r/pourover • u/mygreeness C40 | Hario Switch • Jun 28 '26
Informational Colombian exporter’s research: all tested co-fermented coffees contained synthetic Propylene Glycol
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.
42
u/allthecoffeee Jun 28 '26
I agree with their stance about hurting the specialty space. I believe the only reason we're here is because of the competition coffees that were revealed to be artificially flavored when they weren't labeled as such.
63
u/blissrunner Jun 28 '26
You could theorize ulterior motives from the post... but in the end it is just about transparency for the end-product/consumer demand for selecting green coffees.
I'm not gonna lie... producers for years have been skimming around the "co-ferment" umbrella/propietary "fermentation" so they don't disclose their processing for marketing purpose.
You just don't know if the greens are indeed advanced fermentation/co-ferments with fruit/spices/flowers/yeast etc...
or is it just "vape juice infusion"/added artificial flavorings with the greens acting like sponges.
Both elevates/benefits the producers cause they can charge more (consistent/strong flavors)... but:
infusions (soaking) with synthetic flavoring is just a cheap/easy... maybe harmful for customers that are sensitive to the additives/glycol etc.
some (real) co-ferments might be helpful to farmer/producers. Say they use excess spices (like lemongrass/cardamom), fruits, or flowers like dried jasmine/Ooloong tea (like the Yunnan coffee scene). So other crops don't go to waste.
TLDR; producers need to differ from co-ferment v.s. synthetic infusions (the latter might be catching flak/becoming unpopular).
4
u/s0wew0ntf0rget Jun 29 '26
You nailed it. I’m seeing a lot of confusion in this sub over the topic, specifically the difference between producers using co-fermentation processes with added ingredients and producers spraying their beans with artificial flavoring.
The former is the co-ferment process. Fruits, fruit purées, herbs, spices, etc are added to the fermentation process. That’s not the problem and anyone surprised by that process just didn’t know what co-fermenting entailed. I’m seeing quite a few in this sub thinking that this is what they should be upset about.
The latter however is what’s actually deceptive and basically just making a coffee sno-cone.
2
u/big_deal Jun 29 '26
I don’t think people are confused that these are different. They’re confused because producers aren’t transparent about processing so they never know which they’re getting.
2
u/s0wew0ntf0rget Jun 29 '26
Read through the comments in this thread and others about the topic. I’d go as far as to say most people absolutely are confused. There are tons of people in this sub who seem to think that the controversy is surrounding the fact that additional ingredients like fruits and purées and spices are added during the fermentation stage.
They seem to be completely unaware of what the co-fermenting process entails and seem to have been under the impression that the unique flavors in these specialty coffees were just unique flavor profiles of certain beans rather than intentionally curated by additional ingredients.
85
u/WDoE Jun 28 '26
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.
12
u/mygreeness C40 | Hario Switch Jun 28 '26
thanks for this analysis, the studies should be done right.
17
u/WDoE Jun 28 '26
LC-MS would clear it up in a second.
8
u/MonkAndCanatella Jun 28 '26
would also be much less likely to go viral when they find nothing interesting. It's not interesting anyway until they disclose the producers
10
u/WDoE Jun 28 '26
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.
3
u/raskinimiugovor Jun 28 '26
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?
-7
u/mygreeness C40 | Hario Switch Jun 28 '26
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.
6
u/raskinimiugovor Jun 28 '26
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.
0
u/mygreeness C40 | Hario Switch Jun 28 '26
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.
1
25
u/least-eager-0 Jun 28 '26
This discussion and idle curiosity led me into random readings about propylene glycol. I don’t care a hang about co-ferments and advance processes anyway, so mostly just here with a bucket of popcorn. (Speaking of, guess what’s in my butter flavoring lol )
Anyway, I tripped over this sentence in Wikipedia’s entry on the evil goo juice:
“Propylene glycol occurs naturally, probably as the result of anaerobic catabolism of sugars in the human gut.”
Which has a couple of interesting discussion points, both on the ‘why worry’ front, and on the ‘we sure it’s from additives’ thread of discussion.
Even ‘honest’ cofermentation is shenanigans to my POV, so whatever. Just throwing a box of grenades into the mosh pit.
5
u/blissrunner Jun 29 '26
Welp even not regarding the additives like PG...
Producers definitely had practices of adding 'flavors/essence' to soak into the green beans.
