On the continuing theme of New Yorkers being years behind on their coffee trends, yesterday the New York Times published an article on the improving quality of decaffeinated coffees: New Breed of Brewers of No Buzz – NYTimes.com. It is a slightly updated and expanded version of an L.A. Times piece we wrote about in November 2006: Demand is growing for rich decaf coffee. Of particular relevance here is the article’s emphasis on Bay Area roasters.

Caffeine is clearly a drug, as it makes people say and do stupid things. We don’t just mean all the people who give up caffeine “cold turkey” and, like Born Again preachers, feel obligated to tell everyone how much better their life is and how they too should forgo their sinful caffeinated ways.

In fact, most of the stupid things said about coffee usually have something to do with caffeine. But while we never understood the point of a vegetarian restaurant that fashioned non-meat to look and taste like chicken, consumers who don’t get the point of decaffeinated coffee always struck us as fake coffee lovers.

The article quotes Peter Giuliano of Counter Culture Coffee as saying, “Those guys are the true believers. They’re not drinking coffee because they need to wake up. They’re only drinking coffee because they like the taste.” Last summer, this sentiment was echoed by Starbucks co-founder Jerry Baldwin in The Atlantic: In Defense of Decaf – Food – The Atlantic. Decaf coffee drinkers may be much maligned and considered traitors to their kind, but we’ve always considered them among the beverage’s truest fans.

The one main drawback to decaf for us, however, has always been flavor. The sub-optimal sourcing of beans and the effects of the decaffeination process aside, caffeine does play a direct role in flavor enhancement. The nation’s chocolate cake mix manufacturers — who rank among some of the biggest purchasers of purified caffeine in the world — learned this lesson many decades ago.

This past week, most of the coffee discussion around the Internet involved the subject of caffeine. Talk about caffeine seems to bring out the worst in people. Too many act as if coffee and caffeine are synonymous and interchangeable — whether it’s scientific research on the effects of caffeine or some lame riff on coffee lovers being “caffeine junkies”.

By the same token, why wine lovers aren’t so readily called “alcoholics” is beyond us. But in the medical research on caffeine category, the study-de-la-semaine involved a mix of mice, caffeine, and Alzheimer’s symptoms: Caffeine Reverses Memory Impairment In Mice With Alzheimer’s Symptoms. So, naturally, this triggers bad science reporting in the mainstream media with unsupported conclusions based on leaps of faith, as in this headline from the otherwise-respectful BBC News: BBC NEWS | Health | Coffee ‘may reverse Alzheimer’s’.

It’s the same old story: lab mice are equated to humans, caffeine is equated to coffee, and the next thing you know we have media companies insinuating that Maxwell House cures Alzheimer’s Disease. If only this were one instance — this type of thing happens on an almost weekly basis.

Why would it take over 1,000 years to notice any real health effects?

We have some 1,000 years of epidemiological evidence to prove out any nominal linkages between coffee consumption and human health. Despite the study-de-la-semaine drumbeat of the past few decades — a mystical health obsession that Western civilization has not experienced since Europeans wrested the bean from the hands of Ottoman Turks in the 17th century — there’s little or no evidence to show over the past 1,000 years that coffee has any significant relevance to our health. That includes good or bad health implications. So why the continued, obsessive curiosity?

The myth that there is somehow a meaningful connection is largely perpetuated by two groups, each which stands to benefit most from the continued belief that there’s any real debate about this:

1. Media companies. They profit from readership. Any time the evening news can tell you, “That everyday product can kill you: details at 11,” it’s good for business. Add an audience that subtly recognizes caffeine as a drug (as if alcohol wasn’t?): they’re either looking for personal validation that their habits are OK — or they are desperate for a sense of personal control, worshiping at the altar of micronutrients with the vain hopes that it will unlock the magic combination to eternal life.
2. Grant-based medical researchers. Well, of course. The more there’s an insatiable public appetite for this information, as irrelevant as it may be, the more likely researchers can secure corporate and other funds to keep them employed. Even if it means working on trite projects that add less to the public good.

Telling us that normal coffee consumption really doesn’t make a difference to human health would be killing the golden goose.

