#76: How Commercial Microbes Threaten The Coffee Industry

[Music] Welcome back to the podcast! It's November and we're starting our fourth harvest in Guatemala. So my mind is mostly on preparations for harvest and the upcoming fermentation training camp in December as well as some travel that we have coming up in the new year. But I've also really been putting a lot of time into the podcast collaboration with James Harper of Filter Stories. As many of you know, because I've talked about it so much, James Harper and I are collaborating on a series for producers. And of course, we are talking about controlling the fermentation and post-harvest processing. And while doing this research and conducting interviews for the episodes, James came across a few loud voices against commercial inoculations. He asked me about the controversy and asked me if we should include it in our episodes. My initial reaction was the same as always, to basically wave it away as nonsense, not worth the precious minutes of podcast time. What I told myself was that if I gave it attention, it would give the topic more energy and legitimacy. I thought that if I ignored the topic, the message would be that it's not worth talking about. My strategy was to deprive the topic of oxygen. I wanted to smother it with non-attention. But like a pebble in my shoe, the more I tried to walk away from it, the more irritating it became. I would see criticisms of commercial strains pop up in podcast episodes, online publications, as titles and upcoming professional conferences. And of course, I would get asked about it in private conversations with friends and colleagues. I just wouldn't go away. I still think we will largely keep it out of that project, because I don't think it's a good fit for the goals of the series, which is meant to be a concise primer for coffee producers to be aware of the tools that are available to improve their businesses, like that has a very specific focus. And this felt like too much of a tangent, which, as you know, is something that we love here in making coffee. So as James and I kept talking about it, I thought that perhaps some points were worth addressing, but it would be better to have it in a making coffee episode instead of that series that we're doing together. So today's episode will address three main categories of complaints against commercial microbes. The first is a fear that commercial microbes will replace the local microbes and damage the terroir and the surrounding environment. The second is a fear that if all coffee producers are using the same microbes that coffee flavors and unique identity could be lost. And third, the fear that it is cheating to include them in competitions. If you're here, it's because you like to dig into the nuances, see the paradoxes, and generally get into the weeds with analogies, examples, and research. If you're new here, have patience with all the tendons and examples, because I promise that usually goes somewhere. And to begin this exploration, I need to expose my bias about microbes and show you the fermentation world through my rose colored glasses. We're going to start with some wine history background, and then get into some definitions of genetically modified organisms and how yeast are selected. Lastly, I will share research that is being done to monitor how commercial yeast interact when they escape the winery and come into contact with the local microbes out in the wild. Okay, let's get started. This year, I have a particular challenge due to a new project, which you'll hear more about later. Well, I'll tell you about the actual project later, but I'll tell you about the challenge now. Every harvest, I do a different combination of yeast and bacteria fermentations to increase the flavor complexity. But at the end of harvest, all of that gets blended into a single coffee. It's something that I started doing in Colombia when we lived there, and we're making coffee there, and have kept up in Guatemala. So this harvest, for the very first time ever, I will be keeping our coffee batches separate. This year, all of those individual fermentations will not be blended together into a single batch. This goes against all of the philosophy that I laid out in episode number 65 to blend or not to blend. I haven't changed my mind about the strategy, but I got a request to keep the yeast and bacteria separate for an educational project. So this additional step will be an interesting challenge for us this year. The strategy of making a single blend of coffee means that I generally have a buffer for my fermentations. I don't need to be so careful about contaminating one yeast with a different yeast or a bacteria, because it will all end up as part of the blend anyway. But since this year, we are keeping the yeast and bacteria separate, I need to be extra careful about avoiding cross-contamination, about mixing the yeast with the bacteria. This means extra work on washing the mixing paddles, measuring tools, and scrubbing the tanks before each new batch. And of course, record keeping and labeling will be more important than ever. What I'm describing is general good practice, so that should be happening all the time. But as we all know, there is the plan on paper and then the plan in real life. The chaos of harvest and the imminent pressure of truck loads of sticky fresh fruit being unloaded has a way of making you forget your best-laid plans and just deal with the biological ticking time bomb in front of you. During the coffee harvest, it's generally hot and sunny and every minute we wait, the cherry begins to leak its sugary juice, and the microbes and the environment can begin to feast and potentially spoil the fruit and change the careful flavor profile I'm trying to achieve. This antagonistic view, where the producer is in a constant battle against spoilage organisms, is a point of view that I was taught in wine school in California. The Viticulture and Inology program was established in 1880 by mandate of the California legislature, 145 years ago. The California legislature in Acts laws, allocates funding, provides oversight of state government operations, represents citizens and confirms executive appointments playing a central role in governing the most populous US state. Clearly they have a lot of important jobs and yet they still turn their attention to creating a wine program. I think this speaks volumes about how important they thought this wine industry would become. The program tackled two aspects of wine making. The first is Viticulture, which refers to the grape growing and plant biology, and the second is Inology, which is the chemistry of wine making. The purpose of the department was to establish a center of research to help develop the California wine industry. Originally, the research center was located on the UC Berkeley campus, however it was only able to operate for a short time because in 1919 it had to be shut down due to prohibition. The prohibition era was a period from 1920 to 1933 when the United States prohibited the production, importation, transportation, and sale of alcoholic beverages. The period saw an increase in crime and barely accomplished the goal of reducing alcohol consumption. So after 13 years and seen as largely a failed experiment, the law was repealed. Shortly after prohibition was repealed, the Viticulture and Inology department was reestablished in 1935, but it moved from the city of Berkeley to the city of Davis. It was also during this time that my previous employer, Scott Laboratories, purchased the yeast collection from UC Berkeley to further develop and eventually sell to the wine industry. So this is just to reiterate that commercial strains and the wine industry in California have a very long history dating back to 1935. When I was in school, the Viticulture and Inology department would have a repealed day party in December to celebrate that based on that decision back in 1933, we could all have jobs today. But why did California even need a wine school? France didn't have any wine schools and they were the leaders in the industry. Remember we have talked in previous episodes about the powerhouse that was France on the wine scene. California was the annoying younger sibling that France kept wanting to shake off. Initially, California couldn't compete with France in terms of quality because France had something really important that California didn't have. Do you know what it was? If you said "terroir", I am so glad you are here because no, that's super, super wrong. But France had that California lacked was experience. France had the most important thing at this point, which is generational knowledge, generational knowledge of good vineyard practices and how to make wine that didn't spoil. Knowledge that was passed from one generation of wine makers to the next, usually within a family, and knowledge that they would not share with the new outsiders in California. The new California wine makers were not constrained by tradition. For example, they weren't restricted to only growing traditional varieties and could explore and experiment, but that also meant