[HN Gopher] The EU's disputed system of geographical indications...
___________________________________________________________________
The EU's disputed system of geographical indications is taking over
the planet (2017)
Author : Tomte
Score : 60 points
Date : 2021-06-27 09:15 UTC (13 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.politico.eu)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.politico.eu)
| edejong wrote:
| The result of these policies is that hard cheeses are produced in
| low-income countries, shipped over long distances and then
| relabeled "Parmasan" in the Parma region, to be shipped long
| distance again to its end destination.
| detritus wrote:
| I find this hard to believe, given how protective Italian
| regions are over their fayre.
|
| Do you have a source for this?
| zmb_ wrote:
| This is not true. The GI specifications are very strict on
| where and how the protected product is produced. With
| Parmigiano Reggiano, for example, the cows producing the milk
| must be within the geographic area, and even their fodder must
| primarily come from the region.
| pimterry wrote:
| If this happens, it's not within the rules, that's straight up
| fraud.
|
| PDOs like Parmesan require all production and processing to
| happen within the registered area, and usually following some
| quite strict rules, depending on the name in question.
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_designation_of_ori...
| has some interesting details.
| despera wrote:
| Image caption triggered my greek cheese-seller's nerves. Those
| are not "slabs of feta cheese" shown but mizithra or anthotyro.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthotyros
|
| Now for the important part. Region locking is completely idiotic.
| If i was living abroad, i wouldn't dare to buy, for example,
| imported greek feta. White cheese is not the kind that matures.
| They are very delicate has to stay fresh. Surely there must be
| standards of HOW a certain kind of cheese is made but not where.
| Kim_Bruning wrote:
| We all agree that roads are useful. If everyone agrees to drive
| on the right (or everyone agrees to drive on the left), then the
| rules all make sense and traffic runs more smoothly.
|
| So really this is a system that is rather like trademarks, and
| with similar purposes. But instead of a made up name, you use the
| name of the town or region where something is made.
|
| This does have its own upsides and downsides; like the fact that
| you have to remember that people make somewhat similar cheeses in
| Brie and Camembert, or in Gouda and Edam[1]. But like with
| trademarks, you do know that you'll always get the same
| consistent quality; be it good _or_ bad.
|
| It's _a_ system. And it works well enough for its purpose.
|
| [1] I did say _similar_. If you 're a big cheese fan, please
| don't hurt me!
| rapht wrote:
| (2017)
| 0ld wrote:
| when driving through poland recently, i've heard a commercial on
| a radio for a locally made halloumi [0] (a cyprus' protected
| origin cheese). they somewhat amusingly called it "haluni" [1]
|
| so, the chinese-abibas-style is still alive and kicking even
| within the eu with all its "disputed systems of geographical
| indications"
|
| [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halloumi
|
| [1] https://www.krasnystaw.eu/produkty/ser-haluni/serek-haluni
| raverbashing wrote:
| Let me sum up the article in one phrase: "Businessman are annoyed
| that names actually mean something and that
| quality/origin/procedure is non-negotiable sometimes and are
| behind-hurt about it".
|
| Cue Coca-Cola's lawyers arguing "Vitamin Water" can't be expected
| to have vitamins. Cue McDonald's "dairy-thing slice that looks
| like cheddar" (that tastes nothing like cheddar but can have
| something like a single digit % of material actually coming from
| a cow - who knows)
| dmitriid wrote:
| I'm from Moldova, and Moldovan alcohol producers were hit by
| this. Since the Soviet times lots of things like cognac,
| champagne, cahors, port wine and so on were produced in Moldova
| often using traditional recipes.
|
| And then association with EU happened. Ooops, can't use those
| names anymore, you must devise new names for what is essentially
| the same exact product.
| tchalla wrote:
| Moldova has 5 wines and 1 spirit protected under the GI status.
|
| https://www.tmdn.org/giview/gi/EUGI00209900380
|
| https://www.tmdn.org/giview/gi/EUGI00209900381
|
| https://www.tmdn.org/giview/gi/EUGI00209900382
|
| https://www.tmdn.org/giview/gi/EUGI00209900383
|
| https://www.tmdn.org/giview/gi/EUGI00209900383
|
| https://www.tmdn.org/giview/gi/EUGI00209900385
| dmitriid wrote:
| 1. So what?
|
| Some of those "protected wines" didn't even exist before the
| agreement and no one cares if they are protected, or not.
|
| This is basically a "in exchange of a few thousand names [1]
| that you can never use even if you produce an identical
| product, we will protect some names many of which not even
| you care about, or weren't even ever used before this
| agreement".
|
| 2. That "protected spirit"? That's the new invented name for
| cognac.
|
| As wikipedia puts it [2], emphasis mine:
|
| === start quote ===
|
| Divin - represents the name, patented in the Republic of
| Moldova, of the country's brandy, _produced in conformity
| with the classic technology of cognac production_.
|
| === end quote ===
|
| So, it's produced like cognac, looks like cognac, has the
| same ingredients as cognac, smells like cognac, tastes like
| cognac, but don't you dare call it cognac, invent a new non-
| sensical name to call it something else but cognac.
|
| The same goes for dozens of other names. And we're talking
| only about wine and spirits. Imagine if no country could call
| whisky, well, whisky, and each country had to invent their
| own name for it.
|
| [1] Annex XXX-C https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
| content/EN/TXT/?qid=15828875... and Annex XXX-D https://eur-
| lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=15828875...
|
| [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moldovan_wine#Divin
| lou1306 wrote:
| > Imagine if no country could call whisky, well, whisky,
| and each country had to invent their own name for it.
|
| Well that's actually what happens, more or less: we do have
| Scotch whisky, Irish whiskey, and bourbon, and you cannot
| make some whisky in, say, France, and sell it as "Scotch".
|
| For what it's worth, EU laws also struck Italy, which
| cannot sell "Tocai" wine no more (now it's called Friulano)
| because the name sounded too similar to the Hungarian
| "Tokaji" wine. Note that the similarity was in name only,
| the two wines are totally different otherwise. You gain
| some, you lose some.
| dmitriid wrote:
| > you cannot make some whisky in, say, France, and sell
| it as "Scotch"
|
| I'm actually totally fine with geographic specifications
| for a general name. Like "Scotch whiskey" vs. "Irish
| whiskey".
|
| But some things do reach ridiculous proportions like
| Greece, Bulgaria and Turkey all trying to lay claim to
| yoghurt.
| rsynnott wrote:
| > I'm actually totally fine with geographic
| specifications for a general name. Like "Scotch whiskey"
| vs. "Irish whiskey".
|
| Wait, what are you complaining about, then? Cognac and
| Champagne are places.
| dmitriid wrote:
| And bourbon is the name of a French dynasty. And bubbles
| in champagne were popularized by the English and the
| English (re-)discovered all the necessary infrastructure
| for production and were the first to describe the process
| for it. And so on.