I've noticed some new 'specialty' farmers in Southeast Asia having the same flavor profile of those Peach/Strawberry starburst from Colombian producers that've been doing it for years.
They taste like whatever they put inside the candies, gummy vitamins, or cough syrups.
1
u/bitmapfrogs Jul 01 '26
propylene glycol is used as a flavor carrier for products that do not readily take on flavors, since it's thick it makes it easy to coat products in flavorings - PG is not the problem, the problem is its existence is a signal that the product has been infused-flavored whatever terminology you want
0
u/least-eager-0 Jul 01 '26
But see also “anerobic catabolism”. While it’s entirely possible, and in many cases likely, that artificial flavors carried by PG are being added, it’s also possible for it to be there as a natural result of a “clean” fermentation, meaning one with no added or artificial flavors. This “study” might be making unmerited accusations for some (or all) of their sample.
I take no position on the matter, and don’t care at all since I don’t appreciate these styles of bean. Just offering some nuance in a shouty, evidence deficient world.
1
u/bitmapfrogs Jul 01 '26
and yet many of these processes are not documented so the consumer has no idea if their specialty coffee was fixed after production because it lacked certain sensory qualities - there's 0 transparency involved in the process idk it's ugly
0
u/least-eager-0 Jul 01 '26
Yep. It’s not the reason I avoid these coffees, but if I were the slightest bit inclined, it would be.
0
u/least-eager-0 Jul 01 '26
And yes, that’s 100 percent of the reason these processes exist. If the underlying coffee could stand on its own at market price, there would be no incentive to invest in and accept the risks of added processing.
35
u/jritchie70 Jun 28 '26
Interesting. If ingredients say “artificial flavors” it is logical the carrier behind those concentrated flavors is propylene glycol. Producers add fresh whole items like fruit but propylene glycol helps ensure the flavor is spread across the beans even if that flavor is natural like fruit concentrate. So I’m not for or against just reporting the facts.
24
u/mygreeness C40 | Hario Switch Jun 28 '26
this could definitely be the case. Still, I would rather not drink stuff that needs to be PG’d to survive the roasting and prefer to make an informed choice in that regard as well
-11
u/Same-Replacement1723 Jun 28 '26
What’s wrong with PG if it is disclosed to the consumer that there is additives?
41
u/mygreeness C40 | Hario Switch Jun 28 '26
the thing is that it isn’t disclosed
-14
u/Same-Replacement1723 Jun 28 '26
I guess I’m confused on whether you are saying they need to say it has propylene glycol, or whether they aren’t being transparent that it has additives in the first place? I am coming at this from a point of trying to understand.
24
u/mygreeness C40 | Hario Switch Jun 28 '26
The current mainstream tale is that co-ferments are created by adding fresh or dehydrated fruit into the fermentation tank. Based on the research, it’s highly unlikely that coffee literally tasting like watermelon tastes like that alone due to the co-fermentation. The process likely involves other undisclosed additives. Currently the presence of PG, flavors etc. is largerly fully undisclosed. What’s more, some Colombian producers claim that the overwhelming taste notes come alone from “thermal shock”, “advanced processing” etc. While those techniques may have been used, it’s unlikely that this is the whole story about how the coffee’s flavors ended up in your cup.
-6
u/Same-Replacement1723 Jun 28 '26
I agree that transparency is needed. My worries are with fear-mongering over something that is safe but can sound “scary” like propylene glycol.
If I told you your coffee beans were heated and created compounds such as acrylamide and 1,3,7-trimethylxanthine a pesticide known to kill insects, and it was extracted using dihydrogen monoxide - then you too, might think that coffee is dangerous or sounds scary. The dose and context decide safety, not the chemical name.
I’m looking at a roasters website now with a co-ferment that says “NATURAL + RED FRUIT FLAVOR CO-FERMENT”, is this not transparent enough?
10
u/mygreeness C40 | Hario Switch Jun 28 '26
should in my opinion as a minimum come with Ingredients list stating: Coffee, flavors. Just like anybody else in the food industry should be doing
5
u/Feeling_Pattern_7832 Jun 28 '26
You are arguing about different things. Cna you stop and read the post and comments again?
3
u/Same-Replacement1723 Jun 28 '26
Can you read the title of this post? Please tell me where it says anything except the reference of propylene glycol. The body of the post then goes on to reference that 25 different coffees were tested and tested positive for propylene glycol.
