Infused coffees have divided the industry for over five years. Adding natural or artificial ingredients to coffee enables producers to create bold, unique flavour profiles that appeal to consumers seeking something different.

Some believe they are a natural and welcome progression of innovation in experimental processing. Others, meanwhile, consider infused coffees inauthentic and misleading, making them a polarising and contentious topic.

Within this wider discourse lies a more specific debate: is there a difference between natural and artificial infusion? For many, the latter is seen as less desirable and could compromise the coffee’s innate characteristics, or even food safety regulations.

Regardless of opinion, it’s clear that the infused coffee category is diversifying. Despite the growing demand, some still question whether artificially infused coffees, in particular, should be accepted in specialty coffee.

I spoke with Kosta Kallivrousis, the UK and Europe sales representative at Osito Coffee & Cacao, and Nick Mabey, co-founder and director of Assembly Coffee and Volcano Coffee Works, to learn more.

You may also like our article on why transparency is essential for infused coffees.

Infused coffees shake up the industry

In terms of coffee processing, the washed, natural, and honey methods are by far the most common. But over the last decade or so, the number of experimental and advanced processing techniques has proliferated, allowing producers to create “funky” flavour profiles that appeal to younger consumers, in particular. 

Moreover, novel processing techniques can often increase cup scores by a few points, meaning farmers can add more value to their coffee and potentially receive higher prices.

But there are risks. Experimental processing is a capital and labour-intensive practice that produces relatively low volumes of coffee. Producers also need access to the right equipment and infrastructure, as well as advanced knowledge of fermentation and how to control it.

Without these, farmers face significant financial risk, sacrificing large volumes of cherries for little to no reward.

The allure of higher prices, however, has encouraged a small but growing number of producers to push experimental processing even further, paving the way for infused and co-fermented coffees. 

In 2018, rumours circulated about a new “infusion” processing method that involved co-fermenting green coffee beans with additional natural ingredients, such as fruit and spices. The result was intensely bold and prominent flavour profiles, corresponding to whichever ingredients were added. If the producer added pineapple, for example, then the coffee would have noticeable flavours and aromas of pineapple – something that the farmer wouldn’t be able to achieve based on terroir and traditional processing alone.

For some, these co-fermentation techniques were groundbreaking. They granted producers more control than ever over the final flavour profile, or even cup score, of their coffees, catering to specific demands from roasters and consumers. In some cases, particularly in countries where interest in unconventional-tasting coffees is increasing, infused coffees have created new market opportunities for farmers.

The question of transparency

In an industry that advocates for producers’ empowerment, why did infused coffees then become such a hotly debated topic?

The answer lies in transparency. Since its inception, specialty coffee has prioritised terroir, origin, and careful cultivation and processing, all of which result in naturally occurring flavour notes. Some saw infused and co-fermented coffees at odds with these values, undermining authenticity and integrity.

The “team terroir” and “team infused” debate also extends to competitions. In late 2023, the Specialty Coffee Association updated the World Barista Championship rules to include infused and co-fermented coffees, so long as additional ingredients were included before the “green coffee stage”.

Meanwhile, the 2024 Best of Panama competition notably excluded infused coffees from the entries. Organisers cited a desire to “protect the authentic identity” of the country’s coffee sector, free from external flavour influences.

Panama, a country that consistently commands premium prices for its coffee, has a vested interest in protecting its terroir and “identity”. Still, the SCA Panama’s decision sparked mixed reactions within the industry. Some commended the prioritisation of “purity” and terroir expression, while others bemoaned the rejection of processing innovation and experimentation.

The reality, however, is more complex than terroir vs. infusion. As with any advanced processing method, producers require high-quality, ripe cherries with an optimal Brix level and density to achieve good results. The coffees need to have balanced acidity, sweetness, and body, and ideally need to score 84 points or higher to result in excellent infused or co-fermented lots.

To claim that these coffees automatically give producers an unfair competitive edge isn’t entirely accurate. High-quality infused and co-fermented lots classified as specialty still require extensive labour, attention to detail, and best farming practices.

Value addition for producers

The debate between terroir and infused coffees continues to divide the specialty coffee industry, and it’s crucial to consider both sides from different perspectives. 

“I think people see infused coffees as morally good or bad, or pure or impure,” says Kosta Kallivrousis, the UK and Europe sales representative at Osito Coffee & Cacao, a coffee and cocoa trader with operations in Colombia, the US, and the UK. “I find it interesting that the vast majority of consumers don’t drink black coffee, but instead ‘infuse’ it with either milk or sugar. 

“Many of the same people who take a strong stance against infused coffees don’t seem to have a problem selling coffee and being the ones to ‘infuse’ it themselves.”

Indeed, the discourse around infusion and co-fermentation processing methods has highlighted a double standard in the industry. Many cafés charge extra to customise beverages with additional ingredients (such as syrups and flavourings) that can overpower a coffee’s delicate flavours. Roasters, meanwhile, have been selling flavoured coffee beans for decades.

Moreover, the growing consumer interest in experimental processing methods and “funky” flavour profiles is a clear sign that there is demand for infused coffees – something which producers shouldn’t be prevented from accessing.