that most of the time they didn't know what they were doing. They were blindly fermenting and making it up as they went along. They lacked a lot of knowledge on how to make good stable wine. It would either turn out spoiled and nasty, or it could taste good initially, but then it would quickly spoil. This meant that California ended up having a reputation of creating unstable and unpredictable wine, and having an unpredictable supply of wine makes it really hard to be successful. California wine makers didn't have the generations of elders with experience to guide the wine making process. They didn't know how to prevent defects like the wine smelling like vinegar or manure, or developing a thick, ropey texture. They didn't know how to keep the bottles from exploding because they built up too much pressure from the fermentation. Actually used to be common for workers and sparkly wine sellers to have a look at the wine. of missing fingers due to exploding glass bottles. You can imagine a young French wine maker learning the trade from generations of elders with experience, knowledge passed from great grandfather to grandfather to father to son, the whispers telling them what varieties to plant and which soil types, what time of the year was best to prune, how to protect the vines from pests and diseases, when was the best time to begin harvest, how long to ferment, what temperatures to use, and on and on and on. Contrast that to a young California wine maker learning the trade from trial and error alone in their garage, making mistake after mistake, learning one data point at a time. The biggest challenge in the California wine industry before the Vitticulture and Anology program at UC Davis started was knowing how to make large quantities of consistent and good tasting wine. Before the program, there was also little standardization and wine maker struggled with reliable methods to improve wine quality and wine consistency. Knowledge was learned little by little in an ad hoc manner. The UC Davis program was established to address these issues by introducing scientific research, education, and improved Vitticultural techniques to professionalize and elevate California wine production. I think it's interesting that even though France set the standard for wine making, they didn't have university programs like the UC Davis program until recently. For example, the University of Oat Alsas developed modern analogy programs starting in the mid 1990s. That's 35 years ago, not 145 years ago like California. The best wine was found in France, but the best wine school was in California. I think this illustrates the power of education. France had multiple generations to get ahead and be the leaders of wine. But once California prioritized education, California wine shot up to rival and surpass French quality in a single generation, as we will see shortly, by the results of the 1976 Paris tasting. The thing I want to emphasize about this background is that my training as a young wine maker relies strongly on a foundation of reducing spoilage and making clean and sound wine. Because a problem with early California wine wasn't that it didn't all taste good. Of course, many of them did. It was that if it tasted good, the good flavors were not stable and would easily disappear or turn into something sour, rancid, or just generally off-putting. And the second problem with California wines was a lack of consistency. Maybe initially the wine tasted good and was stable, but the wine makers couldn't do that repeatedly and on command. The lens that I used to look at the processing world of wine or coffee, remind me of the oath taken by doctors. First, do no harm. My approach to quality doesn't fit into a neat little phrase like that, but the general attitude is, first, be microbiologically stable. Back in the early 1900s, the California legislature knew that to get ahead, the wine industry first had to get rid of defects before attempting to focus on making good flavors in their wine. And if you like wine, you're probably familiar with at least one of our two most famous movies. One is sideways with the actor Paul Giamatti and the other is Bottleshock with Professor Severus Snape. Bottleshock, which came out in 2008, is based on the true story of the 1976 judgment of Paris, a blind wine tasting competition where California wines surprisingly beat established French wines, changing the global wine industry. I spoke at length about this event in episode number 23, tasting authenticity when different countries have similar flavor profiles. In that episode, I spoke mostly about the red wines of California going head to head against Bordeaux. However, a part of the story that we haven't talked about is what happened with the white wines, the Chardonnay from California. A significant plot point of the film follows the challenges faced by the Barrett family of Chateau Montalena when submitting their Chardonnay wine to the competition. Even though we call the category white wine, Chardonnay should actually be a delicate pale yellow, at least when all goes according to plan. But in 1976, as a bottle's were being prepared and shipped to France, they noticed that many of them were the wrong color. Instead of a brilliant and clear pale yellow, the bottles were an unpleasant brown color. This was totally unexpected and they had no idea what happened and therefore they didn't know how to fix it. What was clear was that it was an error in the wine making process. The title "Bottle Shock" can refer to the audience's emotional shock when a bottle from the California underdog beat the reigning Bordeaux champion. But it can also refer to the chemical reaction in the bottle of Chardonnay that caused the yellow liquid to turn brown. The bottling phase can be a violent and shocking experience for a wine. For weeks, it's slowly fermenting in large tanks. And then perhaps it spends 14 to 18 months gently aging in oak barrels in quiet dark cellars. And after about 25 months of a quiet life, in a few minutes, it gets mechanically pumped out of its barrel, shot through several meters of hoses and forced through a filter where it needs to squeeze down to capillaries that are 2 millimeters in diameter, and then shot with great speed down narrow tubes into glass bottles on an endless conveyor belts. These dramatic changes in temperature, pressure, and oxygen do all kinds of things to the compounds inside of the wine, breaking them apart and rearranging the molecules that make up the flavor of the wine. When the Montalena Chardonnay was bottled, it experienced a very different oxygen environment than the one it was initially made in. Even though the wine looked brown, the effect is actually called pinking. What the barit didn't know back in 1976 was that the wine experienced a chemical reaction known as phenol instability or pinking. This is a reaction involving phenolic compounds in the wine that when exposed to oxygen can cause color changes. The specific chemical process involves oxidation of phenolic molecules leading to pigment formation, resulting in a pinkish or brown hue initially. But proper exposure to oxygen later stabilizes these compounds and the wine returns to its intended color. Bottling can shock a lot of chemical compounds out of their normal order, but with some time, the compounds can settle back into their proper configurations. The point is that this was a rookie mistake the French would likely not have made. The California wine makers didn't know what had happened because they had never faced this issue before. They didn't know why the wine changed color and because a lack of experience almost misparticipating in the competition. In California in the '60s and '70s, there must have been a lot of this trial and error wine making that didn't end up in Hollywood movies. So what we know is just a sliver of what must have been happening in that era. And why should you, dear listener, care about this random bit of wine trivia? Because it's very similar to the challenges in coffee 80 years later. Specialty coffee producers of today are like the California wine makers of the '60s. There is no experience and generational knowledge being passed down on how to ferment and process specialty coffee. This is absolutely new territory. I think one of the biggest misconceptions of specialty coffee comes from new consumers or coffee enthusiasts or even new coffee producers who believe that there is a set industry standard and since they are personally new to it, they are unfamiliar with the rules. What almost everyone fails to acknowledge is that it's not just new to you as an outsider, it's new to everyone and really no one is on the inside. The truth is that the industry is growing together in real time. Specialty coffee is a bunch of hippie cowboys and tech bros doing a lot of trial and error during spaghetti on the wall and seeing what sticks. And while there is some progress, this attitude is also making a lot of defective and unstable coffee in the meantime. For decades, people were used to unstable and effective wines and the focus of UC Davis was to make defect-free stable