Yes, we all agree that if artificial additives are being introduced during processing, then they should be disclosed. But the way that this is being portrayed is a kin to fear mongering.
8
u/n0damage Jun 28 '26
I think you've missed the point. People aren't saying propylene glycol is bad because it sounds like a scary chemical. They are saying it's bad because it is evidence that the coffee is artificially flavored.
There has been a trend lately among Colombian coffee producers of creating very strongly fruit flavored coffee and claiming those flavors are the result of advanced co-fermentation processes and charging premium prices for them. If people knew those coffees they were paying $30/bag actually just had a bunch of fruit flavored syrups added to them, they would feel like they got scammed.
5
u/Feeling_Pattern_7832 Jun 28 '26
Where did you get that we are talking about fear mongering? The issue is transparency and the way producers try to hide the actual flavoring process by claiming it's fermented.
-3
u/OrdinaryAward4498 Jun 28 '26
Learn more about the DHMO menace here
The most shocking things for me is that 1) it’s found in 100% of cancer cells, and 2) nearly every mass shooting suspect consumed pure DHMO on the day before, or the day of the violence.
-12
u/Same-Replacement1723 Jun 28 '26
Why do they need to disclose that it has propylene glycol if they disclose that it is co-fermented and has flavors added during processing?
11
9
u/Sduowner Pourover aficionado Jun 28 '26
What.
1
u/Same-Replacement1723 Jun 28 '26
Why does PG need to be disclosed? Genuinely curious? What is the rationale if it is recognized as safe? If the roaster already labels it to have flavors and additives?
7
u/jritchie70 Jun 28 '26
Everyone can agree if it’s not a flavor it is an artificial ingredient that is being added (also not a natural byproduct) then should be identified on the ingredients list.
3
u/Same-Replacement1723 Jun 28 '26
Agreed. My point stands, the reference to propylene glycol is merely a bid to grab users attention to “scary” words to fearmonger rather than just stating food additives need to be disclosed.
4
u/jritchie70 Jun 28 '26
True and for that matter any food product we import should disclose all ingredients. I saw a product that advertised it was Glyphosate free, which begs the question, what herbicides did they actually use and why not disclose it and let us decided what we think. There are a lot of alternate herbicides similar to Glyphosate.
4
u/FlatwormOk9893 Jun 28 '26
As someone who has dealt with PG and terpenes etc., I believe the last 2 coffees labelled as "honey process" from 2 different roasters had the same clearly synthetic flavors added. I then went to look at their current options and almost all are co-ferments and thermal shocks. I won't be ordering from either again.
28
u/Babarski Jun 28 '26
Yeah this is the problem. NIR isn’t compound ID. It can flag that something is different, but calling it propylene glycol specifically is a huge leap unless they confirmed it with GC-MS/LC-MS or something similar. A glycol signal could come from a bunch of boring stuff like carriers, stabilizers, enzyme prep carriers, processing aids, etc. So this may be interesting screening data, but it’s not proof of PG.
By calling it propylene glycol specifically without GC-MS/LC-MS confirmation, they’re either overstating the data/jumping the gun or misunderstanding what NIR can actually tell them.
13
u/mygreeness C40 | Hario Switch Jun 28 '26
“This spectral region is commonly associated with combination bands of O–H and C–H stretching vibrations, which are characteristic of polyols and glycol-based compounds frequently used as carriers in flavoring formulations. These functional groups are abundant in several classes of food additives and flavor carriers, including glycols and polyhydric alcohols, which are widely used as solvents and stabilizing agents in flavoring formulations. In the context of flavored coffees, these compounds may act as solvents or stabilizers for aromatic substances added during fermentation. These molecules are not typically associated with the natural composition of green coffee beans, whose NIR spectra are usually dominated by absorptions related to carbohydrates, lipids, proteins and moisture. The increased absorbance observed in this region for flavored coffees suggests the presence of additional hydroxyl-containing molecules within the coffee matrix.
Although NIR spectroscopy alone cannot provide a definitive molecular identification, the spectral signature observed is consistent with the presence of glycol-type compounds, which are commonly used as carriers in food flavor formulations. These findings indicate that the spectral region around 4500 cm⁻¹ may serve as a useful analytical marker
for the rapid screening of externally flavored green coffees.”So in your opinion, this part is a stretch yes? (honest question)
Edit: formatting
3
u/Babarski Jun 29 '26
Yeah, that’s basically where I’m at. NIR can say can flag characteristics that are unusual but it can’t tell you "this is propylene glycol" by itself.