|
| Names do get commoditized, regardless of their origin
| [1]. If Scotch whiskey is labeled as "Scotch whiskey",
| then it should only be fair to label "Champagne" as
| "Sparkling wine from Champagne" then wouldn't it?
|
| Oh wait. "Scoth whiskey" apparently doesn't deserve
| protection (except in the UK), unlike Champagne.
|
| [1] This reminds me of Google ebeing very unhappy when
| "google" entered dictionaries as a verb.
| iso1210 wrote:
| And the far east is also full of knock-off products, what's
| your point?
|
| Nobody is stopping Moldovan alcohol producers from making
| sparkling or fortified wines, they just can't pretend its
| something else in the hopes of conning the consumer.
| dmitriid wrote:
| See about cognac:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27651984
|
| And no. As was discussed elsewhere in the comments this has
| nothing to do with "knock-off products"
| iso1210 wrote:
| Why do you want to sell something as congac other than to
| pretend your product is from Congac? Why can't your product
| stand on its own two feet? You could call it "Moldovan
| Brandy" and be done with it.
| hackeraccount wrote:
| All of IP law is a bunch of lawyers getting you to concede one
| reasonable point and then them taking it to a place of absolute
| absurdity.
| zeristor wrote:
| Surely the USA can develop its own authentic regional foods?
| [deleted]
| Arnt wrote:
| Yes, in principle, but why would Kraft Foods help develop
| something that's tied to a part of Michigan instead of
| something that's tied to Kraft?
|
| The US has unusually many large companies and unusually few
| small ones and farmers, so this question matters.
| ginko wrote:
| Ever heard of Unilever or Nestle?
| Arnt wrote:
| Of course. But what do you mean to say?
|
| Do, for example, try to suggest that Unilever or Nestle
| sells as much "parmesan" in Europe as Kraft sells in the
| US? (I mention parmesan and Kraft because the article does
| -- feel free to substitute any other product/conglomerate
| pair.)
| rsynnott wrote:
| I assume their point was that enormous food conglomerates
| aren't just a US thing.
| Arnt wrote:
| Sounds likely, coupled with a blind assumption that since
| the conglomerates dominate most segments in the US,
| they'll dominate the geographical products in Europe (and
| where relevant, elsewhere) to a comparable degree.
| Telemakhos wrote:
| There are regional US foods. There are, for example, many
| regional kinds of barbecue, including two varieties of pulled
| pork in North Carolina (eastern Carolina barbecue with a
| vinegar-pepper sauce, and western or Lexington barbecue that
| adds tomato and sometimes sugar), Texas brisket, and many
| others. Likewise there are Surrey hams (nothing like so-called
| "Virginia" ham despite representing colonial-era Virginian ham
| smoking and curing recipes), red-eye country hams, city hams
| (the so-called "Virginia" ham), spam, etc. There are Virginia
| peanuts that are larger and crispier than any others you'll
| find, but in Louisiana you'll find boiled peanuts instead.
| Kentucky has its juleps and Derby (or "May Day") pies as well
| as hot-browns. Florida serves key lime pie, mojitos, Cuban
| sandwiches (really invented in Tampa and blending Cuban and
| Italian deli traditions) and Cuban coffee. Hawaii has poke,
| which is now spreading everywhere. There are authentic regional
| foods in the United States, some with roots going back to the
| colonial era, some more modern. It would be politically
| incorrect to protect those with a European-style system of
| regional designations, however. On the right, regulations,
| especially those creating the potential (or certainty of)
| cartel pricing, are unwelcome. On the center and moderate left,
| there is little desire to promote regionalism over a national
| picture that emphasizes a common "America" that all citizens
| share. On the far left, you find the absolute denial that
| America (or more specifically white America) has any sort of
| culture of its own. The federal United States is not quite set
| up for regional distinctions the same way that the EU, as a
| much looser set of sovereign nations, is.
| dougmwne wrote:
| What's interesting is that the US absolutely has a huge amount
| of regional food. Many food items are tied to a specific city,
| and this goes way beyond the Philadelphia Cheesesteak. The food
| was often a reimagining of immigrants' foods from back home,
| but with a distinctively new twist. But rather than identify
| and celebrate these food traditions, the US chooses to
| structure its policy around Kraft and General Mills and allows
| its companies to homogenize its culture. The US could develop
| and celebrate GI's but it won't.
| iso1210 wrote:
| Florida Orange Juice, Vidalia onions, Idaho potatoes, and of
| course the "Made In USA" stamp.
| 123pie123 wrote:
| I'm I right in thinking that 'Florida Orange Juice' has to
| come from Florida?
|
| what law would a company be breaking in the US, if say a
| company used oranges from a different state than Florida
| and made Orange juice and labeled it 'Florida Orange Juice'
| because the company used the same type of oranges or the
| owner was from florida?
| mucholove wrote:
| Branding, intellectual property, are important but...the most
| important thing to protect is taste.
|
| In this regard the US is so far off the mark (and so chemically
| manufactured) as to cheapen the expensive and flavorful foods
| Europe continues to produce. When I was in Barcelona, the quality
| of the sausages and charcuterie was so far and above anything
| produced in America. It would be a real shame if they shared the
| same name.
|
| One place where this becomes very difficult in particular is when
| ordering the Gouda cheese--where Gouda from Gouda is great and
| the rest is NOT.
|
| Go EU! Go taste!
| mejutoco wrote:
| For anybody wondering, one of the most common is ,,fuet".
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuet
| Dah00n wrote:
| > _To some, the very idea of signing away their heritage still
| rankles, however. "The Old World supplied the immigrants. It
| seems to be very weird that you're saying that people can't take
| culture with them," said one dairy negotiator_
|
| This is no different than if Apple workers from China start
| selling iPhones in the US that is actually branded Apple iPhone,
| completely different from a "real" iPhone or exact copy, same
| thing. If anything the hundreds of years old "brands" should be
| more protected, not less so.
|
| Calling something made in the US Champagne is the same as
| printing Made in Champagne, France on the bottle. If European
| businesses started making big bucks on products pretending to be
| Native American people would go berserk.
| anoncake wrote:
| As a customer, why should I care if I get an iPhone or an
| exact, functionally identical, copy?
| Zababa wrote:
| I'm French, and these kind of things are very important to
| me. When I buy cheese for example, more than just eat cheese,
| I want to know that I'm helping some tradition continue, and
| giving money to specific regions where the product is
| traditionally made. That applies for French products, Italian
| products, American products, Japanese products, you name it.
| mkr-hn wrote:
| What kinds of things do you buy from America? Out of
| curiosity.