If coffee = caffeine, what do you call decaf?

Over the past few months, Jerry Baldwin, co-founder of Starbucks, has authored an interesting series of articles on coffee in The Atlantic. This month he took up the topic of decaffeinated coffee: In Defense of Decaf – The Atlantic Food Channel.

Like Mr. Baldwin, we question those who don’t see a point to coffee without the caffeine. Because we see two kinds of coffee drinkers: people who are driven more to the taste of coffee, or coffee enjoyers, and people who depend exclusively on its chemical effects, or coffee users. (Really, go straight to the vein if you must.)

We even used to think that decaf coffee fans were the truer fans of the beverage. But given the role caffeine plays in heightening the awareness of taste receptors, and how Duncan Hines got to become one of the largest corporate purchasers of purified caffeine, we’ve come to the conclusion that coffee’s caffeine and taste are not entirely separable.

Mr. Baldwin goes on in the article to mention Swiss Water-process decaffeination, its namesake company’s current consumer scare tactics, and other decaffeination processes.

As we hinted in a previous post, San Francisco magazine just published Josh Sens’ story on the more recent evolution of San Francisco’s local coffee scene in its most recent issue: A new buzz | San Francisco online. (There’s even an article featuring CoffeeRatings.com on the back page: The coffee bard | San Francisco online.)

The article features Coffee Bar, Blue Bottle Cafe, Ritual Coffee Roasters (including some great quotes from one of our favorite area baristas and coffee writers, Gabe Boscana), and Trouble Coffee. A couple of interesting points Mr. Sens raises in his article include:

• “It’s just coffee” — Running a business that really cares about the details involved with good coffee often requires a thick skin — especially in the face of the many knee-jerk reactionaries who ridicule what they see as coffee elitism. (I.e., “Folgers’ Crystals was good enough for my parents, and it should be good enough for you too.”)
• The Caffeine Factor — Trouble Coffee’s Giulietta Carrelli directly addressed the role caffeine plays in good coffee, which Mr. Sens found unorthodox and refreshing. In many ways, we appreciate the decaffeinated coffee drinker as a sort of “true” lover of coffee, independent of its psycho-chemical effects (i.e., its about “enjoyment” rather than “usage”). But there’s a reason why Duncan Hines is the #3 consumer of purified caffeine: the caffeine enhances the “mouth-watering taste” (OK, that’s a bit subjective) of their brownie mixes.

Starbucks Coffee announced today that it is changing its dairy standard for all of its espresso-based drinks, switching from whole milk to reduced fat (i.e., 2%) milk in all Starbucks stores in the U.S. and Canada by the end of 2007: Daytrading, Eminis, Forex trading, Swing Trading BREAKING NEWS – 559959 – Starbucks Coffee To Switch From Whole To Reduced Fat Milk In All Espresso-based Drinks By FY07 End. (Here’s a take on the same story from the Chicago Sun-Times and San Jose’s NBC11.)

Perhaps after all the criticism over it’s calorie bombs, Starbucks is trying to do its part for the war on obesity. But curiously enough, earlier this month scientists in New Zealand reportedly bred cows that naturally produce low-fat milk: Udderly low-fat milk – News & events – Taste.com.au. This news was soon followed by the announcement that naturally caffeine free coffee trees were about to be introduced in Australia: Caffeine-free coffee trees on their way – News & events – Taste.com.au.

If this sort of “boiling the ocean” problem-solving approach has any legs, here’s to hoping that Starbucks soon stumbles upon genetic research that enables them to grow double-espresso-competent baristas from Petri dishes.

Ignore the stating-the-obvious article title for a moment. Even ignore my latest tirade against unimaginative writers who use the caffeine riff as a synomym for coffee.

Today WCCO-TV, the CBS affiliate in Minneapolis, published a story on how they tested the caffeine levels of random decaffeinated coffee samples at five different retailers: wcco.com – Decaf Coffee Is Not Caffeine-Free. Although the NCA suggests that caffeine levels should be about 3 milligrams in an 8-ounce cup of decaffeinated coffee, WCCO-TV found the levels between 3-7 mg — with the exception of Starbucks.

