[HN Gopher] Sustainable coffee grown in Finland with cellular ag...
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Sustainable coffee grown in Finland with cellular agriculture
        
       Author : mjul
       Score  : 146 points
       Date   : 2021-09-26 09:47 UTC (13 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (www.vttresearch.com)
 (TXT) w3m dump (www.vttresearch.com)
        
       | hahamrfunnyguy wrote:
       | I've recently started making dandelion coffee, which is prepared
       | by chopping up the roots and roasting them. It tastes similar to
       | coffee. It has nutty, roasty and flowery flavors. I'd say it's
       | less complex than a quality roasted coffee, but it has a nice
       | flavor. It doesn't have any unpleasant flavor like really cheap
       | coffees (Maxwell House, Chase and Sanborn, Folgers, etc). I think
       | if you gave most people this and told them it was coffee, they
       | wouldn't argue with you.
        
       | rapsey wrote:
       | Funny it is Finland to come up with this. Since they are known
       | for having god-awful coffee:
       | https://www.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/9bqiil/macrons_reac...
        
         | Tuna-Fish wrote:
         | That's clearly part of our competitive advantage here.
         | 
         | Because initial bioreactor coffee is probably worse than
         | naturally grown varieties, you need a market that will accept
         | that before you can get the kind of scale that will drive
         | future improvement.
         | 
         | Or something.
        
           | darthrupert wrote:
           | You would think that, but the problem is that Finns like
           | their coffee the way it is.
        
       | thatcat wrote:
       | The paper referenced was written in 1974 and concludes with "The
       | typical aromatic characteristics of roasted coffee can be
       | obtained from roasted coffee cells which have been derived from
       | cultures maintained in active culture at least one year. Cell
       | populations eventually appear to lose their ability to produce
       | coffee precursors. The reason for this coffee culture roasting
       | aroma instability is unknown although one obvious explanation
       | could be cell selection from an initial possible heterogeneous
       | cell population..."
       | 
       | I wonder what changes have been made in this iteration of
       | research or if there has even been any improvement.
        
       | eurasiantiger wrote:
       | This is not that surprising. Most of the psychoactive Harmala
       | alkaloids in coffee are formed during roasting; typically by
       | pyrolytic breakdown and cyclization of tryptophan. So, naturally,
       | if the psychoactive effects are the same, the taste will be
       | perceived as the same.
        
         | 0_____0 wrote:
         | Sorry, this is fascinating but I'm not finding the info I want
         | to via search. What alkaloids do you mean? I'm guessing not
         | just caffeine?
        
           | eurasiantiger wrote:
           | Harmala alkaloids, most abundantly harman and norharman.
        
         | hutzlibu wrote:
         | "So, naturally, if the psychoactive effects are the same, the
         | taste will be perceived as the same."
         | 
         | I have no idea about the rest of your statement, but of all the
         | substances I know, taste and psychoactive effect are not at all
         | the same. They maybe influence each other, yes, but the
         | sensoric taste is a different input than the internal effects
         | of the stimulant.
        
           | eurasiantiger wrote:
           | IIRC it has been shown that all taste preferences are
           | acquired based on individual neurophysiological responses to
           | taste stimuli; in other words, internal effects dictate
           | external preferences.
        
             | andi999 wrote:
             | So that is the thing called 'acquired taste'?
        
             | hutzlibu wrote:
             | Where was this shown?
             | 
             | No doubt there is influence, but on the first time use,
             | flavor comes before the effect.
        
               | eurasiantiger wrote:
               | It was a study in a respectable journal, but
               | unfortunately I cannot recall more.
               | 
               | Obviously one cannot have a preference for something they
               | haven't had.
        
               | hutzlibu wrote:
               | But isn't then the "aquired taste" linked to that
               | specific sensory input? So even though your brain likes
               | substance x in the new coffee - it cannot connect it when
               | drinking something that tastes different on first try,
               | even though might have the same effect.
        
               | eurasiantiger wrote:
               | That's the thing--taste is intimately linked with effect.
               | Every coffee drinker will notice if someone switches
               | brands on them.
               | 
               | That's also why people with certain CYP3A4 variants
               | dislike the taste of CYP3A4-inhibiting foods such as
               | grapefruit, and people with certain variants absolutely
               | love them.
               | 
               | CYP3A4 is a _liver enzyme_ responsible for metabolising
               | human sex hormones, as well as most pharmaceutical and
               | recreational drugs, including caffeine.
        