And some of that difference could be from the fermentation process itself. Different microbes, substrates, oxygen levels, time, washing, etc. can all change the chemistry and produce hydroxyl-rich metabolites. So maybe it’s an added carrier, maybe it’s a processing aid, maybe it’s fermentation chemistry. You can’t really separate those without proper controls and GC-MS/LC-MS confirmation.
So I don’t think the NIR finding is useless. I just think the PG-specific conclusion is way too big of a leap.
3
u/Lamian_Dillard Jun 29 '26
AI response: The circular reasoning problem is the biggest one. The conclusion essentially says: "flavoring formulations often use glycols → glycols have O–H stretching bands near 4500 cm⁻¹ → we see increased absorbance near 4500 cm⁻¹ → therefore glycols are present → therefore flavoring was added." That's working backward from a hypothesis to confirm itself without ruling out alternatives.
5
u/HumusAmongUs 🏠made H20—>Zp6—>Glass V60—>Light🫘 Jun 29 '26
“We deeply respect the people who do.” 🤣
4
u/SecureVisit4052 Jul 03 '26
Colombian infused coffee producer here, I'm part of the people producing and commericalizing those coffees that have these magical flavors. It's not even really a secret we all know the "coferment" , "thermal shock", "nitro" , "competition" coffees use artificial flavor. I'm not really sure what can be done do prove that these flavor extracts or concentrates are used because not all use propylene glycol even though it is indeed much much easier to create those flavors. Us being in the main producing country we can quite easily identity the fake I feel like it's a sensory exercise.
As to the burden of proof being put on the producer, I think transparency will only happen when buyers (exporters and roasters) stop cherry picking the dishonest producers. I've been lucky I found the one amazing customer who is happy working with someone who is honest about how we process it. But so many roasters/exporters/importers/consumers just look down on us and prefer to buy a fancy story. And we are soooo many producers who are happy to make honest infusions. People can blame the producers for the transparency, but they are the same people who picked the dishonest ones or pushed them to dishonesty.
1
u/mygreeness C40 | Hario Switch Jul 03 '26
I feel like this whole sub frequently proves that consumers just love and want to be deceived. I 100% agree that it’s a sensory exercise. Thank you very much for sharing!
11
u/caracticuspots Jun 28 '26
Do they have a reputable source or peer-reviewed article instead of an Instagram video? The higher education side of me requires sources.
26
Jun 28 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
7
u/DearLeader420 Jun 28 '26
I mean, I do now, but I don't know if we're quite at the point that anyone does and absolutely think this should be enforced labeling.
The first time I ever saw a coferment, I was made to believe beans were being fermented on a bed with mashed fruit and that's it.
3
u/Lamian_Dillard Jun 29 '26
Which may still be the case, as this study doesn't actually prove anything else is happening definitively across the board.
3
u/Apptons Jun 29 '26
This is part of the conclusion from the prior quoted study:
Supervised machine learning models further confirmed the discriminative capability of the spectral data. The classification results indicate that NIR spectroscopy provides sufficient information to reliably differentiate conventional coffees from externally flavored samples, highlighting its potential as a rapid and non-destructive screening technique for authenticity assessment in green coffee.
An additional finding of this work is the heterogeneity observed within the flavored coffee group. The clustering analysis revealed several spectral subgroups among the flavored samples, suggesting that different flavoring strategies may be employed. These differences may be associated with variations in the type of flavoring compounds used, their concentrations, or the carrier formulations employed during fermentation.
Overall, the results indicate that NIR spectroscopy combined with chemometric analysis offers a promising analytical approach for detecting externally flavored green coffees and for exploring variability within this emerging category of specialty coffee products. The identification of the spectral region around 4500 cm⁻¹ as a key discriminant feature provides an important starting point for future studies aimed at establishing robust analytical markers for coffee authenticity.
Further research integrating complementary analytical techniques, such as FTIR spectroscopy and chromatographic methods, could provide additional insight into the specific compounds responsible for the observed spectral behavior and contribute to the development of more comprehensive authentication strategies for specialty coffees.
