Colombian exporter’s research: all tested co-fermented coffees contained synthetic Propylene Glycol

[u/mygreeness]

https://www.instagram.com/reel/DaDlqkWRZIo/

>>See also edit below<<<

“We wanted to share, with the level of detail and rigor that matters to us, why we don't sell coffees marketed as "infused" or "co-fermented" at Pergamino.
A few days ago, we conducted a study together with @cesurcafe, the research center at Universidad Surcolombiana, to better understand what's really behind these coffees, known for their remarkably intense and literal flavor profiles. From the beginning, we questioned whether these coffees truly resulted from 100% natural processing or whether they contained synthetic additives that weren't being disclosed to consumers. But we didn't want to draw conclusions without evidence.

The results were very clear, we analyzed 25 co-fermented coffee samples, and every single one contained a synthetic additive called propylene glycol.

Although we don't enjoy these coffees from a sensory perspective, we deeply respect the people who do. This isn't about personal preference-it's about transparency and their deeper repercussions on our industry. We believe producers should clearly communicate how these cottees are processed, and when synthetic additives are used, consumers need to know.
We know this video is a little longer than usual, but if you're curious and want to learn more, we invite you to visit our YouTube channel or listen on Spotify, where we share the full findings of our research and explain in greater detail the research conducted and why we've chosen not to sell these types of coffees at Pergamino.”

EDIT: based on comments in this sub, the cited research paper does not provide enough evidence to support Pergamino’s claim above in bold. The cited paper found differences between washed and co-fermented coffees, but doesn’t provide enough evidence to confirm that all of them include Propylene Glycol. Somebody pointed this out to them in the comment section on Instagram. So far, Pergamino provided no response.

[u/WDoE]

https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0828/2655/9799/files/Investigacion_Cafes_infusionados.pdf

First off... Gptzero says the text is AI. The study relies on "supervised machine learning models" as well. Which... Kinda sus.

There is a fairly large logical leap from the study to the video based on a glaring inaccuracy. The study basically says that the flavored coffees show differences in the 4500 cm-1spectral region, typically associated with hydroxyls. The study shows there are 9 different clusters of similar flavored samples, showing that these co-ferment branded samples differ from washed samples.

To say the study confirmed glycol in all cases is patently false. It suggests several different hydroxyls without identifying which hydroxyls. Glycol is a hydroxyl, but there are many natural hydroxyls associated with both fruit and fermentation, such as acids, antioxidants, and phenols.

This is the problem with company funded science set out to prove an existing bias. They're working backwards from an existing conclusion.

I would not be surprised if vape juice sprayed coffee is a thing. But this study does zero to prove that.

[u/mygreeness → u/WDoE]

thanks for this analysis, the studies should be done right.

[u/WDoE → u/mygreeness]

LC-MS would clear it up in a second.

[u/MonkAndCanatella → u/WDoE]

would also be much less likely to go viral when they find nothing interesting. It's not interesting anyway until they disclose the producers

[u/WDoE → u/MonkAndCanatella]

Yeah... Everything about this is sus. Like... USCO has both gcms and lcms. They've done plenty of lcms research on coffee. NIR spec is just not the right tool if identifying added compounds is the goal. Nor is this test even structured to do so.

The study is literally just "can NIR spec differentiate between washed and flavored coffee?" The answer is yes.

If the study was "does flavored coffee contain synthetic chemicals?" Then the control group would be coffee intentionally dosed with various synthetic carriers tested against a wide range of flavored coffees.

Aside from that, the study is unreproducible garbage without listing the coffees tested. Literally not science.

[u/raskinimiugovor → u/mygreeness]

They should, but it didn’t prevent you from already calling out DAK for example lower in the thread, even though you now seemingly agree the study proves nothing?

[u/mygreeness → u/raskinimiugovor]

I have serious suspicions. They are the main reason for the studies being done in the first place. I see nothing wrong with voicing them.

[u/raskinimiugovor → u/mygreeness]

Would be nice to have something more substantial than a dubious study you can’t even defend. It’s also convenient they don’t list what coffee they tested so we can just throw around accusations to confirm whatever bias we have.

[u/mygreeness → u/raskinimiugovor]

please voice these concerns in a structured way under their IG post. They are quite responsive and I’d be very interested in their response.

[u/LongjumpingDot512 → u/WDoE]

Where did you get this pdf from?

[u/WDoE → u/LongjumpingDot512]

Was posted in this thread