wines. By the time I was studying wine in the 2000s, a lot of the early kings had been figured out. And so, for consistency, longevity, and flavor development, my training is to think about microbiology, about all of the microbes in the environment that can help or harm the process. So that's where I'm coming from and why I use commercial yeast and bacteria for coffee for bintations. Because that's the tool I was taught to use against spoilage and inconsistency. It's because of my education and experience that I have a hard time seeing the vilified version of commercial microbes that is becoming more common in the specialty coffee space. And that's what we're going next. Because you guys, it turns out there are some people out there who really hate commercial microbes and want to make sure coffee producers do not use them. I have always seen commercial microbes as the safe choice, the way to avoid spoilage, like wearing your seat belt in the car. This is why it's so difficult for me when I hear people being anti-commercial microbes. Because to me, it's like being anti-seat belt. Do you guys know that there are coffee people who are against commercial microbes? I mean, I'm genuinely curious because I wasn't sure about making this episode for a couple of other reasons we'll get into, but mostly because I think this topic is very specific to coffee professionals in the middle of the supply chain, the roasters, importers, and the competition judges. I don't think coffee producers at the beginning of the chain or coffee consumers at the very end of the chain are really aware of the storm that is brewing in the middle of the supply chain. As a coffee farmer or coffee enthusiast, this may be the first time you're hearing about this. But if it is, I want you to know that most of the coffee professionals in the middle are very worried and very opinionated about today's topic. So worried that in June 2024, the Specialty Coffee Association of Panama, the SCAP, released a statement accusing some producers of cheating because they submitted co-fermented or what they called "infused coffees." The association said it discovered four "infused coffees submitted to the competition" that were "found to be altered from their natural DNA expression, likely with the intent to score higher and win by using foreign additives." The statement further called on other green coffee competition bodies around the world to adopt a stance that "prevent the artificial homogenization of different tear wires and varietals worldwide." Oh boy! Where to even start? There is so much ignorance packed into such a short statement. So let's see if we can untangle this. First, I want to start with what I consider to be aggressive language. Look at all the negative and judgmental words they managed to fit into such a short statement. Words like "infused, altered, foreign, artificial, additives, homogenized, talks of cheating and unfair advantages." And those negative words are only made stronger when we contrast them with the positive words like "natural, genuine" and "everyone's favorite, terroir." Long time listeners will have heard my rant about this wine term. So apologies if you're tired of hearing this again. But in case we have new listeners, I need to repeat it because I think this word is radioactive. This romantic term positions itself as a friend to coffee producers, as a shield that producers can use to protect themselves and defend their quality. And that's how it's sold in theory. And this is why I think so many producers themselves, use it and take up arms. But in practice, most often it's used as a bullies fist to punch producers back into place. That is how I believe that SCAP is using it in this statement. This topic is so important to me that I made three full episodes on its history and the use in wine as a warning to the coffee industry. And then I later released episode 63, which is called Terroir for busy people, because it's the cliff notes version in case you don't have time to listen to three full episodes on the topic. But I think knowing the history of how the term originated in France with the wine industry helps take away some of the romantic sparkle and allows us to see it clearly. Anyway, one of the points I make in those episodes, my biggest warning to the coffee industry about adopting the wine term Terroir is exactly what the SCAP is doing in this statement. They are using the concept of Terroir as a way to justify their privileged position and prevent anyone else from getting access to their elite club. The shield that is meant to protect producers is being used by a small, powerful group as a weapon against them to get them back in line. Because make no mistake, the term Terroir was designed by the French wine elites as a weapon to maintain their power over the newcomers, over the unsophisticated wild cowboys of California and beyond. And you might be thinking, "Okay, Lucia, that sounds a little too dramatic." And if this is how you feel, I encourage you to go back to episode 23 to learn about how France rolled out this strategic campaign. But for today, let's see how it applies to coffee. Panama is a small country producing less coffee than 30 other countries. To put it in context, by volume, you have Brazil as a leader, then Vietnam, Indonesia, Ethiopia, Honduras, India, Uganda, Mexico, and 10th we have Guatemala. And then we have 19 other countries before Panama makes the list. So now I want to contrast two facts. One, Panama produces about 0.06% of the world coffee volume. And two, the best of Panama auction has set global records for coffee prices, like the 2025 sale of a washed gase-alot for over $30,000 per kilogram. That is insane. If you only accounted for the price of green coffee and ignored any other shipping, roasting, and brewing costs, one would have to charge a minimum of $450 for a cup of that brewed coffee. In terms of volume, Panama's coffee production is insignificant. But Panama's influence on the specialty coffee scene is very consequential. For example, Panama redefined gase-alot as a world-class specialty coffee with extraordinary flavors, starting with Finka Esmeralez 2004 award-winning entry that showcased its floral and complex profile. This success put Panama on the map and inspired widespread cultivation of the gase-alot variety globally. My very first job from ending coffee with commercial yeast was in 2014 in Bucke de Panama. It was a first place that was using yeast at scale with top-level stainless steel bio-reactors. The resources of that country are really unparalleled anywhere else. Panama produces barely half of 1% of the world's coffee, but it has an outsized effect on trend setting. Therefore, the choice to disqualify coffees for using commercial microbes in the best of Panama competition was a significant stake in the ground. Some that are more familiar with the drama might object to me here, because they weren't just targeting commercial microbes. They also included co-ferments and infusions in their ban. It's true. The SCAP cast a wider net. But the fact that all three topics are lumped into one category is what makes me think that they are positioning themselves as leaders in a movement that I don't think they understand very well. The mechanism of action between commercial microbes, adding fruit to a tank like a co-ferment, and then infusing coffee with flavoring are very different and should not be lumped together. But that is a tangent for another time. Let's get back to the statement. Some of the early comments after the announcement were criticizing the governing body for being too old-fashioned, afraid of change and innovation. Could this be the answer? Could it be this simple? Instead of powerful people afraid to lose their privilege, could they just be old-fashioned purists stubbornly holding on to the past? There is always fear and anxiety around new technology. All new technology comes with a potential for disruptions of routines and long held systems. I am the queen of not updating my phone or computer and also complaining about how slow and buggy the programs are. No one likes disruptive change and uncertainty about the future. I understand this. It's true. Adding commercial yeast strains to coffee processing is not commonly done. Most coffee is usually processed with local microbes. Using commercial strains is a change. And Panama was certainly using this as their public reason for rejecting change, citing a need to preserve identity. But I don't think it's their only reason. Other critics of commercial microbes see them not as a threat to history and tradition, but as a threat to the local ecology. And I will address these concerns too in this episode. I promise we'll get there. But I don't think that was an SCAP's problem either. In the case of the best of Panama competition, it is my impression that the messaging was less about concerns for history and tradition and/or consequences in the local ecology and the environment. To be clear, I have not spoken to any of these people. I am only interpreting the public statement they made. But it's my impression that the complaint is more personal