               | eurasiantiger wrote:
               | Here's a source clearly demonstrating that taste has not
               | been selected for in our evolution, but effect on CYP3A4
               | has: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12862-019
               | -1366-7
        
       | 0_____0 wrote:
       | Big if true. Coffee is one of the world's most traded commodities
       | by value, and the sourcing ethics are often pretty shaky.
       | 
       | I think it's sort of funny that they called out the flavor as
       | tasting like "ordinary coffee," since people in my experience are
       | extremely fussy about their brew.
       | 
       | By using bioreactor output, they're starting with something like
       | a powder of plant cells, and finding a way to roast it -- this
       | seems like it would create quite a different result to whole-bean
       | roasting, I am very curious what kind of parameters they will
       | have to adjust with the coffee cells (genetic modification to
       | increase certain alkaloids, oils, etc?) and roasting process.
       | 
       | edit: I think it's extremely funny that my comment about people
       | being fussy about coffee has inspired a whole series of replies
       | with opinions about coffee, as well as opinions of other people's
       | opinions
        
         | [deleted]
        
         | rebuilder wrote:
         | I mean, they said it "bears a similarity to ordinary coffee",
         | which is pretty broad language, if you ask me.
        
         | [deleted]
        
         | smoe wrote:
         | Are people that fuzzy? Of course I know my share of people that
         | really obsess over it, own all the gear and everything in the
         | process is strictly weighted, timed and temperature controlled.
         | 
         | But most people seem to primarily care about it tasting as they
         | are used to whatever level of quality that might be. So making
         | a coffee that tastes "ordinary" seems a sensible target.
        
         | paavohtl wrote:
         | > since people in my experience are extremely fussy about their
         | brew
         | 
         | Finns drink the most coffee per capita in the world [1] but
         | that coffee tends to be of a pretty low quality. For some
         | people "good coffee" means it has been roasted so dark that it
         | mostly tastes bitter and burnt. Other people don't really care
         | what the coffee tastes like, as long as it's black (and they
         | put so much milk in it that it mostly tastes of milk) and warm-
         | ish. So it is entirely possible the scientists conducting this
         | experiments aren't the best at judging the actual quality of
         | the coffee.
         | 
         | [1] https://www.universitymagazine.ca/countries-that-consume-
         | the...
        
           | timonoko wrote:
           | I started drinking coffee only in Mexico. It tasted less
           | bitter than Finnish coffee and did not cause stomach
           | problems. I do not remember the brand, but "ESTO SUAVE" was
           | the blurb.
        
           | Nokinside wrote:
           | Traditionally Finns love coffee that is extremely lightly
           | roasted, and is the finest quality (and highest caffeine
           | content). You don't find the preference for so light roasts
           | anywhere else.
           | 
           | The bulk blend that Finns consume in large quantities "Paulig
           | Juhla Mokka" is made from high quality beans.
           | 
           | Young people have started drinking more dark roasted blends,
           | similar to coffees in Sweden and rest of the Europe. Swedish
           | coffee taste is completely different. Dark roast all over.
        
             | anonuser123456 wrote:
             | >and is the finest quality (and highest caffeine content).
             | 
             | Robusta has the highest caffeine content but is generally
             | inferior to arabica.
        
             | quijoteuniv wrote:
             | " and is the finest quality (and highest caffeine
             | content)." If is of the finest quality, means is arabica or
             | other sort, which do not have the highest caffeine. Robusta
             | type, which is cheaper to produce, has double the caffeine,
             | (one of the reasons resist bugs) . Robusta has typically
             | all the unwanted flavours of coffee, earthy & rubberish.
             | Italians have traditionally added robusta to their blend
             | for expresso shots because of the extra smack they get from
             | the added caffeine (and probably to save money/make more
             | money, this is my opinion)
        
               | abakker wrote:
               | Robusta will produce a nicer crema on espresso, too.
        
               | eurasiantiger wrote:
               | It's not just the caffeine; Robusta and Arabica have
               | different amounts of other psychoactives.
               | 
               | "Norharman and harman are formed during coffee roasting,
               | and Robusta coffee has higher amounts than Arabica."
               | 
               | https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B978012
               | 409...
        
