Crafting a clearer language for specialty coffee processing

The world of specialty coffee has undergone a profound transformation, moving from a niche market to a global phenomenon. At its heart lies the intricate process of transforming a coffee cherry into the bean that eventually graces our cups. Historically, coffee processing methods were broadly categorized into a few established techniques: Washed (Wet), Natural (Dry), and Honey (Pulped Natural/Semi-Washed). These foundational methods primarily differ in the extent to which the coffee cherry fruit is removed before the crucial drying stage.

The washed process, for instance, involves removing the outer skin and pulp, followed by a fermentation step to break down the sticky mucilage, which is then thoroughly washed off. This method typically yields a clean, bright cup with pronounced acidity, and it remains the predominant method for producing high-quality coffee in many regions. In contrast, the natural process, considered the oldest method, involves drying the entire coffee cherry intact. This allows the coffee bean to absorb flavors directly from the surrounding fruit, resulting in a coffee with bold, fruity, and full-bodied characteristics. The honey process acts as a hybrid, where only the skin is removed and the mucilage is intentionally left on the bean during the drying process. This technique aims to impart increased sweetness and a balanced flavor profile, with the "honey" referring to the sticky texture of the beans, not an added flavor.

However, the pursuit of distinctive flavor profiles has spurred a rapid expansion beyond these traditional methods. Producers are increasingly experimenting with innovative and experimental techniques, often drawing inspiration from other industries, notably winemaking. Techniques such as “Anaerobic Fermentation”, which involves processing in oxygen-deprived environments, have gained significant traction. “Carbonic Maceration”, another wine-inspired method, involves fermenting whole coffee cherries in CO2-filled tanks. Other emerging methods include “Thermal Shock”, where cherries are exposed to sudden temperature changes to alter bean structure, and “Yeast Inoculation”, where specific microbial strains are added to guide fermentation.

The proliferation of these novel processing methods has outpaced the development of clear, standardized terminology. This creates a significant challenge for the industry, as many new terms are informal, imprecise, or even obscure. The existing, simpler descriptive frameworks are often insufficient to capture the increasing complexity of these innovative techniques. This rapid evolution in processing, driven by the desire for unique and intense flavor experiences, directly contributes to the current terminological confusion across the supply chain. Without a shared, precise language, the nuances of these advanced methods are easily lost, creating a "lexicon labyrinth" for both seasoned professionals and enthusiastic newcomers.

Deconstructing ambiguous and redundant terms

Examining specific terms reveals how the language used can obscure the underlying scientific principles and practical methodologies.

The term "fermentation" itself, while central to coffee processing, is frequently used without sufficient precision. Scientifically, fermentation is defined as the metabolically and enzymatically induced energy extraction from carbohydrates, in the absence of oxygen". It is a critical biochemical process involving various microorganisms, including yeasts, bacteria, and fungi, which break down sugars, primarily from the mucilage, to produce a wide array of flavor precursors and compounds. A significant ambiguity arises because fermentation occurs to some extent in virtually all coffee processing methods, even in washed coffees, where it is a brief step to facilitate mucilage removal. However, when the term "fermented coffee" is used, it often implies an intentional, extended, or inoculated fermentation, creating confusion about the distinction between a baseline, inherent process and a deliberately modified one. Furthermore, the common assumption that fermentation only occurs within "fermentation tanks" is incorrect, as the process can begin the moment the coffee cherry's integrity is compromised, such as during the picking process. This broad application of "fermentation" can lead to redundancy, as terms like "fermented naturals" may not add clarity if fermentation is already an inherent part of the natural process.

The Honey process, while widely recognized, also suffers from ambiguity. This method involves removing the coffee cherry's skin and pulp, but intentionally leaving the mucilage on the bean during drying. The specific degree of mucilage left on the seed is a deliberate choice made after the pulping stage. The sub-categories, such as Yellow, Red, and Black Honey, vaguely describe the amount of mucilage retained and the drying conditions, which in turn influence the fermentation duration and the resulting flavor profile. These drying conditions can include factors like bed depth, temperature, and relative humidity, all of which significantly impact the final characteristics and color of the beans. However, the specific percentages of mucilage removal or precise drying protocols for each "color" are often not standardized across producers, leading to inconsistencies in what each designation truly represents. Additionally, terms like "Pulped Natural" and "Semi-Washed" are frequently used synonymously with "Honey". While these terms may have had distinct origins, their practical application has largely converged, rendering multiple terms for essentially the same outcome redundant.