| Zababa wrote:
| Unfortunately not much. While we can easily access some
| of the spirits, american wine is really hard to find, and
| don't even get me started on the cheese. Which is why I
| hope these kinds of law would educate the public more and
| lead to more specialized stores. French people usually
| don't care much about "traditional americans products",
| which meansamericaine that for example even Cheddar is
| really hard to find, and we're far from the variety that
| I could get in America.
| [deleted]
| kergonath wrote:
| If you don't care, why would you insist on it having a
| specific name?
| unishark wrote:
| > This is no different than if Apple workers from China start
| selling iPhones in the US that is actually branded Apple
| iPhone, completely different from a "real" iPhone or exact
| copy, same thing.
|
| I think it's more like them selling fake Apple iphones in some
| third country. Prior to the trade agreement fight, presumably
| each country could already enforce its own preferred approach
| domestically.
|
| And in the US, trademarks can't be protected once they become
| common use for a certain type of product. Most Americans
| probably don't even know Champagne is a place name and not a
| type of bubbly wine. Many common words like "escalator" were
| once a company brand (some American elevator company). They
| lost control of the name and now it is used worldwide.
|
| Personally I don't have a problem with protecting the locality
| names, though, even if it means renaming some products. I think
| it is worthwhile.
| neximo64 wrote:
| This isn't a very strong argument.
|
| The closest equivalent would be saying another Chinese brand
| says its designed in California but it is not Apple. Apple is a
| legal entity and California is a region.
| yokaze wrote:
| Not quite, as the geographical indication not only only means
| that it was produced there, but also has other constraints on
| how it is produced, etc... So it is very much a brand, in the
| very same meaning, that it doesn't necessarily guarantee
| quality, but that the brand of the region is a means of
| ensuring some quality standards.
|
| E.g. there are wines from certain regions, but they do not
| have the geographic indication, as they have not been
| produced according to the regional standards.
|
| And going with food it is even more important so, as it is
| close to impossible to reproduce the climate and terroir
| somewhere half around the world.
|
| That doesn't mean, that it is worse, just that it is not the
| same.
|
| Take Lambrusco as an example, they do have (or had?) a bad
| reputation and suffer for it. It's a good motivation for
| regional producers to keep each others in check.
| gerikson wrote:
| Article is from 2017.
| tchalla wrote:
| The US has 681 Geographical Indications which are registered
| and/or protected under agreement [0]. 679 of them are for wine
| products, 2 for spirits (Bourbon/Tennesee Whisky).
|
| The US has applied for 1 food product GI - Alaska Pollock Fish in
| 2021 [1].
|
| [0] https://www.tmdn.org/giview/gi/search
|
| [1] https://www.tmdn.org/giview/gi/EUGI00000018025
| rodelrod wrote:
| I was once offered a bottle of California "Port". I have nothing
| against them making the stuff, and I'm even willing to admit that
| some people will like it. However, Port it was not. In fact it
| was further from Port than many other old-world fortified wines I
| know.
|
| If Madeira, Jerez or Malaga didn't feel the need to name their
| wines "Port" (and they shouldn't because they can certainly stand
| on their own!) I don't see why California producers shouldn't
| come up with their own designation and see how it fares in the
| market.
| yummybear wrote:
| This isn't just an EU/US thing - even within the EU people are
| unhappy about not being able to call their product Feta just
| because it's created outside of Greece.
| distances wrote:
| I'm sure some people are unhappy. But I am, as a consumer, very
| happy that I can easily distinguish proper feta from second-
| rate imitations that used to be sold with the same name. Same
| for a multitude of other cheeses: say, halloumi used to be some
| random chewy white blob, and now I know there's a certain
| guarantee behind the name.
| DiogenesKynikos wrote:
| Turkish or Bulgarian feta are neither second-rate nor
| imitations. "Feta" is just the Greek name for a range of
| cheeses produced across much of the Eastern Mediterranean.
| But Greek cheese-producers lobbied the Greek government, and
| then Greece lobbied the EU, so in Europe, only cheese
| produced in a few regions of Greece may be called "feta."
| That's not because those regions produce the best feta
| cheese, or even because they produce a unique variety of feta
| that could be reliably distinguished from feta produced
| elsewhere. It's because they managed to convince their
| government to grant them a monopoly on the name. That's it.
| kergonath wrote:
| > Turkish or Bulgarian feta are neither second-rate nor
| imitations.
|
| They also have local names, which would be fine to use.
| People are not _completely_ stupid. I mean, halloumi was
| unheard of here [some continental EU country] a couple of
| years ago, and now it's quite popular. So people _can_
| learn new names.
|
| We can understand that cava and prosecco are similar (to a
| first order approximation, please don't bite). Same for
| raki and ouzo. Or port and madeira. There is nothing wrong
| with that.
| DiogenesKynikos wrote:
| But internationally, the type of cheese they make is far
| better known as "feta" than by its Turkish or Bulgarian
| names. But for reasons that have nothing to do with
| quality or authenticity, they're not allowed to sell
| their cheese under the name that international customers
| expect that type of cheese to be called.
|
| > So people _can_ learn new names
|
| Of course, but the point of turning "feta" into a
| geographical indication was to gain a monopoly on a name
| that people around the world associate with a certain
| type of cheese. Other producers of that type of cheese
| who do not reside in Greece are concretely harmed by
| this. It's particularly unfair to other producers in the
| Balkans and Turkey, who have every bit as much cultural
| heritage of producing this type of cheese as Greeks do.
| _nub3 wrote:
| > To Washington, Brussels' insistence on protecting GIs smacks 0f
| arrogance and greed.
|
| The hubris is strong in this one. Too bad, Brussel does not have
| any natural oil reserves.
| wcoenen wrote:
| The EU does produce oil, though production has been in decline
| since 2004. And much more is imported than produced.
|
| https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php...
| throwaway210222 wrote:
| This is the logical end game of whinging about cultural
| appropriation: the big boys also get to play.
|
| Perhaps a licence to use the English language?
| Zababa wrote:
| Other people using your language actually benefits you, that's
| not the case for other people using your trademark.
| throwaway210222 wrote:
| I really, really didn't think I needed to add a sarcasm tag.
| _nub3 wrote:
| The UK would be pleased. ^^
| mantas wrote:
| Personally I just stopped buying "true" Parmesan. Local hard
| cheese is good enough if not better. After few tries it's easy to
| figure out what to use if recipe asks for Parmesan(tm).
| Bayart wrote:
| >"The Old World supplied the immigrants. It seems to be very
| weird that you're saying that people can't take culture with
| them,"
|
| You can take the culture, not the _terroir_ , that's the point.
| Actual buffalo mozzarella from Campania, to take something that
| would be familiar to an English-speaking audience, just tastes
| different. Using the same process _isn 't enough_. And that's
| assuming the culture survives untouched, which it never does.
| api wrote:
| I find it hard to believe we can't figure out why it tastes
| different.
| magneticism wrote:
| Soil is complicated. The bugs which live in it, more so.