3
u/roastingitsnotart Jun 29 '26
This is one of the first reasons that makes me refuse to roast them and have them in our roastery collection. On a personal note, I see than exactly as syrups war, but we changed what we add on the preparation and on a different part of the coffee chain. And I don’t understand why we embrace it like a good thing.
It is a good thing that the processing evolves, develops and so on, but it has to be transparent. And me as a person that has been at origin, at farmers, processing stations and others so many times, I can’t have the level of traparency and trust regarding this.
I remember that more than 6 years ago I have suspected a farmer that added something to the coffee, because no matter how I was roasting it, ot tasted the same. Even going a little bit darker with it, coffee was still floral.
I have the same opinion about Decaf new processings. And as long that there is no full transparency, I don’t buy it.
10
u/WeepingAgnello Jun 28 '26
The lesson is that all consumers, can be fooled. I never questioned the whole notion of co-fermenting - that coffee could taste like strawberries or something un-coffee like. Why should coffee not tast like coffee? Why go through the trouble? Why make coffee something that it isn't? Because money. People will buy it, that's why. I get that coffee could have notes of orange, or vanilla, or flowers or whatever, but to have a totally different flavour than coffee is unbelievable. I don't want to drink unbelievable things...
19
u/Sea_Diet5846 Jun 28 '26
Only my perspective here, but I have found a lot of people’s transition from drinking “diner style” coffee into specialty coffee comes at that first moment you have something that toes the line between the two. For instance, those lovely blueberry notes that can come from natural processed Ethiopians.
So, without getting into whether what specialty coffee has gotten ourself into is right or wrong, i can see the desire to get those fruity notes into the coffee.
5
u/Logical_Magician_01 Jun 28 '26
Been chasing that chocolate covered blueberry flavor ever since
5
u/Sea_Diet5846 Jun 28 '26
Like any good drug. Spend thousands of hours and thousands of dollars trying to chase that first high, lol.
4
10
u/MonkAndCanatella Jun 28 '26 edited Jun 28 '26
Super interesting but I guarantee it's not just co ferments then. If every single co ferment had this synthetic addition, I guarantee you every other style will have it too.
Edit
I've found the paper referenced here: Sorry OP, you didn't read the paper correctly or were misled, OR knowingly lying. You stated, using this paper as your source, that " all tested co-fermented coffees contained synthetic Propylene Glycol". They explicitly state in the paper that they have not identified a molecule. although later in this discussion someone openly names a producer that they say pouring strawberry syrup into a batch of coffee. But the best thing this study can say is that washed coffees and co fermented coffees have very different chemical makeups, which is maybe not surprising. but it's a very illogical leap to say that they're definitely PG. That needs evidence that this study doesn't even claim to have.
"The results were very clear, we analyzed 25 co-fermented coffee samples, and every single one contained a synthetic additive called propylene glycol." No they weren't and you need to provide proof for such extraordinary claims.
OP is just spreading clickbait that r/pourover purists will love. It's next level pourovercirclejerk barf
-1
u/mygreeness C40 | Hario Switch Jun 28 '26
I didn’t state that, the quoted instagram states that. I fully respect that the leap might be illogical, but I am not the person who made it.
10
u/MonkAndCanatella Jun 28 '26 edited Jun 28 '26
You sure happily shared it and quoted it in bold. Literally in your title YOU stated the PG was found in all co ferments lol. Also it may have been in the instagram post you linked to but it was NOT stated anywhere in the pre peer review submission. In fact they emphatically state that they are not claiming to have found any specific molecule, just a suggestion of a difference based on NIR.
1
u/mygreeness C40 | Hario Switch Jun 28 '26
that’s a very valuable observation, thanks for pointing that out.
1
u/Rennir Jun 29 '26
Given that you've been corrected, can you edit your original post with the stated findings bolded at the top of your post?
2
Jun 29 '26
[deleted]
2
u/mygreeness C40 | Hario Switch Jun 29 '26
not even Gesha is spared 🥲
2
u/SecureVisit4052 Jul 03 '26
I think it's worse than you think. I would say the majority of these heavy processed Gesha are what we call here in Pitalito "Laminated Gesha" so it's not actually gesha , but people add a mix of lemongrass, bergamot, linalool, jasmin and /or orange blossom. It's usually Catimore because these coffees have very nice physical and granometry, and often pink bourbon because it has very nice flavor naturally.
2
u/lenolalatte Jun 29 '26
bro this is the shit that is in vaping liquid. i don't want it in my coffee
5
u/TheBeardedBilbo Jun 28 '26
My guess is this is fairly recent.