             | paavohtl wrote:
             | > Traditionally Finns love coffee that is extremely lightly
             | roasted
             | 
             | No, not really. It's called light roast here, but my
             | understanding is that compared to actual light roasts (e.g
             | speciality coffees from smaller roasters) most coffees tend
             | be actually closer to medium or even dark roasts. Good
             | quality light roasts taste of their origin characteristics
             | (coffee from different places tends to taste different, who
             | would've guessed) and they are closer to acidic than
             | bitter.
        
               | Nokinside wrote:
               | Heh. I think you go little carried out with you coffee
               | enthusiasm.
               | 
               | It's called light roast here and everywhere. I challenge
               | you to find any place on earth where normal people (not
               | coffee connoisseurs) drink lighter roast.
        
               | paavohtl wrote:
               | I'm not claiming that people of any nation in particular
               | drink lighter roasted coffee, or even that Finland is
               | exceptional in this regard. It's not a competition. I'm
               | arguing that on the whole spectrum of coffee roasting,
               | even Finnish supposedly light roasted coffee is not very
               | light at all.
        
             | darthrupert wrote:
             | Juhla Mokka is mediocre quality, cheap coffee.
        
             | yason wrote:
             | Finns "love" light roasts because they're accustomed to it
             | (except many of younger generations) and why they're
             | accustomed is supposedly because a long time ago coffee was
             | expensive and if you roasted it only a little you would
             | obtain more coffee when measured in plain volume--with no
             | regard to the actual taste.
             | 
             | I don't know how much of that is true but most typical
             | Finnish blends are light, bland, and bitter (eventhough
             | they're marketed as smooth...) but also cheap. The labels
             | calling brands "finest quality" in Finland is a very
             | relative matter: for decades the "finest" was probably
             | something that any country with a hint of a coffee culture
             | would've called crap.
             | 
             | I also don't know if I'm young enough but I've always like
             | dark roasts so the general kind doesn't even taste like
             | coffee in my mouth. Even as recently as maybe 20 years ago
             | there were only one or two semi-dark roasts on the market:
             | the situation has improved remarkably, however.
        
             | 2muchcoffeeman wrote:
             | _The bulk blend that Finns consume in large quantities
             | "Paulig Juhla Mokka" is made from high quality beans._
             | 
             | I looked it up. Looks like typical super market coffee to
             | me. Some of the big roasters produce a fairly decent blend.
             | They use good quality arabica. These guys are probably no
             | exception.
             | 
             | I've had the opportunity to get bags of coffee of a couple
             | of brands with a recent roast date. Within a one to two
             | weeks. Perfectly good. But get those beans through normal
             | supermarket supply chains and it doesn't matter how good
             | the coffee was, it'll be stale and taste bad by the time
             | you brew it. Even worse if the beans are pre-ground and
             | vacuum packed into bricks. I'd rather drink instant.
        
               | Nokinside wrote:
               | Yes. It's bulk coffee and cheap, not even close to best
               | coffees you can get vacuum packed.
               | 
               | It's still better than most bulk coffee you get from most
               | other super markets from the rest of the world.
        
               | paavohtl wrote:
               | The roast date is the important differentiator. Coffee
               | from major brands (such as the aforementioned Paulig) do
               | not include it. Rather, they have a best before date,
               | which can be literally years after the roasting. But I
               | guess the coffee can't get much worse after, as you said,
               | being pre-ground and vacuum packed into a brick.
        
           | darthrupert wrote:
           | Yep. It's just feeding the addiction. We're a nation of drug
           | addicts.
           | 
           | Funnily enough, mention the prospect of legal cannabis and
           | everybody goes berserk.
        
             | wrycoder wrote:
             | Coffee won't give you lung cancer.
        
               | chownie wrote:
               | Neither will cannabis. The consumption method is fully up
               | to user choice and in areas where it's legalized edibles
               | are commonplace.
        
               | wrycoder wrote:
               | What percentage of cannabis users do you estimate are
               | smokers? I'd guess 70%, but I'm not a user.
        
               | azinman2 wrote:
               | The trend is deeply the opposite. Most young people don't
               | smoke or use tobacco but increasingly do marijuana in one
               | form or the other.
        
           | snemvalts wrote:
           | I've started to move from pre-ground Paulig (finnish brand)
           | to grinding my own beans. Just while reading this post,
           | drinking the left-over Paulig made me wonder if I have COVID.
           | Very little smell and taste compared to freshly ground
           | Italian beans, made even worse by the oxidation.
        
             | aaron_m04 wrote:
             | I'm not sure if you were serious, but losing your sense of
             | smell due to COVID-19 is like turning off a light with a
             | light switch -- it was everything, all at once, at least
             | for me.
        