|
| If you can figure it out well enough to (for example) cheaply
| grow truffles in a backyard greenhouse, you could make a
| mint.
| ska wrote:
| We mostly know what makes it taste different. The problem is,
| most of it is expensive and time consuming. People would like
| to take cheaper approaches and market as the same thing.
|
| The terroir aspect is often overblown but does contribute.
| Far more often the issues is something like "milk is milk,
| right?" which just isn't true.
| api wrote:
| That seems like a clearer description of the problem. The
| issue isn't so much where it comes from as how it's made.
| Someone in the original place of origin could cut corners
| too.
| riffraff wrote:
| The EU system is pretty weak, but it's the result of
| trade offs, like everything else.
|
| You could be more strict, as France and Italy do for
| wines for example: italian wine can come with either an
| IGT label ("made in the right place") or a DOC one ("made
| in the right place in the right way") or a DOCG one
| ("made in the right place, the right way, and we actually
| checked the specific production").
|
| The alternative is to have a local consortium certify the
| producers/products: parmigiano reggiano can only be
| labeled such if the local Consorzio checked it (all
| wheels are checked).
|
| The PDO system ensures that there is no abuse cross-
| border (no polish "parmesan"), while the Consorzio
| guarantees the quality (no corners cut).
|
| Worth saying that you can have great products with no
| label and made wherever, but the system exists to avoid
| someone capitalizing on the work of others.
| fennecfoxen wrote:
| The PDO approach impairs competition by making it
| impossible to legally refer to food with a name that
| people understand.
|
| In the US we see similar complaints arise from time to
| time when various agencies declare that you may not name
| your product "oat milk" because milk is defined as cow
| milk that is fortified with vitamins A and D (skim milk
| that is not fortified, for instance, gets to be named
| "imitation skim milk" or "imitation milk product").
| Similar complaints abound around labeling meat
| substitutes as "burgers" (Tofurky had to sue the state of
| Louisiana over this one). French wine regulators have
| even sent sternly worded letters to the maker of "Cat
| Wine," an artificially colored liquid catnip product sold
| in novelty bottles (they objected to "purrsecco", I
| believe it was?)
|
| There is something real all these product-identity labels
| are protecting -- it's just that over 80% what they're
| protecting is some producer's grasp on the market; actual
| customer benefit is a distant second.
| Zababa wrote:
| > The PDO approach impairs competition by making it
| impossible to legally refer to food with a name that
| people understand.
|
| No, because the name of the food implies a tradition and
| a terroir, which copies wouldn't have. If you say you're
| selling "parmesan" while actually doing some chemical
| thing that tastes like it and has the same texture,
| people will imagine wheel of cheese, Italia, which in
| that case will be wrong.
| ska wrote:
| > Someone in the original place of origin could cut
| corners too.
|
| This is often part of the domain control also though, and
| producers are audited to avoid it. But there is a real
| range and this also depends on the product, heavily.
| raverbashing wrote:
| We usually can. But does it matter?
|
| Canadian cheese tastes like nothing on a good day. If by
| negligence, consumer taste or regulations it seems it's not
| bothering most consumers.
| djbebs wrote:
| Theres no such thing as "terroir" the whole concept is bullshit
| intended to justify the unjustifiable.
| dariosalvi78 wrote:
| then try the real buffalo mozzarella and any other copy you
| find elsewhere. I am from Naples and I have lived about half
| of my life in other countries, and in each country I have
| tried to find a decent local substitute of mozzarella: I
| couldn't. Maybe it's a secret technique, maybe it's the air,
| who knows, but the fact remains that the only real mozzarella
| comes from there.
| Bayart wrote:
| It's a core part of how we think about food. And pretty much
| all of the Old World works the same, really. There's a reason
| why it's a complete non-issue in Asia.
|
| What's that so-called << unjustifiable >>, dare I ask ?
| danielscrubs wrote:
| I'd love to try a Chicago-style pizza, but can't find it anywhere
| in my country and I'd have absolutely zero qualms about US
| protecting that (hard to export I know, but maybe the ingredients
| could be restricted?). Maybe it could even be shortened - Can I
| get a Chicago?
|
| I'd also like to try "Crab Mac 'n' Cheese Dog"...
|
| One thing is that in US there is always this range of quality.
| There is only one place in the world where I've been bitten by
| bed bugs and that was smack in the middle of NY. I couldn't
| believe my eyes when I saw the bite-marks, IM IN NEW YORK, how
| can this be?! But that range can be devastating when marketing.
| The "no regulations"-crowd can... hinder... progress as well as
| help.
|
| On a more positive note [Wikipedia]:
|
| "Bourbon's legal definition varies somewhat from country to
| country, but many trade agreements require that the name
| "bourbon" be reserved for products made in the United States. "
|
| "Tennessee whiskey is straight whiskey produced in the U.S. state
| of Tennessee. Although it has been legally defined as a bourbon
| whiskey in some international trade agreements,[1][2][3] most
| current producers of Tennessee whiskey disclaim references to
| their products as "bourbon" and do not label them as such on any
| of their bottles or advertising materials. "
| unishark wrote:
| "Chicago-style pizza" would be ok, according to the article.
| But not "Chicago pizza" if it wasn't really from Chicago (and
| if it was protected by law/treaty, which I don't think it is).
|
| New York City feels rather like a foreign country to me, though
| the range-of-quality observation is indeed true everywhere in
| the US.
| himinlomax wrote:
| The US argument against it, based on immigrants, is rather
| convoluted -- and quite idiotic. How many poor Champagne
| producers do you think emigrated to the US? Not one, considering
| how it's always been a luxury product and it's not that ancient.
| Do they deserve protection? Well Coca Cola sure does, why not
| them?
| Zababa wrote:
| Especially with wine: did the immigrants bring soil with them?
| They didn't. You can't produce Champagne in the USA, just like
| we can't produce Californian wine in France.
| _nub3 wrote:
| "Champagne" does sound better and more exclusive compared to
| "sparkling wine".
| kergonath wrote:
| This is quite subjective. One Californian (or Australian, or
| whatever) sparkling wine producer could set a trend with a
| new, memorable name, and become more exclusive.
| [deleted]
| greatgib wrote:
| <<They instead have to rebrand and use labels such as "Parmesan-
| style," which often turn off consumers who may see the products
| as unauthentic.>>
|
| The wording is strange, it looks like they say that it is wrong
| to say that it is inauthentic. But, there is no doubt, if you buy
| Greek feta that is manufactured in Australia in addition with
| different recipes and ingredients origins, it is clearly
| inauthentic and deceptive.
| rat9988 wrote:
| But feta without greek wouldn't be deceptive.
| l320093jj wrote:
| Here's the thing: I'd argue in the US calling it "feta" is not
| deceptive, because most people I know have no expectation that
| feta cheese necessarily comes from some area of Greece.