Anaerobic Fermentation and Carbonic Maceration are prime examples of terms adopted from winemaking that, when applied to coffee, introduce significant ambiguity. Anaerobic Fermentation broadly refers to processing in an oxygen-free or oxygen-deprived environment, typically in sealed tanks. While this condition profoundly influences microbial activity and flavor compounds, the term "anaerobic" itself offers little clarity on whether the coffee was pulped before or after, or if other agents were added. Carbonic Maceration is a more specific form of modified atmosphere involving whole coffee cherries in a CO2-rich, sealed tank, where internal fermentation breaks down the fruit. The vagueness of "anaerobic" as a blanket term makes it difficult to understand the actual process or predict the resulting flavor profile with precision.

The ambiguity in coffee processing terminology frequently stems from using process outcomes or sensory descriptors as process names, rather than accurately describing the methodology itself. For example, "Honey" refers to a sticky texture, not a flavor, yet it implies sweetness. "Anaerobic" describes an environmental condition (lack of oxygen) but is used as a process name without specifying

how that environment is achieved or what other steps are involved. This conflation of sensory or physical outcomes with the actual processing steps creates a fundamental lack of clarity, making it challenging to categorize or replicate processes scientifically.

A significant contributor to this vagueness is the absence of standardized definitions for "controlled" and "modified" fermentation. The current imprecise usage of terms like "anaerobic" arises because they often fail to specify what degree of control was exerted or at what specific stage in the process these conditions were applied. Without a foundational, agreed-upon scientific classification of fermentation types (such as spontaneous, controlled, and inoculated), these more specific, innovative terms remain ill-defined and open to misinterpretation.

Furthermore, the direct adoption of terminology from other industries, such as winemaking, without clear, coffee-specific adaptation, adds to the confusion and can misrepresent the underlying science. Carbonic maceration, for example, is explicitly "borrowed from winemaking". While cross-industry inspiration is valuable for innovation, simply transplanting terms can be problematic. Coffee cherries, their cellular structure, mucilage composition, and the subsequent drying and roasting processes differ significantly from wine grapes. Applying a term like "carbonic maceration" without a precise, coffee-specific definition that accounts for these differences can lead to misunderstandings about the actual biochemical transformations occurring and the resulting flavor profiles. This highlights a need for careful scientific adaptation and definition, rather than mere adoption, to ensure accuracy within the coffee context.

The following table further illustrates these common ambiguities and redundancies:

Commonly confused coffee processing terms

How Unclear Terminology Impacts the Coffee Community

The ambiguities and redundancies in coffee processing terminology have a cascading effect, creating significant challenges across various segments of the specialty coffee community. This lack of clarity undermines fundamental principles of transparency, quality, and fair value that define the specialty coffee movement.

Consumers, who are increasingly interested in the origins and characteristics of their coffee, often find themselves navigating a confusing landscape. Many consumers admit to having "zero clue about coffee processing methods" beyond basic terms like "natural processed" and "washed". Vague or misleading labels can prevent them from making informed purchasing decisions, as they may be "confused about the source" or the true nature of the coffee they are buying. A core tenet of consumer rights is the ability to choose, and the absence of clear terminology hinders this fundamental right, especially when distinguishing between traditionally processed coffees and those that have undergone novel processing methods. 

In the realm of trade and market efficiencies, the impact is substantial. The absence of clear, standardized terminology and regulation for green coffee, particularly for novel processing methods, introduces considerable ambiguity into commercial transactions. 

This indicates existing difficulties in consistent product description and fair valuation in international trade. The differing classification systems across various countries, which often focus on factors like bean size, density, or defect count rather than processing methodology, further impede effective communication and comparison of coffee quality in a global marketplace. 

Quality assessment and education are also significantly affected. Professional cuppers face a daunting task, as without precise processing information, objective assessment becomes challenging, forcing cuppers to rely on subjective interpretation. This is particularly true for coffees whose sensory profiles differ chemically and sensorially from the product obtained by traditional controlled processes. This divergence complicates traditional cupping protocols that often rely on origin characteristics. Furthermore, the lack of standardized language makes it difficult to explain these systems in detail for educators, leading to confusion among students and hindering effective knowledge transfer within the industry. The Specialty Coffee Association (SCA) is addressing this by updating its evaluation system with the Coffee Value Assessment (CVA), aiming for a more scientific and transparent approach that includes processing methods. However, the very act of introducing this "entirely new paradigm"  underscores the existing lack of consensus and the challenge of shifting established practices.