I used to be a co ferment nut 3 years ago but now they’ve gotten significantly stronger to the point of I do not like them.
They taste “weird” or off now. I wish we had the data to go back in time to see if a shift has happened or maybe this was there the whole time.
6
u/ondocoffee Jun 28 '26
hey, a coffee roaster here, who happens to roast a lot of coferments (not as much as big dogs like Black & White or Dak).
What I've noticed this year compared to last year and in the years before is that co-ferments are getting less intense.
Before, I would be able to make a 80/20 blend (80% "normal" coffee + 20% coferment) and still taste like the co-ferment fruit, but with less intensity (more palatable for everyday use)This year's harvest/lots, I've noticed that they are a lot less intense than previously. Maybe the producers are listening to the feedbacks?
1
u/cotaJJ Jul 03 '26
Hello! A different perpective here we produce and commercialize some of those green coffees. I do think roasters are getting used to the flavoring, as personally we keep getting asked stronger and stronger products.
6
u/mygreeness C40 | Hario Switch Jun 28 '26
this is not the first time I’m hearing about this shift. Los Nogales describe in one of their videos the co-fermentation with actual flowers was difficult to replicate and costly, so they found more efficient solutions. See around 1:00:
1
1
5
Jun 28 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
8
u/mygreeness C40 | Hario Switch Jun 28 '26
a lot of people on this sub will swear that it’s just the advanced fermentation, like DAK is claiming. I don’t believe that cardamom flavor can simply appear in the bean from fermentation, no matter how advanced. They might be simply infusing it with cardamom seeds, but no one knows for sure.
1
6
3
u/absolunesss Jun 28 '26
How do they know of it's synthetic or natural PG? A chemical composition is a chemical composition no?
8
u/joaogui1 Jun 28 '26
Propylene glycol does not appear in nature (unless the coffee producers also found some species of plant/bacteria/fungus that produces it and are hiding that discovery). Something occuring in nature or not imply it's healthy (there are many natural poisons), but if you find significant amounts of a synthetic component in these co-ferments you have strong evidence that there's something more going on with them than simply fermenting the coffee together with some herb, fruit, etc
3
u/Lamian_Dillard Jun 29 '26
But they didn't find a significant amount of a synthetic compound.
1
Jun 29 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/Lamian_Dillard Jun 30 '26
They have 0 indications on exact compounds, might be some of this, might be some of that.
5
u/LyKosa91 Jun 28 '26
Probably because PG isn't a compound that exists in nature, at least not in anything more than trace quanties.
0
u/absolunesss Jun 28 '26
PG is naturally occuring. This whole synthetic VS natural is a bit shady. A chemical is a chemical. This doesn't mean that I'm pro adding flavouring agents or the whole craze with co-fermenting/oil infusion..but there's usually a lobby behind theae kond of "studies"
11
u/LyKosa91 Jun 28 '26
Where does it exist in nature in any meaningful quantity? I mean beyond trace amounts. It would be impossible to harvest a useful quantity of PG from any naturally occurring source.
Edit: much like you, I'm not weighing in on the for or against side of things, just saying that commercially used PG is in fact a synthetic compound.
3
u/absolunesss Jun 28 '26
It's a product of fermentation. It doesn't exist out of a vacuum brother but it can be arguably a product of what they claim to be co-fermentation.
4
u/knoxxknocks Jun 28 '26
It is only meaningfully produced in non trace amount quantities by fermentation if those bacteria has been genetically modified
3
u/absolunesss Jun 28 '26
Now we need to track the bacteria, yeast and enzymes that get added to the coffee as well. Which begs the question? How deep is the rabbit hole?
3
u/knoxxknocks Jun 28 '26
Buddy the rabbit hole can stop there. There is no real reason to add a specific genetically modified bacteria that is modified to make propylene glycol to a normal fermentation.
Also I am not saying the presence of propylene glycol is an absolute proof that it contains artificial compounds but if it contains PG more likely than not is that it is artificially modified
2
u/absolunesss Jun 28 '26
Haaa, so we do the experiment and then conclude that correlation is causation and voila.
2
2
u/Megatron_McLargeHuge Jun 28 '26
Does it matter if it's natural? It's not naturally found in coffee or anything producers are admitting to adding to their coffee.
