kona should be 100%, but given that this is the first advance in this area in more than 30 years, it is a big win.”

Still others are concerned about the actual impact of the law. Shawn Steiman of Coffea Consulting and Grok Coffee notes that while he is “philosophical for” the law, 100% Hawaiian coffee is already on the market and people still gravitate toward watered-down coffee. If these coffees now have to contain five times as much Hawaiian coffee, they will likely also come with a higher price tag, which could turn off consumers.

“If it’s about passing a law that says we believe in this product and its identity, then do that,” Steiman said. “51% say, ‘We want to be honest, but we don’t want the economy to collapse around us.’ It’s like a hedge. That’s how it seems to me. The philosophy is that this is an identity that we protect. Then let’s protect it. Then just say: 100% local is the way it has to be sold.”

This opinion is shared by Brandon von Damitz, owner of the specialty roastery Big Island Coffee. “While we commend the approach and efforts, in our opinion the study did not adequately support the positive economic impact of increasing the minimum required percentage of coffee grown in Hawaii.” Von Damitz continues: “The most important question to consider , is: Will people who buy 10% Hawaiian blends switch to buying 51% blends? We don’t believe that. Will people who buy 100% move to also buy 51%? Maybe, but probably not enough to compensate those who used to buy 10% blends.”

The reaction sheds light on a complicated issue. Because yes, selling coffee under false pretenses is bad. If a roaster marketed a coffee as single-origin coffee but it was actually a blend – let alone marketed something high quality like a Gesha but only contained 10% Gesha – people would be right in turmoil. But as it stands, roasters have managed to brand coffee – admittedly misleadingly – as Kona, when in fact it makes up the smallest proportion of all coffees in a bag, which has allowed them to sell their product at a much cheaper market price Consumers have gotten used to this. If that price doubles or even triples, will it still be as attractive to consumers accustomed to artificially low prices?

It is the dichotomy of ideals versus impact. It is clear that a change in the law is needed to protect both farmers and consumers, but how best to implement this change to mitigate the negative impacts remains an open question.

Zac Cadwalader is managing editor at Sprudge Media Network and a staff writer based in Dallas. Read more about Zac Cadwalader on Sprudge.