“My stance on infused coffees has always been reasonably ambivalent to what many in the industry think,” says Nick Mabey, the co-founder and director of Assembly Coffee and Volcano Coffee Works, two specialty coffee roasters in London, UK. “For me, it’s about how innovation can add value for producers, and if there is demand for these coffees, then there should be no reason not to encourage producers to offer more of them.”

New categories of infused coffees are emerging

As the demand for coffee with unconventional flavour notes grows, infused and co-fermented coffees offer a viable solution. But as long as there are no formal definitions for these processing methods, opinions will remain divided.

The terms “infused,” “flavoured,” and “co-fermented” are used interchangeably, which makes it difficult to distinguish between them, exacerbating confusion and concerns about transparency. What’s more, there’s little agreement about where exactly flavour “infusion” should take place along the supply chain.

Some believe infusion can happen at any stage in the value chain, whether during processing or after roasting. Others, meanwhile, affirm that only green coffee can be infused. Ultimately, the danger lies in inadvertently stripping producers of the value of their coffee and retaining it in majority-consuming markets.

“In this sense, brands could capitalise on this trend and use flavoured coffees, but thereby remove value from producers by offering coffees that lack the same level of post-harvest integrity,” says Nick.

This also emphasises the significance of the ingredients used to infuse or co-ferment coffees. While the producer-led trend largely began with the use of natural ingredients, such as fruit and spices, there has been a growing number of cases where farmers use artificial flavourings to achieve similar results.

There could be several reasons for this switch. For example, the Hachi Coffee Project recently shared data suggesting that only 3% of the fruit used in co-fermentation ends up in the cup, effectively increasing waste production. As such, it may be more cost-effective to use artificial flavourings.

Health concerns

However, artificial flavourings are often perceived as “less than” compared to natural ingredients. This raises questions about whether they damage producers’ and roasters’ reputations, especially in cases where there is little transparency about processing methods or coffees are organic.

“Artificially infused coffees often taste one-dimensional, albeit acute. ‘Naturally’ infused coffees, such as co-ferments that undergo certain bio-mechanical changes as a result of fermentation, incorporate a superior structure within the coffee,” Nick says. 

“Personally, I don’t like straight-up ‘infused coffees’, such as those with essential oils. It defeats the purpose of understanding the microbiome of the coffee and the benefits of harvesting and post-harvest techniques to produce truly unique and valuable coffees.”

Although essential oils are derived from natural sources, there’s a sense that straying from minimally processed, whole food ingredients when infusing or co-fermenting coffees gives producers an “unfair advantage” over farmers who rely on terroir and more traditional processing methods.

Moreover, as consumers become increasingly focused on health and wellbeing, they could start to reject artificially infused coffees in favour of natural ingredients.

“Health perception is likely to be the main driver of why artificially infused coffees are seen as ‘problematic’,” Kosta says. Scientific research suggests that artificial food additives are related to a number of health risks, including developing certain types of cancer.

In turn, the coffee industry has a collective responsibility to offer full transparency about the additional ingredients – natural or artificial – used in the supply chain, whether during processing or after roasting.

With the recent US Food and Drug Administration ruling that automatically classifies black coffee as “healthy”, health and wellness claims about coffee will be under even more scrutiny.

Consumer demand is the deciding factor

The growing interest in infused and co-fermented coffees is undeniable, which means roasters shouldn’t ignore them; however, the level of demand varies across different markets.

With a keen interest in ultra-novelty coffees, the Middle East, China, South Korea, Taiwan, and Japan have been among the largest export destinations for infused coffees. 

Demand for these coffees has also been steadily increasing in Europe and the US. However, consumers in these countries may be more likely to consider experimental flavours over-fermented and sour, and tend to be more value-oriented when buying coffee. This means artificially infused coffees may find less success in these markets.

Ultimately, the specialty coffee industry needs to remain open-minded about infused coffees, particularly given the lack of formal, universally accepted definitions of processing methods.

“The truth is that there still remain huge gaps in our knowledge of the role of fermentation and its impact on sensory profiles and the preservation and creation of volatile compounds,” Nick says. “There is even increasing evidence to suggest that co-fermenting offers no exogenous contributions to flavour, and that fermentation simply provides the conditions that allow the endosperm (i.e. seed or bean) to undergo biochemical changes.

“These points are interesting and underscore how we have to be careful as an industry not to stifle innovation where it adds value to producers and consumers; we can’t pretend to know everything.”

The exciting and often polarising infused coffee category has diversified in recent years. Producers can use either natural or artificial additional ingredients, or a combination of both, to create wildly different flavour profiles.

Some argue that the flavour “manipulation” raises questions about fairness and equity, highlighting how the use of artificial ingredients, in particular, can undermine the hard work that producers put into preserving the terroir of their coffee.

Regardless of opinion, the demand for infused and co-fermented coffees is evident, with the strongest interest in emerging markets. For some roasters, not offering these coffees is a missed opportunity, but transparency about processing methods and additional ingredients has become a prerequisite.

Enjoyed this? Then read our article on whether we should treat co-fermented and infused coffees differently.

Perfect Daily Grind

Want to read more articles like this? Sign up for our newsletter!