The Pesticides Underpinning Coffee’s Healthy Image

Seemingly every week, a new study reaffirms that coffee is beneficial to drinkers. Everyone’s favourite morning beverage has been shown to reduce the risk of various cancers; it can lower your chances of developing neurodegenerative diseases like Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s; reduce the risk of type 2 diabetes; and may even help stave off the grim spectre of death itself.

Of course, studies have also found that there are downsides to drinking coffee—but the weight of scientific evidence leans heavily on the side of coffee’s health benefits. This is something that trade groups like the National Coffee Association love to tout: The NCA is even pushing the United States Food and Drug Administration to formally recognise coffee as a health food.

But while coffee is generally agreed to be healthy for consumers, it’s another matter entirely for those who produce it.

It’s not just that, for the millions of people around the world who rely on coffee for their livelihoods, it’s barely possible to make a living. It’s also the pesticides—a group of substances that includes insecticides, fungicides, and herbicides, among many others—that are used in growing regions around the world. Somebody has to spray those chemicals, and very often they’re doing it for years without appropriate protection or training. 

As a result, farmers and farmworkers often get sick, and can even die—and they are seldom, if ever, considered when we discuss whether coffee is truly healthy.

Banned for Some, Not for All

Modern agriscience has made it extremely easy to turbocharge coffee production. Many farms spray pesticides as well as nitrogen fertilisers to maximise productivity and stave off bug attacks—and, in so doing, increase their yields and profits.

About two million tonnes of pesticides are used worldwide each year across all forms of agriculture, and their usage is widespread in coffee production. Brazilian coffee farms utilise millions of kilograms annually, while in Costa Rica, farmers spray 25kg per hectare of cultivated land.

However, a vanishingly small amount actually directly targets pests—according to one 2020 study, more than 90% of agricultural pesticide application is lost to the environment. These excess chemicals, the study states, can cause “soil degradation, deterioration of [the] agro-ecosystem, ground water contamination, potential threat to animal and human health and safety, residue problem and pesticide resistance in target organisms”.

Chlorpyrifos is one such damaging pesticide that is “widely used in coffee plantations to mitigate the impacts of insects and maximise productivity”, according to a recent study. It was developed and patented by the Dow Chemical Company in the 1960s and originally sold as a household pesticide.

While effective, chlorpyrifos is also known to cause countless health issues. According to that 2020 study, exposure can lead to “neurological effects, autoimmune disorders, and persistent developmental disorders when exceeding the threshold level”, while exposure during pregnancy can harm the child’s development.

Because of its numerous ill effects on human health and the environment, chlorpyrifos is prohibited in many countries—although, after meeting with Dow representatives in 2017, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under the President Trump-appointed Scott Pruitt reversed its ban on the pesticide. (The EPA finally banned chlorpyrifos in 2021.)

Despite being illegal in the European Union, Canada, the United Kingdom, and now the United States, chlorpyrifos is still in use in other countries, particularly those in the Global South; Dow says it is used on 8.5 million crop acres in nearly 100 countries worldwide. Its use is widespread in coffee production—in 2022, Japan even considered banning imports of Kenyan coffee due to excessive chlorpyrifos residue levels.

But chlorpyrifos is just one among many pesticides used in coffee cultivation and other agricultural contexts. Others include endosulfan, ametryn, epoxiconazole, and glyphosate (or Roundup, to use its brand name). Endosulfan is a highly toxic pesticide that was used to control the coffee berry borer beetle, but which is now also banned in most countries, while glyphosate is one of the most widely applied and most controversial herbicides currently in use worldwide. 

Dr. Athina Koutouleas and colleagues at the University of Copenhagen’s Department of Geosciences and Natural Resource Management conducted a meta-analysis of current research into pesticide use as well as potential alternatives. She sums up the various issues that those handling these chemicals can face: “Long-term exposure to pesticides used in coffee production can lead to skin irritation or corrosion, eye irritation, skin and respiratory sensitization, target-organ toxicity, carcinogenicity, germ cell mutagenicity and reproductive toxicity”.

And it’s not just workers who are at risk: Pesticide runoff can contaminate drinking water and soil, potentially exposing farmers’ families and wider communities to health problems. If enough is sprayed, these chemicals can even persist in processed green coffee beans and (albeit in miniscule amounts) through the roasting process and into your cup. 

‘You Have to Accept What the Gods Give You’

Brazil is the world’s largest consumer of pesticides, and also the world’s largest producer of coffee. Over the past few decades, the country’s pesticide use has exploded, increasing 190% between 2007 and 2017. While a lot of that is due to soybean farms and other agriculture, Brazilian coffee producers still utilise about 38 million kilograms of pesticides each year. The Danish investigative news outlet Danwatch published a report in 2016 on the effects of pesticides on Brazilian coffee farmworkers, finding multiple instances of workers being poisoned by the chemicals they were handling.

Terbufos, a chemical compound used in insecticides, is one of those poisons. Banned in many countries in the Global North, it is classed as “extremely hazardous” by the World Health Organization; without proper protection, touching it can kill you. And yet, Terbufos “is just one of thirty active pesticide ingredients that are prohibited in the EU, but approved by Brazilian authorities for use on Brazilian coffee plantations”, Danwatch journalist Julie Hjerl Hansen wrote. 

