On Dec. 28, Hawaii News Now featured a segment about the labeling requirements for the minimum percentage of Kona coffee in a blend.

In March, I had written a commentary that brought up some of the same talking points (“Require ‘Hawaii coffee’ to contain more coffee from Hawaii,” Island Voices, Star-Advertiser, March 3, 2022). One of the main arguments is that increasing the percentage of Kona coffee beans in properly labeled Hawaii coffee will result in higher prices, causing restaurants to replace locally sourced coffee on their menus with more affordable blends from outside the state (“Bill would establish 51% minimum for ‘Hawaii’ coffee,” Star-Advertiser, Feb. 23).

This has been and is a recurring theme to justify watering down our coffee to keep serving and selling substandard coffee. If legislators really wanted to make a good impression on our visitor industry instead of kowtowing to the big money, they would require that all coffee grown and sold in Hawaii as “Kona coffee” or coffee from a specific region in Hawaii such as Kau, would be labeled as 100% from that region.

Realistically, though, our Legislature doesn’t have the intestinal fortitude to make that a reality.

Another point brought up in the HNN segment is that we, the state of Hawaii, are not protecting a product that is special to Hawaii: its world-class coffee. Why are we not protecting it by requiring a minimum 51% in a blend? Think about this: Do you like iced tea? Do you like lemon in your tea? What if you had 90% lemon and 10% tea, is it still iced tea? What do you call it? An iced tea blend?

Same thing goes for our current 10% blend mentality. Why do we proclaim the virtues of Kona coffee, but continue to offer a cheap substitute just to capitalize on the name?

Victor Lim, government relations leader for the Hawaii Restaurant Association, defends the use of a 10% Kona blend. For instance, he says, McDonald’s has had the same blend for about 50 years, and its customers would notice a change in flavor after having it over all those years.

In its defense, I have had McDonald’s coffee and I enjoyed it. Though I really don’t think it was because of the 10% Kona coffee, but more the quality of the other 90% it uses in the blend — which is not a quality others share.

If Hawaii’s legislators had the people’s interest at heart, they wouldn’t keep having studies done that waste money and just continue kicking the can down the road in the hopes that this Kona coffee-blend issue will be forgotten. It appears that outside forces, such as restaurants, large independent roasters, and individuals with ties to corporate interests and legislators control how a product specific to Hawaii is marketed.

Hawaii-grown coffee is a commodity that positively and proudly promotes a product grown and produced in our state. Something we should be proud of. Maybe the answer to this issue is that if the product is a blend, then it should not have the words “Kona,” “Kau” or “Hawaiian” on the label.

Michael Federspiel, of Captain Cook, is a small coffee farmer in South Kona.