The current terminological chaos fundamentally undermines the very principles of specialty coffee transparency, quality, and fair value. Specialty coffee is defined by its distinctive attributes and higher value, emphasizing quality, fair trade, and ethical sourcing. However, the widespread consumer confusion, the critical need for clear regulation in green coffee trade, and the challenges for professional cuppers in consistent quality assessment directly contradict these ideals. If the language used to describe processing is vague, it becomes impossible to reliably communicate the distinctive attributes that justify higher value. This situation conflicts with the stated goals of the specialty coffee movement, potentially eroding trust and hindering equitable practices across the entire supply chain.

Moreover, the absence of a unified global classification system directly leads to inefficiencies and potential exploitation within the supply chain, particularly disadvantaging farmers. There is currently no system considered standard or widely available for green coffee classification, and no universal grading and classification system exists. This lack of uniformity hinders the inspection and control of goods during the import and export process and complicates education and training. The direct consequence is that objectively comparing coffee quality becomes more difficult, leading to inconsistencies in pricing and trade. Ultimately, when processing terms are vague, producers who invest in innovative and meticulous processing methods may not receive adequate recognition or premium for their efforts, as the true value and complexity of their work can be obscured by generic or ambiguous labels. This disincentivizes further innovation and investment in quality at the farm level.

A scientific framework for processing terminology

To address the pervasive terminological confusion in coffee processing, a structured, science-based approach is essential. Such a framework would move beyond vague descriptors to classify processes based on the precise scientific principles and interventions involved.

A robust classification system should begin by maintaining the established "Washed," "Natural," and "Honey" categories as primary process types, as these broadly define the initial fruit removal stage. However, these primary categories would then be enhanced with modifiers that precisely describe the subsequent environmental controls and intentional interventions. The "four main levers" that producers can manipulate, variations on pulp/skin removal, environment, inoculations/additives, and time/contact, provide a strong foundation for these modifiers.

For environmental control, clear distinctions are needed. Terms like "Aerobic" (with oxygen) and "Anaerobic" (without oxygen) should be used as modifiers to describe the oxygen presence during fermentation, rather than as standalone process names. This would clarify the specific environmental conditions. Similarly, "Carbonic Maceration" should be recognized as a distinct method involving whole cherries in a CO2-rich, sealed environment. Additionally, "Controlled Fermentation” should be adopted to denote processes where variables like temperature are actively monitored and regulated, contrasting with spontaneous fermentation.

Regarding microbial and additive control, precise terminology is crucial. "Inoculated Fermentation" should be used when specific bacteria or fungi (starter cultures) are intentionally added to manage the microbial population. This specifies the microbial agents driving the process. Methods like "Thermal Shock," which involve sudden temperature changes as a pre-fermentation treatment, should also be recognized as distinct interventions. Finally, multi-stage or hybrid processes, such as "Anaerobic Washed" or "double washed," should be clearly described by sequencing the methods involved.

The processing methods themselves must be described with scientific rigor, allowing for consistent evaluation and comparison across the supply chain, moving beyond vague subjective interpretations of quality.

A standardized lexicon, rooted in scientific principles, can empower producers to better articulate their unique processes and capture more equitable value, fostering innovation rather than obscuring it. When processing terms are vague, the intricate and often labor-intensive work of producers in developing unique flavor profiles is not fully recognized or compensated. A clear, scientific lexicon would enable producers to precisely describe their methods, for example, "Controlled fermentation with specific yeast strain X," or "Anaerobic, submerged fermentation at Y temperature for Z hours," directly linking their process to the resulting chemical composition and sensory attributes. This transparency would ensure that farmers are rewarded for their innovative techniques, fostering a more equitable and sustainable supply chain.

The proposed lexicon elements would follow a structured approach:

Proposed coffee processing classification framework

Example Application of Proposed Lexicon:

• Instead of: "Anaerobic Natural"

• Proposed: "Natural Process, Anaerobic Fermentation (Whole Cherry, Sealed Tank, 72 hrs)"

This structured approach provides a common language for describing complex processes, reducing ambiguity and promoting clearer dialogue across the supply chain, from producer to consumer. It serves as a valuable educational tool for newcomers, helping them grasp the nuances of processing in an organized manner, and encourages innovation while ensuring transparency about the methods used, especially regarding external additives.

