A New Chapter in Coffee Processing: Are Additives Redefining Post-Harvest Identity?
As innovation surges in the specialty coffee sector, a critical debate is emerging around the use of additives and ingredients in post-harvest processes (PHP). What once was a straightforward path from cherry to green bean has become a complex web of microbial interventions, fermentation styles, and flavor engineering—raising questions about transparency, classification, and consumer expectations.
Ennio Cantergiani, Owner and Managing Director of l’Académie du Café – Switzerland, sheds light on this transformation, revealing that a dedicated meeting by the Specialty Coffee Association (SCA) is scheduled to take place in Houston at the end of April. The topic on the table: the evolving identity of green coffee and the role additives play in shaping its future.
Processing Aids or Flavor Modifiers?
At the heart of the discussion is the distinction between “processing aids” and “intentional flavor modifiers.” Processing aids are substances used to enhance efficiency and consistency in production—yet they are not meant to remain in the final product. Examples include yeasts and bacteria used to break down mucilage, enzymes that support fermentation, or antifoaming agents that prevent mechanical clogging during washing.
“If the primary intent behind using yeasts or bacteria is to increase batch consistency or improve machine performance, then these remain classified as processing aids,” Cantergiani explains. “But the moment the goal shifts toward influencing flavor, the nature of the process—and its classification—must change.”
This distinction is more than semantic. It affects traceability, labeling, and the ethical standards of the specialty coffee industry.
Fermentation Without Additives: Still a Grey Zone?
Processes like anaerobic fermentation and carbonic maceration add further complexity. Though they do not rely on external ingredients (except the controlled use of CO₂ in carbonic maceration), their primary goal is flavor modulation.
“These methods cannot be categorized under processing aids,” notes Cantergiani. “They represent deliberate fermentation strategies and must be clearly identified as such—whether anaerobic or carbonic.”
In essence, what defines the process is not the presence of microorganisms alone, but the intention behind their use.
A Need for Clearer Standards
As producers experiment with infused coffees, co-fermentation, and gas-solid interactions to create distinct flavor profiles, the need for a unified industry lexicon has become urgent. The SCA’s upcoming meeting is expected to address these ambiguities and push toward clearer definitions that separate traditional PHPs from modern, ingredient-based innovations.
Cantergiani emphasizes that further categories—such as “infused coffees,” “mosto-infused,” “co-fermented,” and “flavored coffees”—require their own criteria and discussions, which he plans to explore in future publications.
What’s at Stake?
With the specialty coffee sector striving to uphold transparency, traceability, and ethical standards, the increasing use of additives in PHPs may challenge the very identity of “natural” or “clean” coffee. At the same time, the potential to enhance flavor, value, and consistency remains an attractive prospect for producers navigating climate change, market volatility, and shifting consumer demands.
The path forward, it seems, lies not in restricting innovation—but in clarifying it.
