The lack of clear data on coffee stocks in the United States exposes a game of interests that raises doubts about the credibility of the institutions that should ensure transparency in the world’s largest consumer market.
More than two years ago, the National Green Coffee Association eliminated an indispensable information tool for the production chain.
Since then, the most reliable estimates of U.S. coffee stocks have been published free of charge only by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and, for a fee, by the National Coffee Association (NCA). There are also statistics from the Intercontinental Exchange (ICE), which refer only to coffee registered in certified warehouses in the United States and Europe.
In August, with the introduction of tariffs imposed by the U.S. government on Brazil and other producing countries, there was much speculation about the amount of coffee available for immediate consumption in the United States, with some estimates pointing to just 60 days of consumption.
Despite the end of the tariffs, several questions remain unanswered: how long will current stocks last? Who benefits from the lack of information about stocks in the world’s largest coffee-consuming market? And which institutions have sufficient credibility to comment on the issue?
If the main question of this column—regarding the quantity and duration of current U.S. stocks—seems unreachable for most people, we are left with the next question: who benefits from secrecy? U.S. institutions have the right to protect the interests of their own industry, but should they be taken seriously as providers of global data? What, then, is the credibility of organizations that, acting under conflicts of interest, present themselves as suppliers of reliable statistics?
The frequent discrepancies between data from Brazil’s National Supply Company (Conab) and the Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics (IBGE) are often cited as proof of the inability of Brazilian institutions to provide the world with reliable data on national production—along with frequent accusations of conflicts of interest involving the domestic industry itself.
It is worth noting that these accusations are often made by actors seeking to question the professionalism and methodology of Brazilian organizations, while also assuming conflicts of interest on the part of our institutions, which would supposedly aim to push prices up and benefit national producers.
What we see, therefore, is the traditional tug-of-war over information, marked by accusations, possible methodological errors, and the alleged lack of credibility of national organizations in providing concrete production data. This leads to an important reflection: could the accusations made against our institutions not be equally applied to similar institutions in consumer countries?
Freedom of information, trade, and opinion is one of the pillars of American society and has existed since the country’s independence in 1776. However, no freedom can withstand the temptation of protectionism. It is therefore up to market agents in producing countries to remain alert to the hypocrisy and demagoguery of those who have no interest—and never have had—in the prosperity of the coffee chain as a whole.