and self-focused. The language they used focused on cheating and the unfairness of additives, like an athlete who was discovered to be taking steroids. The public conversations were outwardly about protecting authenticity. But the strong undercurrent was about disqualifying and punishing what they perceived to be an unfair advantage. And what they considered to be taking a brave and much needed stand on purity in the face of foreign coffees. The punishing tone is what really stood out to me. It was like they were offended that the so-called altered coffees dared to sit side-by-side with the other natural coffees. Sports is actually a good metaphor for the situation as we have several elements in common. We have a competition. In this competition participants are scored. These scores have financial consequences and we have accusations of using foreign additives to gain an unfair advantage. Additionally, all of this unfolds for an audience in a public forum. Since sports seems to be a good metaphor for the situation, let me present another sports analogy that seems to involve an unfair advantage but has nothing to do with drugs or illegal substances. So if you'll ride on the magic school bus with me, our next stop is Mexico City. I love Mexico City. And if any of you ever get a chance to go, I really highly recommend it. The food, the mezcal, the history, the music, the art, it's so rich, such a great place. And as you You tour around Mexico City, you might find yourself climbing the extensive archaeological ruins of the Temple Mayor, the main temple of the Aztec capital. You might notice that while you think of yourself as fairly athletic, you need to catch your breath sooner than normal. You're surprised to find yourself breathing harder than you usually do, even though you're going at a leisurely pace. Did I not sleep well? Am I just jet lagged? What's wrong with me? No, unlikely. Likely there is nothing wrong with you. It's not your fault. It's the air. Mexico City is approximately 2,250 meters above sea level, or 7,430 feet. At sea level, the air pressure is high and each breath contains a normal concentration of oxygen molecules, which is about 21% of the air volume. This provides enough oxygen for normal metabolism, walking and breathing are easy. Above 2,000 meters, the percentage of oxygen is still the same, it's still 21%, but because the pressure is lower, there is more space between the molecules. The low pressure makes the air feel thinner, so each breath contains fewer oxygen molecules even though the percentage of oxygen remains the 21%. This leads to less oxygen available for the body with a normal breath. To compensate, humans breathe faster and deeper, kind of like hyperventilating, to increase the flow of air through the lungs to absorb more oxygen. This increase ventilation is essential to maintain adequate oxygen levels in the blood. Doing the same task like walking and breathing at altitudes above 2,000 meters requires more effort, deeper and faster breaths, to compensate for the lower oxygen availability compared to walking and breathing at sea level. In our imaginations, we are already in Mexico City, but now let's hop in our time machine back to 1968. What happened in 1968? If you guessed the 19th Summer Olympic Games, then I want you from my trivia team. At the 1968 Mexico City Olympics, the effects of altitude on athletic performance became a significant factor. How much of a factor? We only have to look to the previous 1964 Olympic Games in Tokyo to see how significant this change in air pressure was. Peter Snell won a gold medal in the 1,500 meter race. He was the top performer. He was known for a strong finishing kick. It is said he dominated the race, finishing around 1.5 seconds ahead of the rest of the field. And where did such a strong athlete place in the 1968 Games? Gold again? No. Silver? Nope. Did he at least get bronze? No. He didn't even get bronze in Mexico City. And he wasn't the only one. Many athletes that had performed well in the previous 1964 Tokyo Olympics did not do well in Mexico City. And if Peter Snell didn't win the event in Mexico City, who did? That year, the 1,500 meter event was won by Kip Keno, who made a historic mark by decisively winning with a gap of nearly 30 meters. Was Kip Keno a brand new entry? Was this his first Olympics? Was he just that much better than Peter? Not really, because Kip also competed in Tokyo, but didn't win any medals. He didn't even place in the 1,500 meter event in Tokyo. What would explain this dramatic fall for Peter to be a gold winner and then not place in the next year? And the opposite to happen for Kip to not place in 1964 and then to win gold in 1968? Well, of course, it has to do with oxygen. Peter Snell trained in New Zealand at 388 meters above sea level, and Tokyo is at 44 meters. He trained in the conditions of the event. However, since Mexico City is at 2,250 meters, Peter Snell had not trained in the local conditions. In the gold winner in 1968 for the 1,500 meter race, can you guess where Kip Keno is from? He's from Kenya. He trained in Kenya at 2,400 meters above sea level, slightly higher than Mexico City. The 1968 Mexico City Olympics showed how natural high altitude residents have an advantage in endurance due to their physiological adaptations. Through no effort on his part, Kip was born and trained in a high altitude location, and through no effort of his own, the Olympics were held in a high altitude location. Did Kip have an advantage? Yes, of course. But was it an unfair advantage? Did Kip cheat? Of course not. He just trained for the required conditions. Since this advantage was highlighted, athletes from lower elevations can mimic training at higher altitudes with hypobaric chambers or altitude masks. Is this cheating? Is it cheating for them to have access to the same conditions that high altitude athletes have? I think we can see the absurdity of the claim that an athlete would be cheating if they had access to the same conditions that other athletes naturally have. It would be illogical to say that Peter Snell would have been cheating if he had had access to a hypobaric chamber to train for the 1968 Olympics. But it didn't happen because they didn't know they needed it back then. It's illogical when we think of Olympic runners, but that is the equivalent of what the SCAP is claiming when they want to disqualify commercial microbes or co-ferments for having an unfair advantage. Some producers have great microclimates and are blessed with certain local microbes that make really good coffee, like Kenyan or Columbian runners that train in low pressure environments and have really strong lungs. Other producers, based on elevation or higher temperature, perhaps struggle with more spoilage organism. Like Snell, who was born at a low elevation and only ever trained in a low elevation condition, so his lungs never got used to the strain of a high altitude. Just like knowing you are going to compete in a high elevation location and using a mask to train your lungs, being able to select your microbes to be similar to the ones naturally found in higher elevations and cooler climates is not cheating. It is actually what a quality looks like. The SCAP thinks that by disqualifying these coffees they are standing up to cheaters, but what they are really doing is impeding equality. This whole affair reminds me of the quote, "For those who have been privileged, a quality often feels like oppression." This concept highlights the psychological and social discomfort that can occur when societal structures are challenged and privileges are redistributed. This often makes the privilege group feel unfairly treated even though equality is intended to be fair for all. They are saying, "It's not fair that you can use microbes that can mimic our high altitude low-spoilage conditions." Or it's like saying, "It's not fair to us, a small group of elites, that now you have access to what we have always had." Some people are upset for themselves and how they feel commercial yeast is taking something away from them. And yet others are upset because they fear commercial strains have broader implications for the world out there. I hope you see how weak the first argument is, that commercial microbes are an unfair advantage and that they take something away from the privileged. They are not like steroids giving some superhuman ability above the rest. They are instead the oxygen mask that can help level the playing field for those not born into privileged positions. It's not a tool used to elevate anyone above the elite. It's a tool that evens out the disparity between the privilege elite and everybody else. As we keep going, I will address the second concern about what commercial microbes can be taking away from the biodiversity and environment out there. But first, I want to present a different way of thinking about commercial microbes than what is generally presented by the people who want to outlaw them. Again, the practice of adding the strains is new, but the strains themselves are not new. They have been in other industries for decades. Because despite