Coffee lovers are being conned by suppliers fraudulently mixing inferior beans into products labelled 100% Arabica, scientists have learned.
The discovery came to light as a result of British researchers trying out a new and more accurate method of testing coffee quality.
As part of the study, members of the team and collaborators around the world bought samples of coffee on sale at shops and supermarkets.
They found that a tenth of high quality products labelled "100% Arabica" contained significant levels of inferior and cheaper "Robusta" beans.
Arabica coffee trades at twice the price of Robusta because of its superior taste.
Adulteration with Robusta coffee, which is higher yielding and easier to grow, has always been a potential problem.
But finding rogue Robusta in a sample labelled Arabica is not easy, especially after grinding and roasting.
The standard technique detects the fingerprint chemical 16-OMC, which is only found in Robusta coffee, but is costly and takes three days.
This makes large scale surveillance impractical.
The new method takes only 30 minutes and is sensitive enough to detect just 1% Robusta in a blended coffee.
Lead scientist Dr Kate Kemsley, from the Quadram Institute, formerly known as the Institute of Food Research, said: "This is an important milestone for detecting fraud in coffee, as 1% is the generally accepted cut-off between trace contamination, which might be accidental, and more deliberate adulteration for economic gain."
For the study a total of 60 different coffee samples were purchased in consumer countries around the world, including 22 from the UK.
All were tested for 16-OMC using the new nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) technique, which employs radio waves and strong magnetic fields to obtain detailed information about a substance's molecular composition.
"It was immediately obvious using our test that there were several suspicious samples, producing results that were consistent with the presence of substantial amounts of Robusta - far more than would be expected through unavoidable contamination," said Dr Kemsley.
Two of the samples flagged as "suspicious" were bought in the UK. One contained 1.6% Robusta and the other 21.7%.
Other UK samples had notable levels of 16-OMC but fell below the "suspicious" threshold.
Suspicious samples were also obtained from the US, Italy, France and Estonia. One US sample was a third Robusta, despite being labelled 100% Arabica.
A spokesman for the Quadram Institute said it was not possible to name the brands involved.
The findings not only affect consumers, but also undermine efforts to ensure that smallholders in developing countries are paid a fair price for the coffee they grow, said the researchers.
The research, published in the journal Food Chemistry, was funded by the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC) and had no support from the coffee industry.
Giles Chapman, head of intelligence at the Food Standards Agency's National Food Crime Unit, said: "We're always keen to understand how scientific advances expand the range of tools which can be used to validate the authenticity of food products sold to UK consumers.
"This piece of work has generated some interesting insights which we will be looking to explore further."
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules here