-
Reads like a very good advertorial. I wonder who at the Guardian knows who at Easy Joes?
That said, the under canopy growing is quite important I think? Isn't deforestation for bigger coffee crop an ongoing problem?
rhb-
Reads like a very good advertorial.
That's what I thought. I appreciate their working with indigenous people, and the under canopy stuff but the vagueness of the description of their competitors winds me up. What they're doing is good, obviously, but I feel like they're just comparing themselves to Nescafe or whatever, as if all other coffee production is completely destructive and exploitative.
The fact that the Easy Joe website has a line about how they don't offer instant coffee yet is a bit of a red flag in terms of their intended market - well meaning Guardian readers, who aren't that into coffee perhaps. -
it can be, but what those trees are are crucial, are they a secondary crop or a subsistence crop? how do they work agronomically? The title of the piece is click baity and there is little evidence to show that shade grown coffee is of better quality across the board than non shade grown, too many other factors are at play
Agree on the advertorial nature of it and I notice that there is not mention of the price paid to the producers apart from to claim £9,50 a bag is expensive, which it isnt. £9.50 is cheap, very cheap when considering the costs all the way up the value stream from the producers.
Nef
Matisse
Anyone tried these guys? Am I missing something, or are they doing anything special beyond what any other producer/roaster does? All the roasters I’ve spoken to seem to have individual relationships with small producers, is there any real point of difference here?
https://www.easyjosecoffee.co.uk/
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/mar/16/ecofriendly-peruvian-coffee-biodiversity-indigenous-aoe