The “Arabica vs. Robusta” Narrative Disconnects the Coffee Industry From Science
Time to Accept the Canephora Species Before It Takes All Coffea To Family Court.
Arabica is a species. Robusta isn’t. It’s just one varietal of Canephora. Equating Arabica and Robusta to describe the coffee market creates taxonomic confusion and distorts consumer perception. If we name one coffee submarket by Coffea species, we must do the same for all the others. Consistency matters.
Not a big thing? It is.
The “Robusta” mislabel distorts global standards, quality assessments, and trade regulations. By disconnecting trade from science, it stifles both research and market growth. A billion-dollar industry rests on definitions favoring Arabica, impacting millions of farmers and consumers worldwide.
Unripe Canephora cherries in Espirito Santo, Brazil. Botanically, Conilon belongs to Coffea Canephora var. Kouilou – it’s only the coffee industry that adds a “Robusta” label to it.
What makes this misunderstanding worse than e.g. the “it-is-a-seed-not-a-bean” misunderstanding is its asymmetry: It grants Arabica authority and legitimacy, while trapping Canephora in narrow stereotypes. Value is taken away from one coffee submarket (Canephora, including Robusta) and transferred to the other submarket (Arabica).
“But people don’t know Canephora. Robusta is easier to remember. It’s always been called Robusta. It’s a historical thing.”
When historical convention becomes the last defense against progress, we’re stuck in tradition talk. Is the coffee industry sacrificing transparency for cozy Robusta nostalgy?
Imagine a Congolese farmer growing “Petit Kwilu.” The product’s complex ancestral identity is erased when labeled “Robusta.” And the industry won’t question it – this Coffea canephora var. Kouilou coffee ends up being certified 100% Robusta.
The trivialization of Canephora’s diversity through the Robusta mislabel erases heritage, destroys diversity, and diminishes Canephora’s cultural and economic value. A reality cemented in the market mechanism since the species entered the coffee industry in the early 20th Century.
Canephora’s journey began at the peak of colonial exploitation. Stripped of identity, it was commodified under generic labels, imposed by European conquerors, produced by the defeated, called “Robusta”. Meanwhile, on the other hand, Arabica had found a different way into European and Western consumption culture centuries before Canephora’s introduction, filled with cultural prestige, celebrated in rituals by Eastern African societies and globalized through Islamic trade. These drastically different origins created a power imbalance that still controls industry narratives, keeping Canephora in the shadows.
As humanity is facing a climate crisis, C. canephora receives more attention. It turns out to be very complex, dynamic, and adaptable. Botanists suggest it could be evolving into its own genus through speciation.
Ironically, if so, Robusta would NOT automatically become a species. It might still have to stay a varietal or become a subspecies, leaving the industry’s long-held dreams for an own Robusta species unfulfilled. Ouch!
Imagine a future coffee industry built on the Coffea genus and the Canephora genus within the Rubiaceae family, instead of the current Arabica species and Canephora species within the Coffea genus.
Things can potentially get more complicated than replacing “Robusta” with “Canephora” when dividing the coffee market in submarkets. The industry must embrace botanical truth now—or potentially face getting punished by Canephora’s marvelling nature later.
This article was written by Lukas Harbig.