           | mkr-hn wrote:
           | I think it's because coffee is counterintuitive. People
           | assume a darker roast means stronger coffee (caffeine-wise)
           | when it's the opposite.
        
             | eurasiantiger wrote:
             | But it might actually be stronger coffee MAOI-wise.
        
           | eurasiantiger wrote:
           | Since coffee contains a large amount of MAOA inhibitors, the
           | difference in taste preference can be explained by different
           | MAOA variable number tandem repeat genotypes in the
           | population. From these, MAOA-LPR is the most widely studied,
           | and has been shown to be connected to criminality and violent
           | behavior--especially if paired with childhood maltreatment,
           | which tends to change the activity of MAOA by methylation,
           | which is a type of heritable epigenetic modification.
        
             | dunefox wrote:
             | What exactly does that mean?
        
               | eurasiantiger wrote:
               | Which part? It's very difficult to be both exact and
               | explain neurotransmitter systems in layman's terms.
               | 
               | You can take any of the terms used above, even whole
               | sentences, and enter them into Google to find further
               | information around the subject.
        
               | theshrike79 wrote:
               | So basically what you're saying that people's preference
               | for different types of coffee depend on their genes?
        
               | eurasiantiger wrote:
               | Yes.
        
               | wrycoder wrote:
               | The last part of your comment stated that coffee drinking
               | can reduce criminality in certain genotypes? If not,
               | could you rephrase it?
        
               | karaterobot wrote:
               | What they said was that people who exhibit criminal
               | behavior (especially those who were maltreated as
               | children) have a different experience tasting coffee. I
               | don't see any claim that drinking coffee reduces
               | criminality.
        
               | wrycoder wrote:
               | @eurasiantiger stated that studies show that MAOA-LPR has
               | been shown to be connected [positively?] to criminality
               | and violent behavior. I would expect that when
               | @eurasiantiger specifically links that to MAOA inhibitors
               | found in coffee, that means there is a linkage between
               | coffee inhibiting MAOA and criminality in certain
               | genotypes.
        
               | eurasiantiger wrote:
               | It was simply an expansion of that particular gene
               | variant, but yes, I would assume there _is_ a correlation
               | between coffee intake and impulsive crime in some
               | genetically predisposed subpopulations, but I cannot say
               | whether it is linear, nonlinear or perhaps inverse.
               | 
               | What I can definitely tell you is that there is a
               | positive correlation between heavy coffee intake (>= 8
               | cups per day) and suicidality. I assume that is the
               | result of the anxiogenic and impulsivity-increasing
               | actions of particular Harmala alkaloids, namely harman
               | and norharman.
               | 
               | https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1007614714579
        
               | scns wrote:
               | Coffee consumption can increase can increase ADD
               | symptoms, no idea why though. L-Theanin from green tea
               | can work in the opposite direction.
        
               | eurasiantiger wrote:
               | Yes, but the effect on coffee drinking preferences is not
               | limited to those engaging in crime: plenty of "normal"
               | people have these gene variants, and it's likely the
               | criminal outcomes don't manifest at all without childhood
               | abuse, or they manifest in non-violent ways, e.g. white-
               | collar crime or substance abuse.
        
         | dwighttk wrote:
         | "Similar to ordinary coffee"
        
           | 0_____0 wrote:
           | "He had found a Nutri-Matic machine which had provided him
           | with a plastic cup filled with a liquid that was almost, but
           | not quite, entirely unlike [coffee]."
        
         | foxfluff wrote:
         | > I think it's sort of funny that they called out the flavor as
         | tasting like "ordinary coffee," since people in my experience
         | are extremely fussy about their brew.
         | 
         | The average coffee drinker in Finland isn't really a coffee
         | snob. Mostly everyone just drinks the same handful of brands of
         | pre-ground coffee, drip brewed through a paper filter. You go
         | to a restaurant or a little bakery-cafe, you get the same
         | stuff. Not labeled, no choices to make, but everyone knows what
         | it is. It's just ordinary coffee.
        
       | temp00345 wrote:
       | I'm curious about several things:
       | 
       | - does this process require expensive equipment ?
       | 
       | - I assume you can apply this process to other cells/substances -
       | cocoa ? coca ? tobacco ? oranges ? potatoes ?
       | 
       | - if equipment became cheaper, could we envision people having a
       | device for cellular agriculture at home?
        
