Talk:Instant coffee

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Food and drink (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Breakfast (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Breakfast, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of breakfast-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Dave Kovacs[edit]

Who's Dave Kovacs and why does it matter if he inhales coffee grounds? Chuck Norris' brother — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:33, 30 December 2014 (UTC)


Should it be noted that over the past few years, instant coffee now cost more than ground coffee? Doesn't matter what brand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:26, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

A sophisticated Beverage???[edit]

Where exactly in the world is instant coffee considered 'a sophisticated beverage?' I suspect it is held with contempt just about everywhere except on a hiking trail or mountain top where there isn't any alternative.

This entire paragraph badly needs citation or a rewrite; in particular the statement "Due to the fact that it was the norm in American homes until the 1980s, some areas of the world see it as a particularly sophisticated beverage[citation needed]." is remarkably arrogant , and seems to be somewhat spurious original research. The following again is basically original research if not backed up with citation: "This may possibly be due to a society's appeal to novelty. In countries where it is popular, it is often referred to as "Café Puro" (English: pure coffee), much to the horror of those aficionados who dislike instant coffee."
I'll be removing/rewriting this soon unless it's cited or tidied up first. — Estarriol talk 20:33, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

When I read the "due to the fact that it was the norm in american homes..." I also thought it was arrogant and that it makes no sense. Unless it is properly cited, the statement should be removed.--Reefpicker 17:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I wouldnt describe it as "sophisticated" although I do not view it with contempt - it is good for general use, but if I wanted a quality cup of coffee I would bring out the real thing. 16:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Good to the Last Drop? or is it?[edit]

wast up and hi Is maxwell house coffee considered instant coffee, or just bad coffee?-- 18:11, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

"Furthermore, some coffee drinkers object to its taste" -> Does one need a citation that proves that instant coffee tastes bad? i find that rather amusing :)

Instant coffee, like real coffee, tastes different depending on how it's made, which is to say in this case, the manufacturer. There are good instant coffees and bad ones, just as there are good coffees and bad ones. By far the worst coffee I've ever tasted came from a hotel, which used coffee beans but apparently did not wash their coffee maker out very well, if ever. That, at least, is one problem you won't have with instant. -- 01:25, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Benefits and risks?[edit]

Lately I've been drinking a lot of instant coffee and I was wondering if it has the same benefits and risks as regular coffee. I did a little research but I haven't been able to find anything definitive.

Specifically, does instant have similar (if any) levels of antioxidants? And, generally are the benefits the same? I know antioxidants break down rapidly but I don't know if they could 'survive' the drying process.

Conversely, does it contain higher levels of cafestol? I know normal (perc pot) percolation can contain higher levels cafestol than single pass filtration, and I was wondering if the industrial percolation could create even higher concentrations of cafestol. I'm not really worried about the low levels in normal percolated coffee. If the cafestol levels in instant coffee are in the same range as those found in pressed, steamed, and/or boiled coffee, then I might switch to fresh coffee.

Otherwise, the article text looks good but it needs more information that's on par with or at least addresses the same topics covered in the normal coffee section.

Forgot to sign in before that last edit- apologies! Boldymumbles

Taste and quality of source products[edit]

Yup, I too think that instant coffee tastes worse than "classic" coffee. However, upon paying this problem a little bit of thought, this might be simply the case because the source products (the coffee beans) are of lower quality. While I have no evidence for this, I still noted that coffee beans of higher quality are treated with more care (high quality coffee reaches the customer in the form of beans and is ground just before the coffee is prepared, while "standard quality" coffee typically reaches the customer already ground. The consistent quality of "standard" coffee is achieved by mixing different batches and types of beans in varying ratios, eliminating changes in quality over the seasons and the years, but also disallowing to achive the topmost quality (this is also common practise with other products; the goal is not highest, but consistent quality)).