The report showed that significant numbers of farmworkers handle and apply pesticides without proper protection, either because it is too cumbersome or simply because it isn’t available. Even then, no PPE can protect completely from their dangers. A 2011 survey of coffee workers in Minas Gerais state found that 59% experienced at least one symptom of pesticide poisoning; in 2012, 21 agricultural workers in the state died from chemical poisoning. And the effects aren’t just physical: A 2017 study found increased rates of depression among workers in Brazil who applied pesticides.

Ronaldo Vicente Antonio lived and worked on a coffee farm for more than 20 years. Every April, he applied pesticides without any training. “I had heard that there could be problems with the pesticides, but I had to work”, Antonio told Danwatch. After two decades, he began to lose feeling in his hands and feet. “In the beginning, I didn’t worry, but then it became so painful that I couldn’t work. I was afraid that I might lose my job, because I had children to provide for”.

Antonio eventually left the job, and 10 years later was living in a dilapidated shack with nothing to show for his decades of work except a broken body. “I don’t know if it’s because of the pesticides. I can’t help thinking that I might be healthy today if I hadn’t taken that job. But I had to do it to provide for my family. You have to accept what the gods give you”.

Pesticides, Production, Profit

Because of its size and focus on monoculture coffee production, Brazil is one of the world’s worst culprits for pesticide use. However, such chemicals are widespread on coffee farms around the world, from Tanzania to India to the Dominican Republic—and it’s not hard to see why. Many farmers are solely reliant on coffee to provide for their families, and thus are under enormous pressure to increase yields and deter pests—something that is becoming ever harder as the climate crisis takes hold.

Faced with the choice between putting food on the table tomorrow or possible health implications 10 years in the future, many unsurprisingly turn to chemicals to boost production. Indeed, studies have shown that using pesticides can increase coffee yields. 

However, it’s wrong to assume that pesticides are a universally accessible or cost-effective solution. A major 2021 report by a French NGO found that the costs of pesticides far outweigh the profits received from using them. These chemicals aren’t cheap, and the farmers using them must have the means to invest in them. As Dr. Koutouleas points out, usage “really depends on the region and accessibility of pesticides in terms of both price and availability. I know that most of Nicaraguan coffee is ‘organic’ by default because farmers are too poor to afford these inputs. However in Costa Rica, many smallholder coffee farmers use pesticides because of socioeconomic status”.

In some places, such as Hawaii, Kenya, and Cameroon, pesticides are subsidised by the government. Sometimes that’s to fight a specific infestation, like the coffee berry borer in Hawaii, or to boost production, as in Cameroon. However, such subsidies can also disincentivise the adoption of more sustainable pest control methods, creating long-term cycles that are challenging to disrupt.

‘Ecological Balance’

In Brazil, according to agronomist Jonas Ferraresso, most farms use pesticides in some capacity, “but it is clear that larger-scale farms often end up using a more constant volume due to their size and the money involved”. However, he notes that “the use of agrochemicals is more dependent on where the farm is located, and how aggressive the pests and diseases are in that region”.

And while Brazilian pesticide use in general has increased in recent years, Ferraresso has noticed a significant decrease among the farmers he works with. He says many have become interested in more sustainable coffee production techniques, like regenerative agriculture—which, while growing crops, also tries to restore the environment—and organic farming. 

There is also growing interest in biological controls. “For example, the control of the coffee seed borer can be carried out using conventional insecticides, or by a fungus called Beauveria bassiana,” Ferraresso says. “In both cases, the control is very good, but the second is more sustainable”.

As part of her investigation into pesticide use on coffee farms, Dr. Koutouleas explored more sustainable alternatives for pest and disease control. One is agroforestry, in which trees and shrubs are planted alongside agricultural crops. (She is also currently a postdoctoral researcher for Agroforestry Paradox – Climate Clever Coffee, a cross-cutting project about Ugandan coffee, the people who cultivate it, and the environments in which it grows.)

“I am a strong proponent of the concept of ‘ecological balance’ within a farming system”, Dr. Koutouleas tells me. “When pests and diseases strike, it usually means that something is out of balance. Growing coffee under an agroforestry system can actually help with restoring balance to the farm environment”.

However, both Ferraresso and Dr. Koutouleas caution that not every alternative works with the same efficacy as chemical pesticides, so they must be carefully managed and monitored.

Although we all want more sustainable coffee production, it’s no use blaming coffee farmers for using pesticides when demand in consuming countries continues to grow while prices stagnate, both of which puts pressure on them to produce more. And coffee drinkers might feel good about their healthy beverage choices, but with current production practises the way they are, consumers also risk sipping pesticide residues with their morning cup.

There is clearly a trade-off to be made between chemical usage, potential income, and worker safety. No farmer wants to risk their own life, or the lives of their loved ones and communities, by spraying pesticides, but in many cases they don’t have a choice. Their workers, often already in precarious employment and with little power, have even less say in the matter.

Unless the wider coffee industry finds a way to properly incentivise farmers to reduce pesticide use and switch to more sustainable practices, most will simply continue to do what they have to do to survive.

Until then, no matter how many studies find that coffee is good for you—and no matter how often the National Coffee Association trumpets its health benefits—the lives of workers and farmers will continue to serve as testament to the omissions in those claims.