         | vletal wrote:
         | I would guess that it depends on the final product. This works
         | for coffee because it gets grinded to a fine powder. Cocoa
         | might work as well, tobacco for e-smokig, etc.
        
         | hybrid_cluster wrote:
         | - Yes, doing this at a meaningful scale will require large
         | bioreactors with a price tag of tens to hundreds of millions of
         | dollars. You will need LOTS of those reactors to get production
         | beyond 1% of the world's current coffee consumption.
         | 
         | - With all of these, one has to ask what the point is if the
         | bioreactor inputs are sugar (from plants) and other nutrients.
         | If you want sustainability benefits for X where X = plant-based
         | product, you're probably better off improving the current
         | agricultural practices of growing X rather than growing X in a
         | bioreactor.
         | 
         | - That's one of the loftier visions in biotech: decentralized
         | manufacturing of basically anything. Anything along the lines
         | of a convenient personal bioreactor currently seems like it
         | might as well be a century away or more, but I'd certainly be
         | an early adopter:)
        
       | arthur_sav wrote:
       | > Sustainable coffee
       | 
       | Is this code word for "it's gonna be trash"?
        
         | darthrupert wrote:
         | Not necessarily, rather it means at least double the price.
         | Obviously, since veing sustainable and fair is always more
         | expensive.
        
         | tomtimtall wrote:
         | Honestly curious, where in the world do you live? Equating
         | sustainable with lower quality is really odd to me and I don't
         | think anywhere at least in Northern Europe.
         | 
         | If companies are producing just to get the lowest cost, it ends
         | up being trash. Whenever anyone aims for sustainable products
         | it's obvious it will come at a higher price and quality becomes
         | essential. That's at least wha we see in all the sustainable
         | products here
        
           | arthur_sav wrote:
           | Sweden. We have replaced all our produce with lab grown GMOs
           | with no taste what so ever.
        
             | corroclaro wrote:
             | Ridiculous. The aspect of being genetically modified or not
             | has by itself no influence on parameters of taste. At the
             | local supermarket, you will be hard pressed to find "lab
             | grown GMOs" in any produce section - most of it is grown in
             | southern Sweden using traditional high yield crops (that
             | may taste like nothing for reasons of production).
             | 
             | The Swedish Food Agency[1] states that there are very few
             | genetically modified products on the market at all.
             | 
             | 1. https://www.livsmedelsverket.se/livsmedel-och-
             | innehall/genmo...
        
               | arthur_sav wrote:
               | It must be my imagination then.
               | 
               | Most of the produce in Sweden is imported. I do love my
               | seasonal berries though, they taste great. Everything
               | else, from tomatoes to letuce/cucumbers and other daily
               | produce taste like nothing.
               | 
               | You can try to refute that but it's a fact. I've lived in
               | the Mediterranean so i have something to compare against.
               | 
               | It's not normal to leave an apple on the counter and look
               | the same after a month.
        
       | Protostome wrote:
       | I don't think that growing coffee from cells will be scalable. It
       | suffers the same problems that the cultured meat industry
       | suffers.
       | 
       | Ultimately, the most cost-effective (energy and scalability-wise)
       | production method is synthesizing the aromatic molecules directly
       | without going through cell cultures.
        
         | patall wrote:
         | There a very different techniques of cell culture. For cultured
         | meat for example, the texture is very important which makes it
         | expensive as you have to grow large groups of cells. If that is
         | not necessary here, it will be much cheaper.
         | 
         | An example: Quorn, grown in bioreactors since 1985.
         | https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quorn
        
         | Jensson wrote:
         | Animal cells are very hard to keep alive since they are used to
         | having blood and oxygen constantly pumping, that makes them
         | expensive to farm. Plant cells on the other hand are very
         | robust and survives harsh conditions, they are way cheaper to
         | cultivate.
         | 
         | So if anything is worth artificial cultivation like this, it is
         | plants like Coffee where the part we eat is a very small part
         | of the whole plant. Then we can skip the rest of the coffee
         | plant and just grow the beans.
        
       | jjmellon wrote:
       | You have to laugh at the obligatory time-to-market estimates in
       | these lab-grown food articles: "I estimate we are only four years
       | away from ramping up production and having regulatory approval in
       | place."
       | 
       | It would be interesting to see what estimate was provided in the
       | 1974 article referenced in the piece.
        
