A bill to set tighter limits on using Hawaii location names to sell coffee is headed to its final committee this legislative session.
House Bill 1517 passed with amendments a joint Senate committee on Energy, Economic Development, and Tourism and Agriculture and Environment Monday afternoon, sending it to a joint committee on Ways and Means and Commerce and Consumer Protection, its final assigned committee this legislative session.
The measure would require coffee blend labels to disclose geographic and regional origins and percentage by weight of the blended coffees. It would also prohibit using geographic origins of coffee in labeling or advertising for roasted or instant coffee that contains less than a certain percentage of coffee by weight from that geographic origin, phased in to a minimum of 51%.
Currently, state law allows distributors to use Hawaii names, such as Kona, Kauai or Ka‘u, on products that include as little as 10% of coffee from the named region. The state law, first passed in 1991 to protect Kona coffee was expanded to all Hawaiian grown coffee in 2001. Efforts since to increase the minimum percentage have been unsuccessful through a measure in 2019 came close, but died in its final Senate committee.
House Bill 1517, as passed by senators Monday, came with the amendment that a study be conducted to see what the “pluses and minuses” are of requiring blends to be 51% or higher.
“For a more prudent approach, we’d like to recommend that we do a study to see what exactly are going to be the pluses and minuses of making these changes to labelling as well as composition,” said Sen. Glenn Wakai (D-Oahu).
Dozens of individuals and groups submitted testimony for Monday’s hearing with 58 in support and eight opposed.
“I’m proud to say I am addicted to 100% Kona coffee,” said Lynne Matusow, a consumer, in written testimony. “Proud to say I get my fix from a subscription which keeps me supplied. Mislabeling is a travesty and hurts our local coffee growers/ farmers. I urge you to move this bill forward.”
Even large corporations, such as Cyanotech, a publicly traded company in Kailua-Kona, also supported the passage of HB1517.
“As a grower of microalgae for dietary supplements on the island of Hawaii, we are proud of and know the value of labeling and advertising Hawaii-grown products,” Jen Johansen, VP Quality, Regulatory and Government Affairs, wrote in testimony. “Cyanotech corporation supports HB1517 and increasing the percentage of coffee grown in Kona, Hawaii from 10% to 51% in order to use geographical names such as Kona on the labels of this specialty agriculture product.”
When it came to opposition, the state Department of Agriculture said that it didn’t have the proper “technology” to test the DNA, or, origin of coffee products.
“We have a concern that the technology hasn’t caught up with desired intent of the bill and we lack the commercial technology available to enforce the source of origin data that needs to be verified,” a spokesperson for the Department said during Wednesday’s hearing.
Blenders, like the Hawaii Coffee Company, also stood in opposition to the bill, claiming local restaurants would no longer be able to afford Kona coffee that was 100% Kona.
“By eliminating certain blends, the effect would be ultimately would make coffee less available for local restaurants recovering from Covid. Were concerned about the coffee market,” the company said.
The amendment to the bill came after individuals in opposition to the bill recommended that a study be conducted first to see how the market would be impacted.
“I strongly feel that any changes without an economic impact study would send the industry into an economic downward spiral” said Gloria Given, of Royal Kona Coffee.
According to the National Agricultural Statistics Service, coffee utilized production was up 17% from last season with a forecast of 26.7 million pounds of cherry for the 2021-22 season. Bearing acreage totaled 7,100 acres, up 300 acres from the previous year, with an average yield at 3,820 pounds of cherry per acre, up 310 pounds.
The 2021-22 value was up from $48.38 million in 2020-21 and $54.3 million in 2019-20.