the talk of innovation and cutting edge processing, we are not actually an uncharted territory. The application of commercial yeast to coffee is a new-ish practice, but it is not a new technology. And because of this, we can look to other agricultural products like bread and baked goods, cheese, yogurt, beer, wine, cider, kombucha, kefir, etc. For examples. And it is because of these other examples that for the longest time, I didn't think the issue deserved its own episode. I felt that the complaints about commercial microbes and the threat to the environment were easily dismissed because commercial strains have been used in all of the other industries and more. And we don't have the global crisis that some predict is the destiny of the coffee industry if this trend continues. And as a side note, I do believe we have an ecological crisis, but that it is due to application of pesticides, due to poor agricultural practices, deforestation, pollution of waterways, changing climate, etc. I do not believe commercial strains are contributing to this ecological crisis. Commercial strains and food products are not responsible for an ecological crisis. Instead, they are responsible for good tasting bread and baked goods and cheese and yogurt and beer and wine and cider. So I felt like most of the conversations were just kind of getting derailed. My impression was that the voices spread. about the dangers of commercial microbes don't have a deep enough understanding of microbiology, they just know enough to get attention and create fear. And then on the other hand, the people that do have enough of an understanding see it as such a non-issue that they are generally ignoring it because it's silly to them. When I talk to the major commercial yee suppliers about how they were approaching the negative attention, their strategy was similar to mine. That I have an absurd idea and not really worth addressing. When they got attacked, their response has largely been silence. Even the coffee producers disqualified from the best of Panama competition responded in a similar way. In an online article, Sproge magazine talked to the producers of the disqualified coffee and directly asked if they wanted to respond to the accusations to tell their side of the story. Sproge asked, "People have only heard the association's side of the story, but no one has heard from you. Would you like to say something about that?" And here is a response. "We don't depend on whether the specialty coffee association of Panama agrees with our work or not. Honestly, we don't rely on that for validation. I believe they fear change, and we don't believe that engaging in debate is important for us. How can you debate with someone who doesn't understand what you're developing?" Instead of wasting time arguing with people who don't understand what they're talking about, we should use that time to promote what we're actually doing with Hachi. Many coffee connoisseurs know the truth about what happened, and that's what's most important to us. Rather than refuting their comments or fighting back, we're focusing on continuing our work." End quote. So where does that leave us? Commercial Yees were getting a beating in the public eye from critics, and none of us who actually use them and have experience were speaking up in their defense. Where does this strategy come from? I can't speak for the Yees manufacturers or anybody else, but as an avid user and promoter of commercial strains, I felt that any strong response from me could be interpreted like Queen Gertrude's comment in Shakespeare's Hamlet, the Lady Doth protested "who much me thinks?" As in, any vocal rejection is seen as an attempt to cover up a truth, and therefore strengthen the truth. This highlights the paradox where excessive protestation can indicate guilt or a lack of honesty. Instead of the initial paradox of looking guilty by protesting too much, I think many of us fell into the second paradox. Instead of silence indicating a lack of worry, as in nothing to see here, folks, the silence was more often interpreted as validation that there is something harmful about commercial strains and that we should stay quiet and keep the secret. So obviously, the Yees manufacturers can't defend themselves because they have a direct financial incentive to downplay any concerns. The producers who were disqualified are choosing not to defend themselves because it was a personal accusation and a rebuttal could seem petty. But what about me? I use commercial strains for my work, but I am not paid to do so, so I don't have a financial incentive, and I also don't feel personally attacked. When I share the information in this episode, it's not a personal defend. I am not defending commercial strains. I am not defending myself. I am defending the access to education. So instead of falling into emotional arguments with people who don't agree or getting defensive, I can try to share what I know about what microbes can actually do and not do. Because I feel like most of the arguments have focused around the ideology and philosophy about what specialty coffee is and isn't. But we've not spent enough time on the science of what these microbes are and aren't capable of. Most of the conversations get stalled around defining coffee quality, about who gets to control the narrative, about how we score and which flavors are valid and which flavors are not valid. It goes round and round on opinions and we rarely have time left to get around to the facts about what yeast and bacteria actually do. We still have so many things to unpack, but I want to provide an analogy that I hope can help reframe where microbes stand as we move forward in the discussion. In microbiology and coffee fermentations, I use words like inoculation, control, dominate, and outcompete, which I admit can sound a little nefarious. Because of this language, I think it's possible that some people think these commercial strains are genetically modified. For example, the language and the statement from the coffee's disqualification was that these coffees were "altered from their natural DNA expression" by using foreign additives, specifically employing techniques known as co-fermentation or fruit infusions. So in this statement, they didn't say that commercial microbes are genetically modified, but they did say that using them alters the natural DNA expression. Do they really think commercial yeast have the capability to change genetic instructions and cellular functions? I hope not. So perhaps they mented as the metaphorical DNA, like not actual nucleotides, but even then it's a poor choice of metaphor. It's incredibly deceptive because we are talking about actual real cells of yeast and bacteria and actual aromatic molecules. How is a general public supposed to know the difference between literally thinking that the yeast can change DNA to the metaphorical reference to DNA representing coffee's history in a particular place? And I think another thing that's important is that this wasn't a spontaneous off-the-cuff remark. It was a carefully worded type statement released to the public. And as such, I think it was very irresponsibly worded and maybe purposely misleading. I think there is enough unfamiliarity with the concepts of microbiology that one can imagine all kinds of nefarious consequences when DNA is mentioned. Like man versus nature, the quest to dominate, and there are many examples of how badly humans have messed this up before. For example, a genetically modified crop that initially seemed positive but had unintended consequences is herbicide tolerant crops, particularly those engineered to tolerate glyphosate. These crops allowed farmers to use glyphosate herbicide more freely, which initially improved weed control and crop yields. However, this widespread and repeated use has led to unintended negative consequences such as the emergence of superweeds that have evolved resistance to glyphosate making them even harder to control. It has resulted in increased overall herbicide use with herbicide sales in some regions rising dramatically since the introduction of these crops, and negative environmental impacts on biodiversity, including harm to non-target organisms like the monarch butterfly due to habitat loss from intensified herbicide use. This example highlights how a genetic modification aimed at improving agricultural efficiency can result in ecological challenges. Yes, humans often have the hubris to believe we can outsmart nature, and most of the time we have been wrong. I understand the mistrust of technology and food crops, and we should be aware that trying to outsmart nature rarely goes as intended. If commercial microbes were themselves genetically modified, meaning their DNA was altered, and if that changed then allowed them to change the DNA of coffee, yeah, we should be concerned. But does it matter that it's not true? I have not heard enough pushback on this. Yeast DNA, coffee DNA, your DNA, all DNA is perfectly safe and unaltered with these fermentation practices. Commercial yeasts, the kind that I use back when I worked in the wine industry, and that I used