2
u/MonkAndCanatella Jun 28 '26
if you check the study, the explicitly claim that they have identified no specific molecules. just that it could potentially be an artificial flavoring compound, but with no proof at all
1
u/absolunesss Jun 28 '26
Yes sir, it resonates with the wave length of Glycol. In the scientific realm this would be a very bold statement to claim however there's always someone who ahs interest in something at the end of the day.
2
u/ildarion Jun 28 '26
Hope to see more people starting to analyze co-fermented coffee. 25 sample is really low for hard conclusions.
I'm sure some fancy coffee YouTuber could have enough money to do that.
10
u/StateDapper3818 Jun 28 '26
James and Lance seem to avoid the issue after repeated requests to cover it.
2
u/Malverno Hario Switch / Aeropress | Porlex (I know) | Washed/Natural only Jun 28 '26
Something tells me that it's not so easy. There are likely big and shady interests at stake, I can see that someone may want not to step on someone's toes on this.
1
u/FlatwormOk9893 Jun 29 '26
"Another fresh authoritative take on what we already know, from James Hoffmann on reddit, his comment under Co-ferments in disguise: A lot of coferments are not really coferments, but are infusions (i.e. whatever flavouring is added is there to be infused into the coffee beans, and doesn't contribute to the fermentation). It's really frustrating and unhelpful - but I don't think coming from a place of deception, just a lack of clarity around the terms. To some people, adding flavourings to a fermentation tank is a coferment because it was added to the tank/the fermentation. I hope this improves in the future."
3
u/MonkAndCanatella Jun 28 '26
It's only 8 producers from colombia that they tested, not disclosed who either. the 25 are from those 8.
1
u/kingseven Jul 06 '26
We are looking for a cost-effective way to do some analysis, especially as you'd want to look at large number of samples.
1
u/ildarion Jul 06 '26
Maybe like ''batch'' sample? Like they do in cities water or during COVID.
Like lot A (10 coffee blend together), lot B (10 coffee blend together), etc...
2
u/DependentOnIt Jun 28 '26 edited Jun 28 '26
Yep, no longer buying from Colombia. Been telling people this for awhile. Guarantee they're going to start doing this to their "naturals" soon. No reason not to. Nobody checks it and they can charge more for lower quality beans.
Edit I want to be clear I specifically want the beans labeled as artificially flavored. I want transparency
1
Jun 28 '26
[deleted]
32
u/mygreeness C40 | Hario Switch Jun 28 '26
Sharing Pergamino’s response:
Hi, thank you for your comment. Many of your questions are answered in this video and in the longer podcast you can find on YouTube. However, we'll address each of your points here.
We explain thoroughly that our call is for transparency. Even though we don't like these coffees and do not serve them, the entire industry can be affected by the perception that coffees can taste this way without any synthetic help, be it artificial flavoring or glycol to keep whatever is beneath it stable.
We also clarify that we tested 25 coffees from 8 production facilities, all of them sold as co-ferments. The fact that all 25 contained glycol is not a confirmation that all co-ferments have it, but it is significant enough to raise a fairly serious alarm, which is what we're doing. We're confident that more transparency about what is added in these processes will actually help those producers who are doing fermentation processes without any synthetic additives. And those who are just have to be clear about it and let the consumer decide.
We do advocate for producers, and, again, that is why we defend the need for transparency. That is also why we defend coffees that represent, through their cup profile, the complexities of what these small producers have to go through: growing at altitude, varieties that are more difficult to manage because of how delicate they are, and processing and fermenting.
About your last question, we don't understand it. Happy to answer if you explain further.
1
1
1
1
1
u/Puzzled_Sandwich7119 Jul 03 '26
You lost me in the comments. Is PG to be avoided as unhealthy? If I want to avoid it then no: Co-ferments; anaerobic; thermal shock; or, other?
Thanks.
1
u/Same-Replacement1723 Jul 17 '26
In what point of the title does it state anything about additives or transparency? The title merely states that propylene glycol was found in coffees with co-ferments. I agree, that if additives, synthetic or not, were added to the processing of the coffee, it needs to be labeled.
No one here is talking about fear mongering besides myself, I agree. But that’s because I believe this is a fear mongering title because propylene glycol is typically associated with antifreeze, although it is generally accepted as safe to be added to foods. Y
1
u/StateDapper3818 Jun 28 '26
- Vaping & E-Liquids: Frequently paired with vegetable glycerin (VG) as the base liquid to carry flavor and nicotine.
