June 1, 2025
As
I sat in the CQI Luncheon at the Brown Convention Center in Houston on April
26, the room seemed to be held in a palpable gloom. The confusing,
half-announcements about "cancelling the Q" were abusive in their
unconcern for the language
that CQI had taught coffee professionals over the past 20 years. We had learned
to talk to each other.
Over
20 years, the Q educational standard for assessing sensory attributes of coffee
has become a language that is spoken by at least 106 countries. One hundred and six countries have at least
one licensed Q grader! (I studied the list on the CQI website of currently
licensed Q graders to arrive at this number.) The SCA was willing to toss this
baby out with the bath water, convinced by the arrogant idea that by December 31, 2025, it could replace it with
its own tool for physical and sensory assessment.
Vanity
and self-obsession is the only explanation I can find for the SCA's blindness
to the obvious better path they either never saw or refused to see: why not do both? Why not continue the Q
Grading system, which SCA controls as of Oct. 1, 2025. Why not offer the
industry the "old" sensory assessment Q Grading certificate as a
"Level B" accomplishment and allow the new assessment the years of
time it will take to build and promote a new "Level A" certificate.
There
are decades of proof that the Q Grader and a new CVA assessment can co-exist
meaningfully and beneficially. Our industry has always had, and benefited from,
multiple and alternative tools for
sensory evaluation of coffee. The Q Grader has existed alongside the Cup of
Excellence, Academy of Coffee Excellence cupping form for decades. The ACE and the CQI programs have
been considered two very distinctly important and meaningful approaches to
evaluate coffee value. They have lived side-by-side without confusion. I
believe the commercial grade coffee business has its own evaluation system to
grade imports and name defects in imported, lower grade coffees. This one is
older than the Q or the ACE evaluation.
Maybe
SCA could give the CVA assessment a more appropriate name, like the "Physical-Descriptive + Affective Score"
form? The "PDAS" form for short? I have no doubt, that the SCA could
pour money into promoting the research-based under-pinnings of its Descriptive
form for describing coffee and its Affective form for scoring coffee.
This would be a welcome addition to the world of coffee sensory evaluation.
What is not appreciated by those like myself
who try to improve value distribution across the coffee value chain is the
SCA's candy-coating of its Extrinsic
Assessment form as either well-researched or well-vetted across the coffee
world. I'm one coffee professional who knows that my feedback at one of SCA's
"Beta - testing workshops" in August 2023 has not been incorporated.
I suggested that the Extrinsic Assessment form
is lacking any form of gender equity assessment. Research has shown over and
over again how women are the backbone of coffee and investing in women and
gender equity in coffee communities strengthens their resilience and improves
coffee productivity. Gender equity and investments that support women, women's
health and children's health are also highly correlated to attracting the
younger generation to the profession of coffee farming. "I hear my
mother's voice every day," one thirty-something Rwandan man told me.
"If, when I was a boy, she was telling me every day that she hated coffee
and I better do something else when I grow up, that's what I will hear in my
head as a man." That man will not want to be a coffee farmer. Now change
the scenario. What if we got lots of
mothers today telling their children “whatever you do, make sure you plant
some coffee trees.”
Research also shows that farm size and farmer years
of experience are the most impactful factors on cost of production. Should
these be found somewhere on an "extrinsic assessment" form? They are
not there. In fact, the so-called Combined Form for the CVA assessment,
which is the form most likely to be used in any real-life lab-setting, has nothing in "Part 3: Extrinsic
Assessment." It's a blank rectangle to write your notes. Not a lot different than the current
SCA Cupping Form when it comes to evaluating extrinsic factors, I would say.
And yet the Extrinsic Form seems to be the
entire basis for the name of this tool: "COFFEE VALUE ASSESSMENT".
I'm sorry. The emperor has no clothes. Let's call a "spade" a
"spade" please, not try to call a frog a prince. The SCA is
introducing a new non-quantitative
coffee sensory description form which works nicely when paired with an affective assessment which is scored.[1]
That's it! While SCA tries to sound fancy by
mentioning Part 1: Physical Assessment, this form is the same green coffee
evaluation form we've had for decades (taught in the Q grader class, by the
way), and frequently used in combination with the cupping form to evaluate a
lot of coffee. Except with CVA they've taken density off the form. Not sure how that's an improvement.
SCA tries to pat itself on the back as ethical
by adding Part 4: Extrinsic Assessment. Again, nice try, but if you're only
going to list the country, the region, the process, any certification and
ignore everything else, including whether women are enslaved for production of
this coffee, I'm not impressed.
We don't need to throw out the Q Grading tool
that has empowered producers in 106 countries to talk to their customers in
order to add emphasis or standardization to industry practices that are already
well-established. Yes - let's agree to regularly share: country, region,
process method and any third-party certifications.
Looking at the signs in the hallways in
Houston, one would think the CVA form itself was going to bring equality to the entire coffee value
chain by December 31, 2025 -- therefore we should all be jumping for joy! So
why were all the CQI leaders I know looking concerned, glum or literally
crying?
The audacity and insanity to believe that any
system could replace a system practiced in 106 countries can only be likened to
other groups we know who live in narcissistic worlds convinced that they are
the only ones who matter.
If I could request that the SCA provide an FAQ
on their new sensory tool that is actually helpful, it would ask and answer the
following questions:
Q: What is the budget that SCA has allocated to
train all the instructors in 106 countries?