today for coffee fermentation are not genetically modified. Because genetic modification is typically defined by having genes altered by humans in a way that wouldn't happen through natural breeding. And natural breeding is something that we are all used to. For example, natural breeding is how wolves have been domesticated over thousands of years to give us modern dog breeds. Early dog breeding selected traits suited to specific human needs and jobs. For example, if a dog showed aptitude for speed, stamina, and sent tracking, they would be selected for hunting. But if instead their personality showed intelligence, agility, and responsiveness, instead of a hunting dog, they would be selected for herding and managing livestock. And if the dogs were large and strong and showed protective instincts, they would be selected for guard dogs. It was a long relationship of careful observation and then selection and breeding to intensify the natural trait that the dogs showed. The humans didn't insert the traits into the dogs by changing their DNA. Instead, they watched, observed, and when they found something useful, they separated that animal and tried to breed it with an animal with similar traits to amplify the traits that they liked. Eventually, we started to see dogs beyond their working roles and more as companions. Now, different traits are valued and selected. Before, more people required large, strong animals to protect their property. But with modern apartment living, different traits like a smaller size, gentle temperament, and social behavior have become more valuable. These traits influence physical features like size, coat type, and build, as well as behavioral traits like trainability, energy level, and temperament. and hypoallergenic fur have become more important. Modern dog breeds have been selected to suit our modern needs, and modern commercial yeast have been selected from nature and suit our modern needs for flavor. Most commercial yeast have been selected from nature for their positive attributes like domesticated dogs from wool. The commercial yeast originally came from wild yeast, like the wolves found in nature. Over time, they were selected for their traits, like alcohol production, high temperature tolerance, and ability to produce floral and fruity aromas. The way some dog breeds are best for hunting in open terrain and others are best for living in small apartments, commercial yeast have similar personalities. And since these strains of yeast were selected for their personalities and abilities, some competitive traits may have been lost. For example, imagine a yeast that is selected because it produces a tropical peach aroma. But perhaps it reproduces very slowly and takes a long time to build a biomass able to overtake a fermentation. Or a different trade-off could be that it's only active at a very specific temperature, and if the temperature drops a few degrees or goes up by a few degrees, this delicate yeast strain just dies. The strain functions best in the perfectly temperature controlled glycol jacket stainless steel tank that it's kept for days between 13.5 Celsius and 14.5 Celsius. If this yeast found its way into an outdoor tank with inconsistent temperature, it would not thrive. So as we continue to discuss these commercial strains, don't think of them like genetically engineered terminator yeast, indestructible, and designed to kill their competition and contaminate landscapes. Instead, think of these selected yeast like modern labredoodles. These breeds are popular for their hypoallergenic codes and friendly temperaments. If you released a labredoodle back into the forest with wolves, their friendly and docile temperament would make them much less likely to survive in the wild. The commercial yeast that I use in coffee fermentations is much more like a labredoodle. If that yeast got out into wild environment, it would be similar to a labredoodle getting lost into the wilderness of Siberia. Because that organism was not grown in that condition, because it's not adapted to that condition, it is unlikely to thrive in those conditions where the local microbes have a significant advantage. Now, just because I'm equating commercial yeast to adorable pets, doesn't mean I expect you to believe that cute pets have never harmed the ecosystem. I was recently in London and was charmed by the bright green parakeets I saw and heard all over the city. I was charmed until I learned that parakeets are not a native bird to the area. The parakeets in London were pets that were released into the wild either by accident or well-meaning activists. Either way, the results have been damaging to the native bird populations. Their presence is problematic from both ecological and conservation perspectives. These invasive parakeets compete aggressively with the native bird species like starlings and sparrows for food and nesting sites. Conservationists are concerned about their ecological impact. Their population has been growing rapidly and is now described as unstoppable. I hope the first part of the story illustrates that commercial yeast are not the fierce, super engineered killers of your nightmares. The fact that they are selected for flavor production means they are likely poor competitors against the native and local microbes which are best adapted to their location. Instead of having an advantage, the opposite is often true. They have a disadvantage against the local microbes. But the parakeets in London remind us that new introductions still need to be taken seriously. And there is good news on this front as well. Like I mentioned before, many other industries use commercial strains so we have decades of research and case studies to point to. When James and I were discussing including this topic in our producer series, one question that he brought up was the issue that in the other food industries, the thing that is fermented as in the grape juice or the milk or the flour is consumed by us. Therefore, the commercial microbes are swallowed by us and digested, so essentially we are the waste management system. In the case of coffee, the outer musilage layer is fermented and then washed away. This means that there is a higher chance the commercial microbes get into the waterways and find their ways into the coffee forest. He wondered, wouldn't this make it more dangerous to the environment? Couldn't hire concentrations build up over time? And it's true. This is a pretty significant difference in foods like wine, cheese, and bread compared to coffee. But it also means that when sacramiases is used to ferment flour to make sourdough bread, we all think it's perfectly healthy to ingest that sacramiases. Or when we have cheese and yogurt, the lactic acid bacteria that made those products is also eaten by us. If you follow this line of thinking and you think commercial microbes are dangerous, it means that most of you think it's okay to put dangerous commercial microbes in our own delicate bodies, but it's not okay, it's not safe enough for these microbes to be out in the environment. So safe enough for humans to swallow daily, but not safe enough to be outside? Why are we not afraid of that? I'll tell you why. Because our native microbes are more adapted to our bodies than the yeast and bacteria that we consume in bread, yogurt, wine, or pickles. Maybe you never thought about how much yeast and bacteria you were consuming when you ate bread, cheese, yogurt, chocolates, or drank wine, beer, cider, or kombucha. Fine. Maybe you were ignorant on that front. But what about when you take probiotics? You should be aware that there is no illusion of tasty food there that is swallowing pure microbes. And if you've ever taken probiotics for gut health, has it ever worked where you take a single dose and then it colonizes your gut? No. If you take probiotics, you know that you have to keep taking them over and over again, usually daily, every day, swallowing more and more microbes. Why is it that you can't just take it once and then have the good guys grow in your gut forever? It's because the ones you're introducing can't compete with what's already in your gut. The native ones have the home court advantage because they grew there. They are not outsiders being introduced into unknown territory. The outside probiotics, they keep being defeated by the natives in your gut and you need a fresh, daily dose just to keep up. These strains often don't colonize the gut long term because the existing microbes and host environment usually prevents them from establishing a stable presence. Hence, probiotics need to be taken daily to maintain their effects. And if you stop taking them, the probiotics typically diminish and just disappear. This reinforces the wolves and labradoral analogy. The microbes in your gut are perfectly adapted for the acid levels and temperatures and conditions in your body. When you swallow a foreign microbe like a fermented food or directly when taking probiotic supplements, your native microbes quickly take over. So if you want the desired effect, you have to keep swallowing more and more. And if you don't want it, you