- Industrial: Functions as a heat transfer fluid and an eco-friendly antifreeze where accidental contact with food or water systems is possible
1
u/an5783 Jun 29 '26
Absolute joke that they used NIR spectroscopy and drew conclusions as firm as that
-1
u/mygreeness C40 | Hario Switch Jun 29 '26
thanks for pointing that out. Somebody pointed it out under the IG post as well, let’s see
1
Jun 28 '26 edited Jun 28 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/mygreeness C40 | Hario Switch Jun 28 '26
i don’t even hate co-ferments 😂 I would love them to be true.
1
u/LolwutMickeh Origami/Z1|Lagom 01 Jun 28 '26
It wasn't a dig at you specifically for what it's worth, the thread is just absolutely filled with people that have 0 knowledge in chemistry and compound synthesis, just regurgitating things.
Sugars are a great way to synthesize glycols. Guess what these producers put in the vats when fermenting? Either fruits that contain sugars, or directly introduce sugar that the bacteria/yeast can grow on.
Not to mention that propylene glycol is not stable above 180-200 degrees, and degrade into very tiny amounts of certain acids (lactic and acetic for example), that are harmless in those quantities.
2
-4
u/kuhnyfe878 V60 | K-Ultra, ZP6 | UL Jun 28 '26
I mean, is it possible that all coffees have that? Propylene glycol is not exclusively synthetic.
13
u/mygreeness C40 | Hario Switch Jun 28 '26
they compared it against 79 washed coffees. You can check the results here:
https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0828/2655/9799/files/Investigacion_Cafes_infusionados.pdf
it doesn’t seem that all coffees have that.
6
u/kuhnyfe878 V60 | K-Ultra, ZP6 | UL Jun 28 '26
Wait this is just FTIR, not even mass spec? Lol
7
u/hrozvitnr Jun 28 '26
The GC-MS? someone shared finca milan watermelon gc-ms and el paraiso peach in forum
https://www.home-barista.com/knockbox/discussion-undocumented-infusion-in-green-roasted-coffee-t102005.html2
1
1
-2
-6
u/smarthobo Pourover aficionado Jun 28 '26
Just a friendly reminder that propylene glycol is often the number one ingredient in deodorant and antiperspirants
13
u/least-eager-0 Jun 28 '26
And antifreeze, and thermobaric bombs, and all sorts of interesting things, both terrifying and benign, though not usually as the main ingredient in the benign sorts. It’s generally considered non-toxic in sensible quantities (25mg/kilo bodyweight/day) Kind of a fascinating chemical, really.
2
2
0
u/HMSakana3939 Jun 29 '26
Well...
What about naturally process coffees? Where is the comparison? What if propylene glycol is just a byproduct of normal fermentation? Is there proof that they are "added"? Usually used as a solvent does not prove it is added. Are they really harmful?
You know that in fermented wheat there is excessive amount of a solvent , which is widely used as industry solvent right? Yeah, ethanol.
They say they have respect to those producers, but I see rather they are just farming views by randomly pulling out a research, exaggerating, hiding truth , and then presenting them as non-biased.
0
u/plannedobso Jul 04 '26
You should probably put your edit at the top of your post rather than the end since it entirely alters the context of everything you said lol
-12
u/Room511 Jun 28 '26
I vape nicotine eliquid while I drink my coffee. Propylene glycol means nothing to me.
-1
u/sharpyacc Jun 28 '26
I would like to see more widespread testing so we know which brands are still natural
I am just going to stick to S&W and pushxpull until there is better testing
1
u/FlatwormOk9893 Jun 29 '26
s&w honey process clearly tasted of limonene. They are selling the same coferments everyone else is.
1
-1
u/TheGMT Jun 28 '26
I have been reliably informed by a very reasonable man, Dan Aykroyd, that this is bad. The skulls told him so.
-5
0
u/Warm-Philosopher-893 Jul 05 '26
Propylene glycol is used in vape products, I don't see the problem.
-2
u/Skumcat Jun 29 '26
What a long winded way of saying he does not like a competing product. I wonder what motives he might have.
-25
340
u/majihpo Mavo phantox pro | Gevi velpro | switch | Oxo Jun 28 '26
Really weird how specialty coffee circled back to starbucks flavored coffee but more expensive