|
| I have no problem labeling a cheese "feta" if the location of
| production is clearly indicated. "Feta" is just "shorthand" for
| "feta-style". Everyone will just call it "feta" anyway. Maybe
| it doesn't matter if it says "feta-style" or "feta" but the
| whole thing seems sort of silly to me and a waste of money.
| It's fighting a losing battle.
|
| It's not that I don't appreciate cheeses from their original
| locations; it's just that this labeling initiative seems
| disingenuous to me, in that it seems to be fighting normal
| processes of language evolution and change.
|
| A better example maybe is cheddar. This is something so
| entrenched in American vernacular that the idea that we should
| insist on labeling it "cheddar-style" is clearly unnecessary.
| When someone says "cheddar" in the US about 99.9% of the time
| they are referring to a style of cheese, maybe from New York,
| maybe Vermont, maybe Wisconsin, maybe from England, maybe
| somewhere else. They're not referring to a location. "Cheddar"
| and "cheddar" in this context are polysemous
| homonyms/polysemes.
|
| Arguments about replicating some original flavor of a place of
| origin are missing the real underlying problem, which is that
| labeling a product according to its commonly understood
| meaning, if the location of production is clearly given in the
| packaging, is not deceptive. Sure, we can tack on "-style" onto
| everything but it's not going to keep people from ignoring it
| in speech.
| bcrosby95 wrote:
| Note that Cheddar isn't protected, but "West Country
| Farmhouse Cheddar" is.
|
| My cynical take is that it doesn't have a more general
| designation because companies couldn't profit from Cheddar
| the way they do if it had to be produced in Cheddar Gorge.
| 123pie123 wrote:
| I'm surprised the town/ region of cheddar haven't tried to
| get geographical right to cheddar cheese
| M2Ys4U wrote:
| IIRC, there's only one cheese producer left in the actual
| village of Cheddar (others have moved to the surrounding
| areas), and they don't _want_ to use a a PDO.
| PicassoCTs wrote:
| You can buy australian feta though and package it in greek -
| and then its authentic.
| detaro wrote:
| no you can't.
| anoncake wrote:
| You can use the same recipes in Australia as in Greece.
| Ingredients could be tricky, but let's assume that you can make
| sheep milk in Australia that has the same properties as Greek
| sheep milk. Then why should it matter where the feta has been
| manufactured?
| iso1210 wrote:
| Lets assume you can make a trainer in exactly the same way as
| Adidas do, can you stick Adidas on the side?
|
| No, it's a trademark. That's effectively what PGI is, and
| unlike patents and copyright, trademarks have a direct
| benefit to the consumer (they know what they are getting.
| Nobody is stopping people buying a Gutchy handbag, but the
| selling can't pass it off as Gucci)
|
| Same with "100% Florida orange juice" or "Idaho potatoes". I
| can buy "Southern Style Whiskey" and that's fine, but if I
| see "Tennessee whiskey" I am assured it's made in Tennessee.
| That may be important for me, it may not be, but I have the
| power.
| anoncake wrote:
| > Lets assume you can make a trainer in exactly the same
| way as Adidas do, can you stick Adidas on the side?
|
| I absolutely should. What I obviously shouldn't be allowed
| to do is claim it's actually made by Adidas.
| dopidopHN wrote:
| Cybernetic again, cheese is more than the sum of its part.
|
| I'm only half joking. Plus, for some recipe the food that the
| cow ate and the altitude do make a difference in the output.
|
| I'm all for other places making cheese and whatnot.
|
| But when you buy the said cheese to find the exact taste you
| know since childhood, and that you miss in the exotic land
| you are living as a adult...
|
| You can be picky on the product. I want the Madeleine de
| Proust. Not a taste-a-like.
|
| Those labels help me do that. If I want the real deal I will
| buy it and the label will help me archive that goal. ( not
| always, see below )
|
| If I feel adventurous, I have nothing against trying other
| cheeses. Some are good, some might event be identical to the
| label-cheese. I'm open to that.
|
| Furthermore, and tangentially related ... folk should be open
| to the idea that some produce don't travel well. They just
| don't.
|
| My favorite cheese is embarrassingly bad when I found the
| official label in the US. The taste is more sauer and the
| consistency different. It's just sad.( to eat )
| anoncake wrote:
| You ignored
|
| > but let's assume that you can make sheep milk in
| Australia that has the same properties as Greek sheep milk.
| alkonaut wrote:
| That's still just a property of the physical product.
| That's just half the story. The important thing is
| keeping the production in the original region. So I want
| it to have the competitive advantage of the name. As a
| consumer I want my money to support the producers in the
| original location, which is easier if I know that the
| name means it's produced there.
|
| Note that zero of these arguments have anything to do
| with quality or whether I could even distinguish the
| product from one made elsewhere. That's secondary.
| dopidopHN wrote:
| I thought it was encompass in << more than the sum of its
| part >>. The milk is core, the process is key, the
| conservation and timing is deceptively important.
|
| You might feed the same breed of cow the same altitude
| grass, at the same season... and still end up with a
| different product.
|
| But I see your point, and I think it's a reasonable one.
| It's possible to duplicate a cheese making process and be
| successful ( or wine: California comes to mind )
|
| But that might be tricky, and maybe i don't want to be
| disappointed so I will go with the Geographical
| indicators label. It's a safe bet.
|
| A sister response to my earlier comment bring a good
| point. Sometime you want to patronize a particular region
| for sentimental reasons.
| ginko wrote:
| As a customer, why would I assume this? It's one thing
| for an Australian cheese maker to write 'feta' on their
| product because they think it's similar enough to the
| Greek cheese and another of it actually being similar.
|
| As a customer the only way to find out would be to buy it
| and try it out. I don't want to have to go through the
| fine print on the packaging when all I want is some feta
| cheese for my greek salad.
|
| For the record, I usually buy Turkish sheep's milk cheese
| because I like it better than feta cheese, but I very
| much prefer that those are clearly labelled differently
| so I can tell them apart.
| alkonaut wrote:
| Because I as a consumer buy more than the sum of the
| ingredients. I don't want to buy a product that's
| _indistinguishable from the product made in the original
| location_. I want to buy the priduct made there.
|
| One reason is that I want to support the production there, as
| it would be a tragedy if (say) Parmesan producers in Italy
| were out competed by producers in the US (again, regardless
| of quality or properties of the product).
| rhn_mk1 wrote:
| What would make that a tragedy? If the production of
| Parmesan in Italy is an important cultural phenomenon, then
| it can be preserved using other means, even non-economical
| ones.
| alkonaut wrote:
| It seems more genuine to have it remain a
| business/industry and not a museum.
|
| I quite like having genuine Parmesan from the right
| place. I'm happy to see any amount of ham fisted
| protectionism to keep it that way too. So to me it's an
| easy win.