can stop taking the supplements and your body will go back to normal. I know the natural wine movement is very popular and you see natural non-inoculated wines everywhere, but by volume they are the minority. Globally, they are estimated to be about 1% of the wine industry. Most of the world's wine from California to France, Australia, is made by fermenting with commercial yeast and bacteria. In coffee, we have the exact opposite statistic. Most of the world's coffee from Guatemala to Kenya to Indonesia is fermented with wild yeast and bacteria. Not only is most of the wine of the world fermented with commercial strains, but the wine industry has also been doing this for many decades, meaning we can look to how commercial strains have managed to mix with their local microbes and the consequences around the world. And we don't just have anecdotal evidence of a lack of destruction across vineyards, we also have scientific research. The paper I'm sharing with you today is called Remnants and Survival of Commercial Yeast in Different Ecological Nishes in the Vineyard. It appeared in 2011 in the Federation of European Microbiological Societies. It's a collaboration between the agriculture department of Spain and the molecular biology department and the University of Pablo de Olavide in Sevilla. I like the study because it starts by referencing several other studies that have been done previously to show that commercial microbes are not a long-term threat to the environment, but in order to justify and differentiate the present study, the researcher's site that the previous studies were incomplete. They felt that those studies were not long enough and that maybe all of the positive results were because they were looking at too narrow of a time window. In this study, they wanted to do a longer time frame than what had previously been done. So the present study was conducted over three years so that they could see the effects of the commercial microbes beyond the initial harvest season. They wanted to see how long commercial microbes lingered in the vineyard. The paper states, quote, "Winaries are open systems and commercial yeast are used without any special control and could therefore be dispersed in the environment in large quantities." End quote. This statement is important because it also describes coffee wet milk. They are open systems, usually without any special control. Perhaps some people think that we can't use the information learned from wineries to give us clues after what is happening in coffee because the facilities and the technologies are different. But you might be surprised to learn that all of the wineries that I worked at that use commercial yeast didn't have a special cleanup protocol for the yeast. The commercial strains were part of the regular waste water that was treated in outdoor settling ponds and then eventually kind of dispersed into the environment or directly used for irrigation in the vineyard. As is the potential for coffee, commercial yeast are also being dispersed into vineyards year after year and this research wanted to investigate how far the yeast could travel, the dissemination and the permanence. For example, they wanted to see if given a small dose could those yeast build up over time on their own. The yeast are used in the winery but if they are released into the vineyard they wanted to see if there were any natural reservoirs such as bark, leaf, soil, beyond the grapes. In addition to looking for natural reservoirs they wanted to study the impact of commercial yeast on the local microbes and see for example did they have an ability to crowd them out. So basically they wanted to see if the commercial microbes would live anywhere else besides the grapes so could they find new ecological niches to colonize and if they did occupy the new space could it be harmful could the commercial yeast be like the parakeets in London taking up all the good nesting sites and all of the food away from the native sparrows. The reason I chose this study to share is because they did a very untraditional thing that I think will be very helpful for our purposes. Normally the commercial yeast get into the vineyard because they are used in the fermentation inside the winery but then that wastewater is treated outside. Once outside the wastewater can be recycled and used in the vineyard and this means that by the time the commercial yeast get outside and get onto the plants they've been significantly diluted and many will have died and they'll also be mixed in with all the local yeast and bacteria found in each location. So I think studying that would give pretty mild results. But this study did that was different was they took the full concentration that is 1 million cells per milliliter the quantity that goes into the tank and the winery and instead of waiting for it to be filtered through the whole winery process and the wastewater system etc. what they did is they sprayed that full concentration on the plants and the surrounding soil in the environment. So they just went directly full dose outside onto the plants. This level of concentration is unrealistic in a normal working winery but this study wanted to accelerate the effects and see what happened. So they were taking samples from the grapes, the leaves, bark and soil at time zero. So initially after spraying we took a bunch of samples then they came back after seven days then again after one month and then three months, six months, eight months, 12 months, 18 months, 24 months and then eventually 36 months or three years later to see how much of the commercial yeast was left in the environment. Also yeast are non-motile and can't travel on their own but they can be moved by insects and birds and maybe even very strong winds. So they also wanted to see how physically far the yeast could spread from their initial introduction point. So of course they sampled the area where they sprayed but then they also sampled areas from 25 meters away, 50 meters away and then 100 meters away from the initial introduction point. I like the study because it's a very long term assessment because they were spraying high concentrations of yeast directly into the vineyard and therefore bypassing the winery stage where it could potentially be diluted and they were also looking at different tissues from the fruit to the bark to the leaves to the soil as potential reservoirs as potential new homes that the yeast could colonize and potentially crowd out native microbes. So this nicely answers a lot of concerns and a lot of questions that I think a lot of people have. And the last reason I chose this paper to share with you is because it features a lullamon sacramiacy strain which is the kind most commonly used in coffee and most commonly used by me. So in this study it's not exactly the same strain. This one is called K1M and for coffee we use slightly different ones that you may know by their commercial names called you know, SEMA and Intenso for example. But the difference in terms of yeast is more like the difference between the SEMA and the K1M I think is more like the difference between a black labrador and a yellow labrador and it's not really significant like the difference between like a great dain and a beagle. Like these two sacramiacy strains are very similar. So I think it works for our purposes. So the K1M strain was isolated from vineyards in the south of France. So like I mentioned all of these yeast come from nature. They were found in nature. They were not genetically modified to be anything else. So to the best of the researchers knowledge this yeast had never been used anywhere in wineries in Madrid. So it's native to France but it's not native to Spain and Spain is the location where it was being sprayed. So they were introducing a foreign yeast even though it's a natural native yeast to France. It's a foreign yeast to Spain. So looking at the grapes makes a lot of sense because water nutrients are mainly concentrated in the grapes and sacramiacies have a preference for sugar glucose, fructose and sucrose. So just like us if there is no food and no water you won't survive for very long. So where there is no moisture and very little sugar the yeast also can't survive very long or at least not dominate. So the paper states quote the occurrence and especially the domination of sacramiacies in soils, plant leaves and decaying debris is extremely rare. End quote. So unless they have that sugar source and moisture there's not a lot of places that they can hang out long term. And when the fruit is harvested and there's a lack of available sugar and moisture even if the yeast made it out into the vineyard that lack of food once the fruit is harvested significantly reduces the population because they have nothing to eat and they starve. So this is kind of a natural mechanism to keep the numbers from exploding and causing problems. If you take their food away they die. So I will read to you the conclusion of the paper quote summarizing our results show that the permanent establishment of commercial yeast K1M in the vineyard did not occur and is restricted to short distances and