         | intricatedetail wrote:
         | Not only the science may be the barrier, but also lobbyists -
         | if coffee plantations start paying for spreading ill rumours
         | aka you'll grow 3rd leg from lab coffee etc.
        
       | hybrid_cluster wrote:
       | > this project has been part of our overall endeavor to develop
       | the biotechnological production of daily and familiar commodities
       | that are conventionally produced by agriculture.
       | 
       | I'm afraid I have to call BS. The nutrient medium used to feed
       | the cell cultures will contain glucose or sucrose most likely
       | from industrially-grown corn or sugarcane as a carbon source and
       | other nutrients.
       | 
       | I.e. in this case biotech isn't getting rid of an agricultural
       | production process and magically replacing it with something
       | sustainable - it's simply shifting the agricultural supply chain
       | more upstream and out of view.
       | 
       | Could it still be more sustainable compared to traditional coffee
       | growing? I doubt it very much given all the input required to run
       | commercial-scale bioreactors. Those things are energy intensive,
       | produce waste water, and require complex nutrient broths and
       | sterility. If you're claiming sustainability benefits in such a
       | fuzzy situation, at least have an LCA to back up the claims.
       | 
       | What about commercial feasibility? Extremely unlikely. Most if
       | not all of the dealbreakers recently outlined in the context of
       | commercial-scale lab-grown meat will apply here too [0].
       | 
       | But perhaps they can bioengineer some novel coffee
       | characteristics unobtainable otherwise and sell it for $500 a
       | cup.
       | 
       | [0] https://thecounter.org/lab-grown-cultivated-meat-cost-at-
       | sca...
        
         | aaron695 wrote:
         | > The nutrient medium used to feed the cell cultures will
         | contain glucose or sucrose most likely from industrially-grown
         | corn or sugarcane as a carbon source and god knows what else.
         | 
         | Where exactly do you think people here think it comes from?
         | 
         | Sewerage, mining waste, asteroids?
         | 
         | Sure, in the dystopian future people will be drinking coffee
         | from stolen sewerage (it has the nutrients and energy). And in
         | a SolarPunk future assuming everyone one's not retarded like
         | now, you could mine it (coal and minerals also have the
         | nutrients and energy)
         | 
         | But currently we all know it's sugar and by "god knows what
         | else" are you referring to plants?
         | 
         | Sugar is 19 cents per lb
         | 
         | Coffee is about $1.93 per lb
         | 
         | In the world of the Environmental Complex controlled sheeple
         | that means nothing because it all has to lead to fear, but in
         | the napkin maths world of engineers it means coffee is very
         | intensive to grow compared to sugar, so there is a lot of
         | leeway.
         | 
         | Maybe it's too expense now, but it will mostly be done this way
         | within our lifetimes, and I don't see why it won't be sooner
         | rather than later.
        
         | hmsshagatsea wrote:
         | I know nothing of agriculture but I would think corn is much
         | more sustainable than coffee beans. So it's a step in the right
         | direction at least, isn't it?
        
         | thatcat wrote:
         | The PRL-4 media referenced is mostly the same macro and
         | micronutrients that all plants need plus a small amount of
         | sucrose (30 g/L) with 10% coconut milk added.
        
           | hybrid_cluster wrote:
           | Unfortunately, small amount of sugar = even smaller amount of
           | useful product. I.e. for all we know the yields/cell
           | densities (not reported) are so low that you need more land
           | to grow sugarcane and coconut trees than to grow the amount
           | of coffea plants needed for a similar amount coffee.
        
             | wbl wrote:
             | European sugar is from sugarbeet.
        
       | MomoXenosaga wrote:
       | It would be more sustainable if the poor countries that grow
       | coffee would also be the ones that profit from it. As it is the
       | big coffee factories are all in the rich West.
        
         | beebeepka wrote:
         | Almost as if slavery is still very much a thing.
         | 
         | Said poor countries are exactly where the do called west wants
         | them to be. Do the Swiss grow coco? No, they buy it for
         | peanuts, add some milk and sugar, then sell the final product
         | for at least a modest profit.
         | 
         | I wish it was easy to support the people doing the actual work
         | but how? Supporting native brands? Sure but how I know who
         | controls the company and if they are any better than the
         | exploiter I am trying to avoid?
        
           | wrycoder wrote:
           | Look into the Specialty Coffee Association and
           | roastmagazine.com/dailycoffeenews/.
           | 
           | Also look at roast.com for an example. (I'm not affiliated.)
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2021-09-26 23:02 UTC)