| dantheman wrote:
| So all you have to do is look at where it where it was
| made on the label -- is that too difficult?
| kergonath wrote:
| Well, yes. Because that's going to be obfuscated, as it
| is currently done for things that are not as well
| protected. Look at standard honey for example. In store I
| can find: - bottled in the EU (without any other
| information) - assembled in the EU (from EU and non-EU
| honeys) - from the EU (whatever that means; the EU is a
| big place) - "made in xx" (where xx is a small place in a
| given EU country; the honey itself comes from somewhere
| else) - no information whatsoever, but with a charming "a
| EU family company" (actually owned by a multinational).
|
| We know producers are playing fast and loose with
| labelling. The way to avoid this is regulation, which
| PGIs are.
| alkonaut wrote:
| > So all you have to do is look at where it where it was
| made on the label -- is that too difficult?
|
| Apparently yes. Otherwise why would anyone insist on
| this?
|
| I'm also not at all against seeing the entire new world
| having to eat "Parmesan style cheese" just to reinforce
| my own feeling of old-world superiority (I'm half joking,
| but you get the point of why this may be a thing)
| rhn_mk1 wrote:
| The reason some people insist on this is because they
| themselves value the provenance (place in this case)
| where the product was made, and they insist on
| discounting the opinion of those who care only about the
| end result.
|
| When Parmesan is only made in Italy, those who care don't
| have to look at the label, but those who only care about
| the parmesan part have a hard time tracking under which
| label the non-Italian version is sold.
|
| It's a question of whose effort is getting discounted.
| pmyteh wrote:
| It's not really a problem in practice. The UK follows EU
| food labeling rules, at least for now, and so this is a
| real (not hypothetical) situation.
|
| The easy way is to make it clear through trade dress.
| Parmesan is normally sold in wedge-shaped plastic trays,
| in the cheese aisle. So are other grano-type cheeses like
| Grano Padana. So essentially everything in that packaging
| is 'parmesan-like'. For the crappy pre-grated stuff in
| tubs it'll have a label like 'Italian-style hard cheese'.
|
| Same is true of Champagne. The other sparkling wines also
| come in sparkling wine bottles. And are labeled Cava,
| Prosecco, Three Choirs Special Reserve, or whatever.
|
| Personally, I much prefer actual parmesan to other (even
| very similar) Italian cheeses, but am not a fan of most
| champagnes. So I'd say that the PDO-style accurate
| labeling was a net positive to me as a consumer, leaving
| aside the economic protectionism bit.
| rhn_mk1 wrote:
| That's a false dichotomy. It's possible to inject money
| into local businesses without implementing trademarks.
| It's possible to create something in an artisanal way, or
| even as a hobby.
|
| Not everything culturally important needs to turn into an
| industry, as the existence of local music bands proves.
| Those don't only play in museums.
| roelschroeven wrote:
| But the thing is, what if you produce feta with the exact same
| ingredients and recipe in Australia? The customer gets the
| exact same thing, only made somewhere else.
|
| I'm all for quality standards, so that customers can now
| exactly what they get. But be able to use a name based on the
| location where something is produced, that doesn't protect the
| customer at all. It only protects a selected set of producers.
| alkonaut wrote:
| > The customer gets the exact same thing, only made somewhere
| else.
|
| That's not exactly the same thing: buying one item gives
| support to producers in the original location while buying
| the other product doesn't. I'm sure an American company (or
| Australian Greeks) could make a better _product_ , but the
| actual physical product itself is just half the story.
| golemotron wrote:
| Except when the 'local thing' is a local business owned
| and/or financed by a multinational. It's the easiest way to
| get around such things and it happens all the time.
| alkonaut wrote:
| It's not the small scaledness or local ownership that's
| protected. It's the tradition of making X in the region
| where X is traditionally made, and some of the _how_ it's
| made. Nothing else.
| iso1210 wrote:
| But the thing is, what if you produce a Big Mac with the
| exact same ingredients and recipe at O'Donnels burger joint?
| The customer gets the exact same thing, only made somewhere
| else.
|
| Still that's OK, I slap "Made in America" and a US flag on
| some plastic bald eagle I make in China and I'm sure nobody
| has a problem with it.
|
| PGIs, like trademarks and "Made in USA" protections are good
| for the consumer. It empowers them. Nobody is stopping you
| buying cheese made in the greek style way, or stopping you
| putting cheese and some lettuce and a couple of burgers in a
| bun. They're stopping someone from passing off what they made
| as something else.
| ska wrote:
| > the exact same ingredients and recipe in Australia?
|
| One problem is this might not be possible. Can Australia use
| raw milk? Do they have any of the right cows? Do they have
| the right feed for the cows? How far does "same ingredient"
| go?
|
| I'd likely support such an approach, e.g. you could make
| "parmiagano reggiano" somewhere other than parma, so long as
| you used exactly the same inputs and processes and quality
| control measures, but depending what country you are in that
| might not even be legal. Even in that case you should
| probably have clear "product of X" labeling so people could
| decide.
|
| Of course the flip side is as soon as you did that, GI's
| groups would probably try and tie process to their region
| specifically in some rediculous way.
| rwmj wrote:
| Nothing stops you from making this style of cheese in
| Australia, it's just that to sell it into the EU you have to
| call it something else. Literally you have to make up a new
| name for it, that's all.
|
| Interestingly the Australian wine industry fought a long and
| hard battle in the 1980s to use French names like
| "Beaujolais" (against the French INAO). They lost. And now
| they produce their own wines with different names and have
| been hugely successful at it. Probably more successful than
| if they had been seen as making "knock-off" Beaujolais.
| bassman9000 wrote:
| _But the thing is, what if you produce feta with the exact
| same ingredients and recipe in Australia? The customer gets
| the exact same thing, only made somewhere else._
|
| You can't replicate weather and other local conditions,
| specially on foods that require precise humidity/temp
| control, even air quality. So it's not the same thing.
|
| That's the whole point of geographical.
| dantheman wrote:
| So is the weather the same year after year? does that
| impact it - can we say, tell producers that the weather
| varied from the day we established the standard so that it
| can't be called that this year?
| djbebs wrote:
| If you put it to the test you would be very hard pressed to
| find and identifiable difference, just like wine experts
| can't tell a 5$ wine from a 500$ wine
| TravelPiglet wrote:
| Why not call it something else and it would sell equally well
| on its own merits?
|
| You are basically given a better starting position because of
| the association with the name Feta, Champagne or Cognac.
|
| If Nike, the North face or some other trademark owner moves
| production to a different factory, you can't continue
| production of the same goods even if the quality is the same.
|
| The GI and trademark name translates to extra value.