Does anyone know of a manufacturer which uses the same coffee source products for both instant and "classic" coffee, or of any tests which have been done with identical source products? --Klaws 10:59, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

The Kenco adverts claim that they use the same beans for their instant coffee as their ground coffee. 16:06, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

citation for shelf life[edit] says the shelf life is 1 year unopened and 3 months opened...Of course, they mention those are only "suggested" and one should follow the shelf/expiration on the package. also has a formula available...but that looks complicated hehe. -- 21:55, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Most coffee drinkers object to its taste[edit]

Oh so? Who says? I don't "object" to most tastes; granted, instant coffee might be considered lower quality, but that screams OPINION to me. kaiti-sicle 07:42, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree, definitely a POV. I prefer proper coffee to instant coffee by a factor of 100, but I certainly wouldn't try to claim that most coffee drinkers object to its taste... otherwise there wouldn't be a market for it! Some people I know actually PREFER instant coffee, because then they can make it with BOILING water (despite my cries of horror and recitation of "coffee boiled is coffee spoiled"). Probably comes from living in a cold country where a tepid barrista coffee often won't do. I would also suggest (although this is "original research") that more instant coffee is drunk in many parts of the world than ground or beans.
Adam —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:57, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree too, this comment is POV and demonstrates the preferences of the author. It needs editing straight away. I'll do it if you want. Spuddy345 18:59, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

"Object" is POV, but it's pretty fair to say that most coffee drinkers prefer brewed coffee over instant, of course that would require a citation. Does anyone have any information on what percentage of the coffee market is instant coffee? When I go to the grocery store, most of the coffee is either whole beans or ground coffee, and there is just one small shelf for instant. It seems that home drip coffee makers have, by making it easier to make coffee, have taken back some of the market from instant coffee, and it would be interesting to see how the market for instant coffee has changed over time. --RLent (talk) 19:18, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I really think the word "taste" should appear *somewhere* in the article! --SC

WikiProject Food and drink Tagging[edit]

This article talk page was automatically added with {{WikiProject Food and drink}} banner as it falls under Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here . If you have concerns , please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 10:31, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


Some places in the web (do google) suggest that Kato invented it in 1881 and not in 1901. Any way to find the correct year? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:57, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Starbucks New Process - VIA Instant[edit]

There seems to be very little information on the new VIA instant product being launched by Starbucks - can anybody provide further information on whether this is truly a new production process or just slick marketing - don't really want to add a section or link if it's just marketing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:19, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

It's a combination of instant coffee and "microground" coffee. While the instant coffee is coffee that has already been brewed and then dried to a powder, the microground coffee is liquid soluble and has not yet been brewed like standard instant coffee has. Kiwisoup (talk) 04:47, 29 June 2010 (UTC)


Is there any reason why there is a bit about decaffination in this article. It doesn't have anything to do with the instant coffee process or product. There is also a perfectly good article on decaffination of any coffee. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:00, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree, there's already an article on Decaf and this article duplicates a good deal of the info. I'm going to cut the section. oknazevad (talk) 19:58, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

It says "commercial processes the decaffeination of instant coffee almost always happens". This is not true. But this is wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:14, 31 July 2013 (UTC)


I have checked the source claiming that instant coffee has higher acrylamide, however, the source only said there were two instant coffee products that contained high acrylamide, not all of them. Maybe switch to another source or remove this?--UnknownC (talk) 08:12, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Could you please tell me the source here on Talk Page? Also any other sources are welcome. Then we can all think which sources are reliable enough to put in Main Article.

ee1518 (talk) 07:21, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Examples of popular instant coffee brands are.....[edit]

What is the purpose of this sentence in the very beginning except for advertising? Vagr7 (talk) 09:06, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Reverted edit that removed section "Non-food use"[edit]

Some anonymous coward posting from a bare IP address removed the section "Non-food use" re: photo development, claiming "blatant advertisement". Advertisement for what? There's no commercially available product called Caffenol; it's a tongue-in-cheek name that was made up as a joke on commercially-available developers, many of which end in -ol (e.g. Dektol, metol, etc.) Nothing is being advertised here. If you (anonymous coward) have a problem with this, post your name and we'll have a discussion about it, but simply deleting a useful and referenced section from the article with no explanation or justification is not acceptable.Shalom S. (talk) 16:12, 2 May 2016 (UTC)