Not yet bound
Is this coffee vegan and gluten-free?
ALS-COFFEE-1.3-DIET-001
The engine can run this kind of check and a public product page can settle it — but THIS standard has not yet written the binding or put the entry through its adversarial pass. The obstacle is unwritten work in this document, not the evidence and not the engine. Each one names the engine capability that fits.
Why this is not yet bound
`claim` is a live engine ReqKind and `vegan` and `gluten_free` are both live claim keys in the engine's own claim table, so public product copy adjudicates it. No binding and no adversarial pass have been authored for this entry in this standard, so it is not `executable`; the obstacle is unwritten work in this document, not the evidence and not the engine.
Assertion
dietary_suitability_claim_stated is_stated true
Applicability
- applies when
- the product is unflavoured roasted coffee with no added ingredients
- signal
- undecidable_from_public_data without an ingredient declaration
Accepted evidence
- product_description — an explicit dietary suitability statement in readable text
Explicitly insufficient evidence
What does not count, and why. Published because the omission is where a check quietly becomes a claim.
- the absence of an ingredients list
Unflavoured coffee is a single-ingredient food, so nothing is expected there and absence is not evidence either way. - "natural" or "clean" as a dietary signal
Neither term has a dietary meaning, and neither excludes a flavour carrier that may contain a milk derivative. - a facility statement such as "processed in a facility that also handles nuts"
A facility statement is voluntary precautionary wording rather than a declaration about this product.
Conflict rules
- When the product is flavoured and a dietary claim is made — then the ingredient and allergen entries govern; this entry does not apply and must not be read as covering it
Discrimination
Authored expectation: no prediction, confidence low. The numeric band this standard used to carry is not published at this grammar version.
Plain roasted coffee is inherently both vegan and gluten-free, so almost no seller states it and the statement would carry no information if they did. This is the same vacuity an independent pass identified for kosher and non-GMO claims on unflavoured coffee, where a certifying body's own guidance says plain beans need no certification at all. Scoring a null as a trust signal is the failure this tier exists to prevent.
The numeric fail-rate band this reasoning was authored with is NOT carried at grammar 1.2 and is not reproduced here. Authored bands held 1 of 10 against this category's own sample and every miss was HIGH, so a direction derived from the band would inherit the error that condemned it (SCHEMA.md §9.3 step 3). The band survives in ALS-COFFEE v1.1 (standard_hash f8ec2780f60c38931913e5b6cd37506500c8462709209de7180ba6691d6137e7), which is byte-frozen and still served.
For a shopper
Unflavoured roasted coffee contains only coffee, so it is vegan and gluten-free without anyone needing to say so. These questions become real for flavoured coffee, instant mixes and anything containing a creamer, where a flavour system can carry a milk derivative.
For a merchant
No statement is needed for plain coffee. For flavoured coffee, publish the full ingredient declaration and emphasise any allergen, which is a legal requirement rather than a marketing choice.
Grounding
- Star-K Kosher Certification, Knowing Your Beans: The Kashrus of Coffee (certification_body)
that plain roasted coffee beans are inherently acceptable and need no certification because water is the only substance they contact, while all flavoured coffees do need it — a certifier stating that its own mark is uninformative on the plain product - Non-GMO Project verification FAQ (certification_body)
that verification targets ingredients derived from high-risk crops, with corn and soy as the named examples, and that coffee does not appear among them, so the mark is close to non-differentiating on single-ingredient coffee