The Starbucks decaffeinated coffee had a whopping 175 mg of caffeine — or pretty much the same as a cup of regular coffee. WCCO-TV even tried to see if they got the wrong stuff by mistake, but this curious bit of evidence suggests something I’ve wondered about all along: maybe Starbucks serves all their coffee drinks from the same spigot? For those fans of The Simpsons, I’m reminded of an epsiode where Homer tours the Duff Beer brewery. In the background of the scene, you subtly notice a single pipe feeding three storage tanks labelled “Duff”, “Duff Lite” and “Duff Dry”.

UPDATE: October 25, 2007
Perhaps asleep at the wheel the first time around, Consumer Reports jumped on this story idea and published an article in their November issue, per the New York Times: A Wake-Up Call for Coffee Drinkers – Well – Tara Parker-Pope – Health – New York Times Blog.

Decaffeinated coffee was once treated a lot like robusta: as some kind of crude, faux coffee that caters to consumers with the misfortune of a biological defect. But just as high-quality, expertly prepared robusta beans started appearing on the market from places such as India (for blending into quality roasts for espresso, etc.), decaf coffee — or at least the drinkers of the stuff — started getting some love and respect: Demand is growing for rich decaf coffee (syndicated from the Los Angeles Times; new working link).

As I mentioned in a previous post, earlier this year, decaffeinated Fair Trade and organic specialty beans were being bought up en masse by the likes of Wal-Mart. Although I never buy decaf coffee for myself, I typically buy it for caffeine-free friends who come over for dinner (and most often I buy Stumptown decaf beans from Ritual Roasters). And I have noticed that the quality and variety of decaf beans have become much more appealing. When I have good decaf left over, now I don’t hesitate putting it in a stovetop espresso maker or French press.

There’s something purist about good decaf coffee that I like. With so many people who primarily crave coffee for its caffeine buzz, the quality of the coffee can seem irrelevant. In the world of beer, this is like the difference between buying a microbrew for its flavor versus buying a 40 of Colt 45 for the dead brain cells. But let’s not take this analogy too far — I still don’t see the point of non-alcoholic beer. Just as I don’t get why some vegetarian restaurants serve tofu made to look and taste just like chicken. That’s just crazy.

UPDATE: Mar. 10, 2010
The New York Times published a similar article today, oddly taking them 3 1/2 years after the L.A. Times‘ piece: New Breed of Brewers of No Buzz – NYTimes.com.

Are Starbucks and Borders destined to become mirror images of each other? Today’s San Diego Union Tribune asks that question in: The latest blend: coffee, movies & books.

You have to wonder about some market extensions and product/service mergers. One of my favorite storefronts to mock is in a dumpy strip mall as you pass through American Canyon, CA — called “Pagers & Footwear”. But the blend between entertainment and coffee is a potent one for companies extending their product lines in either direction.

Does everyone drinking coffee want books and CDs? And does buying media naturally mean, “Would you like a double-tall, four-pump vanilla caramel macchiato with that?”

Wal-Mart and Target seem to think so, as they are also muscling into the coffee trade from the retail entertainment world. In fact, according to my favorite coffee buyer, Alex Mason of Royal Coffee, the availability of Fair Trade, decaffeinated specialty coffee beans is drying up a lot lately. Why? Wal-Mart is buying up the stuff like Hugh Hefner during a Viagra shortage.

UPDATE: January 22, 2006:
If it wasn’t obvious enough that Starbucks is starting to think of itself more as an entertainment company than a coffee company, their recently announced plans to offer MP3 downloads should make things more clear: Starbucks, Citing Music Industry `Chaos,’ Eyes MP3 Downloads


UPDATE: November 12, 2006:
With WiFi networks becoming more common, Starbucks even sees itself in the market of creating a taste-making entertainment channel: There’s more than coffee brewing at Starbucks – Orlando Sentinel : Features There’s more than coffee brewing at Starbucks – Orlando Sentinel : Features.

UPDATE: April 25, 2008
If it wasn’t clear before, it’s clear now: Starbucks has jettisoned its music business as it attempts to regain it’s “soul” in its neglected coffee business: Starbucks exits music biz | The Register.