a limited period of time. This result reinforces our previous finding which showed that other factors were more important than commercial yeast utilization in the biodiversity of the vineyard. Furthermore no implantation was produced in the fermentation as the presence of indigenous strains was not subsequently affected principally after the first two years. It would appear that the environmental risks and the use of commercial yeast strains were very limited. Our study demonstrates that commercial yeast K1M does not displays native saccharomyces and that they are sufficiently incapable of colonization and adaptation to new vineyard environments on a permanent basis. And then lastly it says in the last sampling at 36 months commercial yeast were not found in the vineyard. So this is generally good news that commercial yeast do not persist that long in the vineyard and therefore in nature. But one caveat that I want to add is that this is information for this particular strain and based on current conditions. So I'm not saying that we will never have a problem. For example if there's a changing climate and farms are experiencing new temperatures and higher humidity levels it's possible that a change like that could favor the growth of certain microbes over others. But at that point I think you're probably going to have more trouble from the hurricanes and the storms that are causing landslides and ripping out coffee trees. Then from the increased likelihood that commercial strains have a stronger presence in farms and are competing with local microbes. So I'm not saying that there's absolutely no danger. In science we can't make such bold claims because we're always learning more about microbiology and finding more ways that microbes can surprise and amazes. But the reason I don't like to focus on microbes as a source of problems in coffee is because they really aren't. And the part that does bother me is that when we do talk about this topic it tends to distract from the fact that we have much bigger problems. Coffee farmers especially small holders are facing rising production costs including labor, fertilizer and inputs while often receiving low and volatile prices for their coffee which makes their livelihoods very unstable. For many the price of coffee is below the cost of production. Another issue is fixed price contracts and global price speculation which create unpredictable income cycles limiting a farmer's ability to plan long term. So issues with labor shortage, wage inflations and supply chain disruptions can compound this economic fragility. And of course climate change is the foremost environmental threat causing erratic rainfall, severe droughts and increasing incidence of disease like coffee leaf rust, reducing yields and coffee quality. So rising temperatures and changing weather patterns are shifting suitable coffee growing regions, deforestation and land degradation due to coffee expansion and unsustainable farming practices undermine ecosystem health. Supply chain inefficiencies contribute to waste and carbon emissions, the fertilizers and pesticides getting into the ground water. There are so many bigger problems than microbes and even if commercial microbes do get into the ground water the damage that they could potentially make is so far eclipsed by the fertilizers and pesticides getting into the ground water that again I just most of the time don't think that it's really worth talking about. Commercial strains are not a significant threat to coffee quality or identity or authenticity. Coffee has much, much bigger threats that we should be worrying about. So in summary, let's go back to the original statement from the S/C/A/P and all that it got wrong. First, the easiest thing to dismiss is that this type of processing doesn't alter coffee DNA, and the commercial use are not genetically modified organisms made by humans in labs. They are instead selected from nature. If it was intended to be a metaphor, it's a misleading metaphor, and I wish they had been more thoughtful when making a public statement. Second, it's not cheating to have access to the broad library of options that privilege producers have always had access to, including microbes found in high altitudes, cooler weather locations that have lower risk of defects. I speak a lot more about how this works in episode number 59, what's altitude got to do with it, microbes and meters above sea level. So commercial strains don't provide some with an unfair advantage, instead they are the one tool for democratization and equality. As my friend Wilfrith says, "Better coffee for more people." Third, commercial yeast are not infusions, nor should they be categorized with co-fermentations where fruits and spices are added. Infusions include things like cinnamon or flavor crystals or essential oils meant to give a one-to-one effect. For example, one-add cinnamon in the tank to get the flavor of cinnamon, or one-adds orange essential oil to get orange flavor in the coffee, like adding a flavored syrup. If I add yeast to my coffee, it's not to get a one-to-one flavor of yeast. The point is not to get yeast-flavored coffee or bacteria-flavored coffee. In contrast, when yeast and bacteria ferment sugars in bread, wine or cheese, they transform the raw ingredients by natural living processes. So I think something to remember, yeast and bacteria are alive compared to ingredients like cinnamon, which are not alive. And so the yeast and bacteria to stay alive, they need to metabolize the musulage around the seed and convert the sugars and organic acids found in the coffee into flavors. It's a transformation. It's making something new. There's new flavor compounds, but those can only be made with the raw material found in the coffee fruit. The microbes cannot create flavor that is not hiding in the fruit of the coffee. The yeast are not artificially flavoring coffee. They're not adding something that doesn't exist. They're using the raw material that's in the musulage and unlocking it, bringing those flavors out. Let's go back for one final sports analogy that I think might help get really clear the difference between an infusion and fermenting with microbes. An infusion would be getting a calf implant to make your legs look muscular. It's an external implant added to give the impression of strength. And yeast and bacteria fermentations are like eating a diet full of protein and then doing a thousand calf raises because your body needs to metabolize. Your body uses the raw material of protein, metabolizes it and grows your existing cells. You still have to do the work. Yes, you're taking in something, but that transformation is still an intrinsic transformation. It's not an external, extrinsic thing. So the resulting flavors in coffee are the direct consequences of living activity and transformation, not an external additive. And lastly, point number four. And for me, this is maybe the most egregious offense of the statement. It was as call to arms for other countries and other competitions to follow in punishing and taking a stand against commercial microbes and co-fermentations. Wanting to be trendsetters in the purity of coffee by declaring that no one should adopt this trend is wrong. Just because you personally don't like commercial yeast shouldn't allow you to dictate what other people do. If you don't want to wear your seatbelt, then don't. But you shouldn't force other people to also not wear a seatbelt. I understand that many people do believe in total complete coffee purity. But the people who hold those beliefs shouldn't be able to impact people who don't hold those beliefs. We should all be able to choose what we do. And don't worry, if your neighbor for meds with commercial strains, it's not going to contaminate your coffee and change your flavors. It's not like GMO corn where the seeds will blow into your field and you will be punished for growing something that you didn't plant. In the case of commercial microbes for coffee, there was no danger of contamination. So I hope this helped clarify things for you about infused artificial and natural coffees. If you still have questions or want to discuss the topic with me or other coffee folks, then I hope you'll join us in Patreon. I'm still doing live office hours every other Friday. And office hours maybe sounds a little bit intimidating, but they're super relaxed and don't think that you need to have a question before you join us. It's just like a digital hangout where I give updates on the harvest. Sometimes we workshop at producers problem if they are stuck or we just have conversations like this. We talk about what we see going on in the industry. So it's a chance to be engaged in a thoughtful community and it's honestly one of my favorite parts of the week. I love it. Our next hangout is Friday, November 21st at 10 a.m. Guadamolatime. And all of the information to join is found in the show notes. As always, things for making it to the end of another episode, I so appreciate you lending me your time. I hope to see some new faces on Friday and for everyone else. Remember, life's too short to drink bad coffee.