| newnamenewface wrote:
| Yes, but certain things are no more owned by one country or
| region than the world due to the dispersive nature of
| culture. If a Greek moves to the US and starts making feta
| there (say, even with the same milk fermenting bacteria),
| it's still feta, unless it's truly believed that national
| character imparts flavor. What then becomes the difference
| if a Greek teaches another how to make feta and they do it
| elsewhere? Or if someone replicates it on their own? A
| chef's national identity does not a good dish make
| makapuf wrote:
| The exact same argument can be made for nike shoes.
| Symbiote wrote:
| If an employee of Nike, at whatever level, leaves the
| company to make their own shoes, they can no longer use
| the Nike trademark to market them.
| himinlomax wrote:
| What if you make Cola that tastes exactly like Coca Cola,
| with the same ingredients?
|
| Geographical origins serve the same purpose as registered
| trademark, the only significant difference is that they don't
| belong to a single corporation.
| TheJoeMan wrote:
| What if Atlanta, GA, USA decrees that "Cola" has to be made
| in Atlanta, and that cheap stuff at Walmart has to be "RC
| Cola-style"?
| rsynnott wrote:
| Based on the European rules, they might have some success
| claiming exclusivity on 'Atlanta cola' (though Coca Cola
| probably wouldn't want them to do this, as any company
| making it in Atlanta to a specified standard would be
| able to use the name).
|
| Honestly I assume this is more or less why the food
| industry resents protected names so much; it's perceived
| exclusivity/specialness, but not based on a brand
| controlled by a single company.
| 8note wrote:
| Their main purveyor of cola will probably disagree, since
| they want to make cola everywhere
| himinlomax wrote:
| First they're already strongly protected by trademark
| law, second they make their Cola pretty much everywhere
| (except maybe the base syrup), third there's already a
| bunch of Cola (ever heard of Pepsi Cola?).
| Zababa wrote:
| Atlanta doesn't have a multiple hundred years tradition
| of making "Cola" that started before the industrial age,
| which is the case for most EU food concerned by this.
| [deleted]
| skywal_l wrote:
| What if you produce exactly the same sneakers than Nike? That
| does not protect the customer and protects the producers too.
| But somehow, nobody compains about that.
|
| I don't see why brands should be more protected that
| countries or regions name.
| anoncake wrote:
| Then you should be allowed to apply the Nike brand to them.
| Producers' interests don't matter. They only exist to serve
| the customer.
| mantas wrote:
| So we'd end up with Nike made by Nike and Nike made by
| someone else? Then, in general public eyes, Nike-made-by-
| Nike would become true Nike.
| anoncake wrote:
| If someone is willing to pay extra for an identical
| product because it's made by a more famous company they
| have only themselves to blame.
| WanderPanda wrote:
| How long must one keep his IT infrastructure as cattle
| instead of pets to come to believe that such a thing like
| an ,,identical" product exists? :p In the real world
| almost nothing is fungible. Additionally, even with white
| labelling there is value created (look at Xiaomi for an
| example).
| iso1210 wrote:
| Sure, it's also their choice. I wouldn't buy Nike
| trainers or Levi jeans, but I'm sure some people do, and
| by taking away that choice you are stealing from them.
| anoncake wrote:
| What choice am I taking away from them?
| iso1210 wrote:
| The choice of where to spend their money - if they choose
| to spend it with Adidas, despite you and me thinking the
| product is terrible, and a far cheaper copy is better -
| that's their choice. By preventing them from knowing
| where the money is going, you are harming the consumer.
|
| This is different to copyright or patents where the
| consumer is prevented from buying the alternative.
| bawolff wrote:
| Have you met humans? Most status-symbols are all about
| the brand name, identical products made by other people
| don't count.
|
| And im ok with that. If someone makes a shitty knock-
| off,i dont think the original manufacturer should get the
| blame.
| anoncake wrote:
| > shitty knock-off
|
| I wrote "identical"
| iso1210 wrote:
| Which is why the Nike brand shouldn't be on them. As a
| consumer I want to know who made it.
|
| By all means sell the same shoes and call them "Victoria"
| or "Kratos" or something, and I might even buy them if I
| felt they were an appropriate value.
| anoncake wrote:
| The packaging should make clear that these Nike shoes
| aren't made by Nike. But there is no reason to restrict
| what the shoes themselves look like. At most, a label on
| the soles would be reasonable so second hand buyers can
| identify who made their shoes.
| roelschroeven wrote:
| Champagne is not a trademark like Nike. While I think
| everyone should be able to produce Champagne under the name
| Champagne, I think only Veuve Clicquot, Bollinger, ...
| should be able to use those specific names. Those are
| trademarks like Nike.
| ginko wrote:
| That's the point of PDOs though. That they are
| essentially a form of trademark.
| dantheman wrote:
| But it's not a trademark - it's a location.
|
| Can beef made outside of England be called beef? Can any
| english name for food be used outside of England? Can
| french onion soup be sold outside of France?
| seszett wrote:
| Beef made outside of England can be called beef, but not
| English beef, which is the point of protected
| geographical indications (although this case doesn't need
| PGI, it's already protected under other laws regarding
| the indications of the origin of products).
| dantheman wrote:
| But we don't call it french champagne, we just call it
| champaign or cognac.
| 123pie123 wrote:
| champagne is a region in france ie a location, no need to
| call it 'french' champagne.
|
| so they're able to say champagne can only be made in the
| region of champagne
|
| You're free to say sparkling wine - which is what
| champagne is
| dantheman wrote:
| These terms long ago became generalized. There are
| already trademarked brands, what does this extra layer of
| protectionism add. I don't think we should allow anyone
| to call a hamburger, they can call them ground beef
| patties on a bun - which is what they are.
|
| Same with sandwiches outside of sandwich. Probably the
| same with indian pale ales, etc.... The geographic term
| describes a style.
| 123pie123 wrote:
| >These terms long ago became generalized
|
| GI describes what words are protected as a region/
| location description vs what words are generalized/ part
| of the dictionary
|
| it is a style of something yes, but a style thats linked
| to a town/ region/ county, that the product has always
| been created in
|
| IPAs are deffo not a location specific decription, since
| it's a style or make of beer with no location. the indian
| part in IPA was the destination of the beer. It could be
| created anywhere
| seszett wrote:
| > _what does this extra layer of protectionism add_
|
| It allows people to know the origin of a product, which
| is the intended purpose.
|
| Your other examples have nothing to do with geographical
| origin, hamburger, sandwich or IPA have never been from
| Hamburg, Sandwich or India, so they are irrelevant.
|
| IMO, calling Cognac a product that does not come from
| Cognac is straight up fraud, and some kind of notoriety
| theft.
|
| If you produce something similar to Cognac in Innsmouth,
| why don't you just call it Innsmouth then?
| himinlomax wrote:
| It's not a trademark, but the point of this system is to
| afford it a similar protection to that afforded to
| trademarks.
| seszett wrote:
| I still don't understand why you would call Champagne
| something that does not come from Champagne, can't you
| just call it New South Wales or Napa Valley or wherever
| you are making it?
