Fake coffee is widespread on the market, yet regulatory agencies in Đắk Lắk, Vietnam’s coffee capital, mainly check only moisture content and caffeine levels in products to see whether they match the information on the packaging.
When it comes to fillers, additives, and chemicals—their type, concentration, and potential harm to consumers’ health—authorities are essentially powerless.
Unclear Level of Harm
Table of Contents
Since 2011, the Consumer Protection Association and the Department of Science and Technology of Đắk Lắk have conducted a scientific study to evaluate the quality of ground coffee produced and sold locally. The results were alarming.
From testing 27 samples of ground and instant coffee from 30 production facilities, the study found that besides real coffee beans:
-
73.3% of facilities used soybeans,
-
46.7% used corn, and
-
6.7% used red beans.
Regarding food additives, the findings showed:
-
80% used caramel,
-
63.3% used coffee essence or flavoring,
-
60% used vanilla powder,
-
96.7% used various types of butter,
-
86.7% used alcohol, and even
-
3.3% used fish sauce.
According to Nguyễn Thị Phương Lan, Chairwoman of the Đắk Lắk Consumer Protection Association, the research was completed more than a year ago and multiple workshops were held, but the findings have yet to be made public.
Despite this, state agencies responsible for coffee quality in Đắk Lắk cannot even identify the main ingredients of ground coffee products.
Authorities Admit Their Limits
Dr. Trần Văn Tiết, Deputy Head of the Provincial Food Safety and Hygiene Sub-Department, explained:
“The quality of food and beverages, including coffee, is declared by the producers themselves. They register and are legally responsible for their product quality.
When products are marketed, the Food Safety Sub-Department inspects samples and issues conformity certificates.
Coffee products that fail to meet quality standards are only discovered during inspection missions that collect and analyze samples.
However,” he continued, “the proportion of real coffee versus fillers, or the exact nature of those fillers, is rarely tested or separated for analysis. Coffee quality inspections focus only on moisture and caffeine content. Even when measuring caffeine, inspectors cannot distinguish whether it comes from synthetic caffeine or actual coffee beans.”
Clearly, fines for incorrect moisture or caffeine content are insufficient. The more serious issue is the fillers, additives, and chemicals—their identity and the harm they pose to consumers’ health.
No One Takes Responsibility
Nguyễn Minh Tặng, Deputy Chief Inspector of the Đắk Lắk Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (DARD), explained how state management works:
“Traditionally, inspection, certification, and penalties for food products have been under the Provincial Food Safety and Hygiene Sub-Department.
Market management and agricultural inspectors only join interagency teams.
Only since 2012 has the responsibility for checking and managing the quality of agricultural, forestry, and fishery products been assigned to the Sub-Department of Agro-Forestry-Fisheries Quality Management under DARD.”
Yet Tặng also admitted:
-
From farm to kitchen, the agriculture sector is responsible.
-
From kitchen to market, the industry and trade sector is responsible.
-
Once food reaches the dining table, responsibility falls to the health sector.
This overlapping and unclear division of responsibility means that product quality is nearly impossible to control.
Tặng illustrated the confusion:
Most of the fines, orders to destroy, or reprocess substandard coffee products after early 2013 inspections were signed by the DARD Inspectorate, yet the inspectors themselves did not know the exact violations, since sampling, analysis, and conclusions were all handled by the Sub-Department of Agro-Forestry-Fisheries Quality Management.
“In other words,” he said, “one agency does the inspection and prepares the report, but another agency—sitting in the office—issues the penalty decision.
If the penalized facility files a complaint, it is directed at the DARD Inspectorate, which did not even conduct the inspection directly.”
Even Producers Are in the Dark
Even the owners of ground-coffee production facilities—those legally responsible for declaring product quality—do not know the extent of harmful substances in their own products.
Nguyễn Văn Lâm, owner of the Nguyên Lâm coffee brand, admitted:
“We just roast and mix fillers and additives based on experience.
Our manual roasting machines can’t measure temperature or control the degree of charring or carbonization.
We have no idea how much arsenic, mercury, or carbon is created during roasting or what their levels are.
We simply copy the information into the quality-standard registration forms required by the health authorities.
The inspectors only check moisture and caffeine content anyway.”
This situation reveals a serious gap in oversight: while fake coffee spreads widely, both producers and regulators remain blind to the true risks, leaving consumers exposed and unprotected.