“There are worrying signs that the interests of coffee growers have been shut out of the reform process, despite coffee producer organizations showing themselves open to reform of the sector in a way that allows them to climb up the value chain,” said the Special Rapporteur on the right to food, Olivier De Schutter, and the Independent Expert on foreign debt and human rights, Cephas Lumina.

“In Burundi – the third poorest country in the world – coffee revenues represent the difference between food security and hunger for much of the population, and yet the country is in the process of reforming the sector in ways that risk undermining their livelihoods.”

Coffee accounts for 80 per cent of the country’s export earnings and provides the livelihood of 55 per cent of the population – representing some 750,000 families – many of whom are small-scale farmers.

Mr. De Schutter and Mr. Lumina called on the World Bank to consider the human rights implications of privatization, adding that it must not repeat errors made in the 80s and 90s, when developing countries were encouraged to sell off State assets without taking into account the social consequences on the population.

In 2007, the Burundian President declared that coffee was owned by the growers until it was exported, an arrangement that allowed them to manage the supply chain and entitled them to 72 per cent of revenues from coffee sales on international markets.

However, in 2008-2009 the Burundian Government moved towards full privatization of the industry under alleged pressure from the World Bank, whose support for public health programmes was reportedly tied to coffee sector reforms. Since then, less than 5 per cent of Burundian coffee was processed in the country, with the higher value-added operations taking place abroad.

“States must not confuse their own priorities with those of corporations,” Mr. De Schutter and Mr. Lumina stressed. “Institutional actors like the World Bank must support States in their attempts to reform key economic sectors in ways that do not expose vulnerable farmers and growers to the uncertainties of the market.”

The experts also expressed concern that, after six months of exchanges with the World Bank, the information provided to them falls short in scope and transparency, and fails to acknowledge disagreements between the Bank and the Burundian Government.

“We expect fuller cooperation from the World Bank with the independent experts appointed by the UN Human Rights Council,” they said. “In appropriate circumstances such as these, international law imposes on the Bank a duty to consider the human rights implications of its activities.”

Study findings indicate that those who drank coffee at the beginning of a 13-year study had a slightly lower risk of death than others, whether they chose decaf or full-strength.

Coffee drinkers also were a little less likely to die from heart disease, respiratory problems, strokes, injuries and accidents, diabetes and infections although the association was not seen for cancer.

But the benefits were modest – even among those with the heaviest coffee habit. Men who drank six or more cups of coffee day had a 10% lower overall risk of death than those who drank no coffee, while women who drank a similar amount had a 15% lower overall risk of death, according to the study.

Researchers caution, however, that they can’t be certain whether these associations mean that drinking coffee actually makes people live longer.

“Coffee is one of the most widely consumed beverages in America, but the association between coffee consumption and risk of death has been unclear. We found coffee consumption to be associated with lower risk of death overall, and of death from a number of different causes,” said Neal Freedman, from the National Cancer Institute, “Although we cannot infer a causal relationship between coffee drinking and lower risk of death, we believe these results do provide some reassurance that coffee drinking does not adversely affect health.”

The investigators caution that coffee intake was assessed by self-report at a single time point and therefore might not reflect long-term patterns of intake. Also, information was not available on how the coffee was prepared (espresso, boiled, filtered, etc.); the researchers consider it possible that preparation methods may affect the levels of any protective components in coffee.