Q: What is the timeline on which each of 106
countries can expect to have instructors and graders that equals the number of
Q instructors and Q graders that they have today? I'm here in the USA, a pretty
big country, and I can't find this information for my country.
Q: What is the plan to communicate with and
gently transition students (like me) who are already training for their next Q
calibration or instructors who have courses scheduled through the end of 2025?
Q: Where could Q instructors get accurate
information? For example, about whether their students who were signed up to
take their class on April 28 would be eligible for the CQI Q Grader
Certificate?
A: There was none. My instructor was IN
HOUSTON, IN CVA meetings on April 26 and 27 with SCA decision-makers and did not
get accurate information. She ended up giving those of us who signed up for her
April 28 class a mistaken message that "no certificate would be given even
if you pass the calibration." CORRECT INFORMATION: CQI certificates are given to students who pass
the Q calibration tests through September 30, 2025.
Q: Is there any good reason why SCA has not
made the CVA an additional certification
that professionals can earn, in addition
to their Q Grader license, since the two are NOT mutually exclusive, just
different?
A:
No, SCA chose chaos over the obvious solution of making the CVA the “A Level
Certification” that one can earn on top of one’s “B Level Certification,” which
is the Q Grader Certification. Such a solution would have created a global
system with 106 countries in it already. It would have a substantial chance at
convincing people like me that the SCA was interested in "evolving",
not simply crushing competitors and don't worry about who gets hurt and #@$%^Y
the little guys, gender equity and all that complicated stuff.
I was IN HOUSTON seeing SCA's freshly printed
signs proclaiming the "evolved" new sensory tool and nothing on the SCA website had accurate
information for people like me. People wanted to know if there was any other
option besides dropping my 14 years of training and waiting until some unknown
date, to go to a currently non-existent website to see if there were any CVA
classes somewhere in the USA, and what it would cost.
Now, in June 2025, there is a website and there
are 12 CVA Cupper courses in the United States before Dec. 31, 2025. (https://specialtycoffee.my.site.com/s/course-list?mod=CVA%20for%20Cuppers) There is no
way to filter or see the CITIES or even STATES in which these courses are
offered. You can click on each one and each time you click out again, you will
have to start from square one to get the filter narrowed down to the 12 classes
in the USA. Infuriating. Not exactly promising that SCA has suddenly become an
organization that is up to offering a resource to the globe.
There is no way to contact an individual on the SCA Education staff to ask questions. I'd like to ask about getting credit for the CVA course I (paid for) and took at Coffee Roasters Guild retreat in Delavan, WI in August 2023. All I can do is fill out a CONTACT US form.
The cost for the two-day CVA Cuppers class is
$850. Can you believe this?! Instead of paying $600 to re-calibrate my Q Grader
License, the SCA thinks it would be good if I cancel all that planning and
forget all my training and preparation and instead pay $850 to listen to their
propaganda for 2 days and "practice cupping." Because this will make
me eligible to be an evolved Q grader. Got that? I'm not even certified in the
new system when I pay $850. This is the green fee to be eligible to pay even more money next year to actually get a
certificate.... after they decide what that is going to be. They don't know
yet. Do you get the sense they're making this up as they go along? I do.
Would it have made more sense to maintain a
dual-track system? One track that is proven with systems and instructors, and
the new track, which needs time to evolve. Maybe they could run a couple of
pilots to see if the system works before they try to launch?
It was sad to see SCA's mismanagement of the
valuable Q Grader tool overshadow what could have been a happier celebration of
CQI’s accomplishments and mission going forward. With the inexplicably poor
communication from SCA, they succeeded in looking like the ugly bully that
bludgeons those genuinely interested in improving the industry. The SCA stands
in favor of installing systems that ensure that white men with a lot of money
keep all the power. ^&*%# the 103 countries that aren't big enough to pour
money into SCA's coffers and "who cares?!" about instructors who
passionately teach Q grading courses and those of us lowly coffee professionals
who had just spent weeks preparing for a Q calibration class on April 28? We
have been firmly (some would say abusively) put in our place as inadequate of
your attention. Thank you SCA.
It was sad to me that CQI's accomplishment of
bringing the Q grading system to at least
106 countries was not highlighted during the lunch. Speakers at the lunch
tossed out the number "10,000 Q Graders" which is impressive, but
that tally doesn't, for me, share the value of the Q as a means of
communication between producers and their customers. "A language now spoken by 106 countries" emphasizes the
depth of what Ted Lingle was seeking when he pursued the idea of a standard for
specialty coffee. My 14 year journey as a Q Grader has continually brought me
in touch with other professionals and organizations who value making it easier
for producers to learn and understand what their customers want and need.
Another core value of the Q Grading system is its ability to be an appropriate technology in less-developed countries. Q instructors actually encourage the use of paper forms. Is paper and pencil an old-school technology? Yes. And many coffee producing countries simply still need old-school systems as a valid alternative.
The CVA Assessment, on the other hand, is reported to "prioritise digital platforms, exclusively employing electronic forms or tools. There will be no provision for traditional paper forms. Additionally, score calculation will be carried out electronically, potentially facilitated by an app, as per SCA guidelines." [CUPRIMA blogpost]
I
fail to see how such a system is going to be helpful for the farmers I work
with in rural Rwanda. This may change, but I don't believe my roaster customers
are clamouring for a global digital database of cupping scores either. They
appreciate and will continue to use Q scores. Does the FNC see value in such a
database? No doubt. Does the Brazilian Specialty Coffee Association want access
to such a database? Of course, yes.
