Kaffekultur och andra funderingar
Nedan några utdrag ur "Black Gold - The Dark History of Coffee"

 

Tea of coffee?

 

The first ’head to head’ experiment to assess the difference between tea and coffee was performed in the late eighteenth century. It was infinitely easier to conduct interesting scientific experiments in the days before human rights were invented, especially if you happened to be a King. Gustavus Adolphus III of Sweden was greatly interested in the controversy surrounding the tea and coffee and he was able to exert his droit de seigneur to set up an experiment on live human beings. The King commuted the death sentences on a pair of identical twins who had been found guilty of murder on condition that they would both suffer life imprisonment, with one drinking three bowls of tea a day, the other, three bowls of coffee, accompanied by an otherwise similar diet. The tea drinker died first, at the tender age of 82, proving beyond reasonable doubt that coffee was healthier, which may explain why Swedish per capita coffee consumption today is among the highest in the world.

 

 

 

 

Instant Coffee

 

The main similarity between instant coffee and real coffee is the use of the word coffee to describe the both. Beyond that, any resemblance is largely coincidental. That does not mean that instant coffee has no place in society, but it should be recognized for what it is: a convenient, sometimes pleasant, caffeinated coffee-style hot beverage. The instant coffee manufacturers’ principal aim, however, is to blur as far as possible the consumer’s perception of the difference between the two, for as soon as a simple taste test is conducted between an instant coffee (albeit the best on the market) and a nondescript real coffee the game is up. There are two thrusts to the manufacturers’ attempts to confabulate the ersatz with the real thing. One is through technological development, and the other is through marketing.

 

The technology for making instant coffee has been the subject of tremendous investment by the major coffee companies, and Germany and England have the dubious honour of being at the cutting edge.

 

The reality for the instant coffee manufacturer is that, however hard he tries, he is unable to make is product as good as the real thing, and so he has to resort to massaging the consumer’s perception in his favour. There is a cunning technology known by the attractive term ‘plating on’, which consists of injecting the top of the jar of instant coffee with a reasonable simulation of the aroma of ground coffee, so that when the seal is broken, the first impression is of a fresh, coffee smell. That it neither lingers nor represents the aroma of the coffee when brewed, is immaterial. What most betrays the inferiority of instant coffee is the fact that is does not stale significantly, even after the jar has been opened. Those delicate volatile oils that are such a vital part of real coffee’s flavour and aroma have been roundly abused in the manufacturing process, so there is no need to make much of a fuss about preserving them afterwards. While it does not have an indefinite shelf life, there are generally few on-pack storage suggestions. Instant coffee does not go stale because there is little of real interest left to go stale.

 

The real problem with instant coffee is that is breaks the fundamental rules for good coffee making – freshly roasted, freshly ground, freshly brewed – and nothing can be done about that. Its success is entirely due to its convenience, but it has wheedled its way into the hearts and minds of the consumers, and such is its ubiquity that many people genuinely seem to prefer it to the real thing. Instant coffee represents 80 per cent of all coffee sales in the UK.