Overcoming challenges in terminology adoption

Implementing new terminology across an entire industry, especially one as diverse and tradition-rich as specialty coffee, presents significant challenges. Resistance to change is a natural human and organizational response, often stemming from fear, uncertainty, or a perceived loss of control. The introduction of new standards, such as the SCA's Coffee Value Assessment (CVA), has already faced some criticism for potentially "blurring the lines" between what was traditionally considered "specialty" and other coffees, indicating a cultural attachment to existing definitions. Cultural food norms are deeply ingrained, linked to cultural identity, social cohesion, and emotional attachment, making shifts in how coffee is understood and described particularly challenging. Overcoming this resistance requires a multi-faceted approach that acknowledges emotions, creates a sense of urgency, involves stakeholders early in the process, and provides comprehensive training and support.

The power of education is a critical component in driving this change. Targeted training programs, are particularly crucial to educate producers, as the allure of new trends in the coffee scene can sometimes lead them to adopt novel processing methods without a full grasp of the underlying scientific principles or what they are truly doing. Educational materials must be accessible, translating complex scientific concepts into engaging content for a diverse audience, including newcomers and consumers. This means actively avoiding jargon, utilizing analogies, and focusing on the broader relevance of the information. Specific efforts are also needed to educate farmers on new processing terms and best practices, recognizing that language barriers and differing local classification systems pose unique challenges. Cooperative Extension programs in agriculture offer valuable models for disseminating knowledge through practical training and fostering peer-to-peer interaction among farmers. For consumers, clear labeling and communication are paramount to inform them about processing methods and ingredients, enabling them to make truly informed choices.

Fostering collaboration among all stakeholders is equally vital. Robust stakeholder engagement forms the foundation for transparency and building trust across the supply chain. This involves identifying key groups, producers, roasters, importers, educators, consumers, certifiers, and non-governmental organizations and tailoring communication and engagement strategies to their specific needs and preferences. Organizations like the SCA, with its Standards Development Panel, play a crucial role in facilitating consensus among these diverse stakeholders. Their development process emphasizes user-focused development, inclusiveness, research-based development, and transparency. Establishing clear and open lines of communication, actively encouraging feedback, and involving stakeholders in decision-making processes, perhaps through committees or task forces, are critical steps for building buy-in and a sense of ownership over the new terminology.

Agricultural terminology standardization initiatives have successfully fostered consistent language to improve dialogue and convey best management practices among farmers, researchers, and advisors. These efforts often involve collaborative work between professional organizations and research communities, linking new vocabulary to daily farm operations, and actively addressing language barriers by designing common systems and translating standards.

Successful adoption of new terminology hinges on a multi-pronged communication strategy that addresses both the rational (scientific benefits, economic value) and emotional/cultural (tradition, fear of change) aspects of the community. Resistance to change is a well-documented phenomenon, and in coffee, it is compounded by cultural attachments to traditional practices and the subjective nature of taste. Simply presenting scientific facts about new terms may not be enough. Lessons from food safety and agricultural standardization demonstrate that success is achieved through clear, consistent communication, building trust, and demonstrating tangible benefits. Effective communication strategies emphasize understanding the audience, avoiding jargon, being relatable, and employing storytelling. This means the coffee industry must frame the terminology shift not just as a scientific necessity, but as a pathway to greater transparency, equity, and a stronger, more resilient community, directly addressing underlying anxieties and cultural resistance.

Investing in accessible, practical education and training programs for all levels of the supply chain, from farmers to consumers, is a direct prerequisite for widespread terminology adoption and ensures that proposed standards are truly implementable. The current landscape reveals significant educational gaps, from consumers having "zero clue" about processing to instructors finding it "difficult to explain" multiple grading systems. Farmers face language barriers and require practical guidance on new techniques. Successful standardization in other food and agricultural sectors explicitly relies on "regular training", "employee training", and "disseminating technologies and knowledge to farmers". This indicates that merely

proposing new terms is insufficient; there must be a robust, well-funded, and culturally sensitive mechanism for teaching and reinforcing these terms and their underlying science across the entire, diverse coffee value chain. Without this comprehensive educational effort, adoption will remain limited and inconsistent, hindering the industry's progress.

A shared language, a stronger community
The specialty coffee community stands at a pivotal moment. To navigate the complexities of modern processing and ensure a thriving, equitable future, a collective commitment to developing and adopting a standardized, science-based lexicon for processing methods is imperative. This endeavor demands sustained collaboration among all stakeholders: producers, roasters, importers, educators, consumers, and influential industry organizations. It necessitates significant investment in accessible education and communication strategies that effectively bridge scientific complexity with practical understanding and cultural acceptance across diverse communities. By embracing this fundamental shift, the specialty coffee world can move beyond the buzzwords to establish a clearer, more precise language that strengthens communication, fosters innovation, and ensures a more transparent and equitable future for everyone involved in the journey of coffee.