|
| How is it not misleading to call it by the name of a
| place that it does not come from?
| pimterry wrote:
| The argument is that the details matter. Slightly different
| breeds of animal, different weather conditions, or different
| bacterial ecosystems affect the resulting cheese. You can
| make something similar to these products elsewhere, but it
| won't be exactly the same.
|
| Some products are famous and specific enough that customers
| have a right to be able to know when it's the real deal (and
| there are many such customers - otherwise these names
| wouldn't matter at all).
|
| If you want to produce something similar, you can start a new
| brand with other local businesses (Australeta say), label it
| Feta-like until customers recognize and choose it because
| they like it. You can agree whatever rules you like between
| you for how it's made and what constitutes 'real' Australeta
| so you have a consistent quality product.
|
| You can even do that and register your own new protected name
| - see the recent split of Corpinnat from Cava as a recent
| real-world example:
| https://www.thedrinksbusiness.com/2019/02/nine-producers-
| bre...
| DiogenesKynikos wrote:
| I always feel these arguments are a bit disingenuous. You
| would be extremely hard-pressed to tell "authentic" Feta
| cheese apart from "Feta-like" cheese produced in any number
| of places around the world.
|
| These laws are not about protecting the consumer from
| inauthentic products. They're about protecting producers
| from competition. Exclusive ownership of famous culinary
| names like "Feta" and "Champagne" is valuable, and local
| producers throughout the EU want that edge and lobby to
| obtain it. Benefiting certain producers in this manner may
| be something that's worthwhile doing, but we should at
| least be honest about what the real goal of the policy is.
| ska wrote:
| > You would be extremely hard-pressed to tell "authentic"
| Feta cheese
|
| This is absolutely not true, at least in countries I've
| lived.
|
| Do I believe that someone in the USA is capable of
| producing very good feta? Absolutely! And I've had some.
| However, the vast majority of what you will find in the
| typical grocery stores isn't very good, majority of it
| notably inferior not only to the imports, but random
| stuff I've bought in, say, Greece or Israel etc. [edit
| for clarity]
|
| I'd be all for something a bit less restrictive, but
| anything goes approach just leads to a glut of low
| quality approximations riding on the cachet of the name
| until the name becomes meaningless. You can argue that
| this gives consumer choice (i.e. I'd rather pay $2 for
| feta then $5) but it doesn't give accurate information,
| which is also bad.
| DiogenesKynikos wrote:
| No offense, but there's nothing particularly special
| about Feta produced in Greece. Feta-style cheeses are
| produced across a fairly wide region in the Eastern
| Mediterranean, and I don't think the style is so singular
| that it can't be (or isn't) authentically reproduced
| elsewhere.
|
| More generally, I can understand consumer protections
| that focus on the _nature of the product itself_ , but
| _where the product comes from_ is irrelevant. If the goal
| were simply to make sure that Feta always tastes like
| "authentic" Feta, then the regulations would focus on
| ingredients, process and the final product. But
| regulations about _where the product is produced_ exist
| because producers want to exclude competition. Lawmakers
| do, of course, argue that they 're just trying to protect
| consumers, because that's what they have to do in order
| to justify the policy, but the goal is obviously to help
| Greek cheese-makers, French viniculturalists, etc.
| ska wrote:
| Greece was just an example, hence the "say" it's not
| close to my favourite.
|
| My point stands, there is a huge gulf in the US and
| Canada, UK (smaller experience with local feta there but
| it wasn't good) etc. I wouldn't support a GI limited to
| Greece , edited to clear that up.
|
| I suspect we are making compatible points - you that
| other countries exist that make good feta by default
| (true!) - me that countries exist where the default is
| not good (at least to my taste) and _definitely_
| distinguishable from the former category (also true).
|
| I guess feta is a good example of the problem of defining
| these things by region not process. I feel pretty
| confident that "feta" shouldn't belong to any one country
| in the region with a tradition of making it; on the other
| hand differentiating it from cheap knock offs also makes
| sense to me.
| DiogenesKynikos wrote:
| My point is mainly that these are producer protections
| masquerading as consumer protections.
|
| I would have no problem with a definition of "feta" that
| focused on things like the ingredients, process or
| qualities of the resulting cheese. Those are the sorts of
| things that a law intended to protect _consumers_ would
| focus on. Instead, the EU defines "feta" by region (with
| some ingredient and process requirements as well), which
| is simply an attempt to benefit _producers_. I just want
| a bit of honesty about what these sorts of laws are
| intended to achieve.
|
| In my opinion, the "feta" geographical indication is a
| particularly absurd case, since "feta" is just the modern
| Greek name for a type of cheese that's been produced
| throughout the Balkans and in Turkey since time
| immemorial. Greek cheese-makers are lucky that their name
| for the cheese became international (as opposed, say, to
| the Serbo-Croat name for the cheese), and now they're
| cashing in on it.
| ska wrote:
| > My point is mainly that these are producer protections
| masquerading as consumer protections.
|
| And my point is that this is not true; that they are
| _both_ , and it's important. So I guess we are
| disagreeing after all :)
|
| I think a non-region tied version of this would be great,
| but "anything goes" is probably worse than current state.
|
| Of course any sensible discussion about the producer
| protection side has to look at duties and quotas too,
| which makes things more complicated.
| dirtyid wrote:
| Maybe time for neutral WHO naming conventions to apply.
| Champagne is officially F.5.231 or something inane that
| confers little marketing benefit.
| dantheman wrote:
| Just put where it's manufactured on the label - that's
| really all that matters.
| Symbiote wrote:
| That is literally what Champagne is: the name of a place
| in France.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Champagne_(province)
| snovv_crash wrote:
| That's disingenuous. If I buy a wine labelled "Champagne"
| I expect a dry sparkling wine, not a random red wine from
| a certain region in France. It is used to indicate
| product type, not origin.
| distances wrote:
| You can't buy red wine with the name champagne, that's a
| silly notion. I expect champagne to match not only the
| wine type, but also quality requirements, specific
| production methods, grape types, and yes also area of
| production.
| snovv_crash wrote:
| That's exactly the point I was making, a different
| variety of wine wouldn't be champagne. And it would
| behoof you to note the order of matching you yourself
| presented. Area of production comes last.
|
| Just wait until the Germans join the fun, with Hamburg
| having the copyright on Hamburgers and Frankfurt on
| Frankfurters.
| dantheman wrote:
| Yeah, I know. But when we say Champagne, we clearly mean
| sparking wine of a certain style -- not the location.
|
| No one is confused, and if people really care where it's
| made they can look at the label. This is just trying to
| use the force of law to limit competition and favor
| incumbents. They want to claim something is a trademark
| that isn't.
| ben_w wrote:
| I've never tried American-made "feta", but I have tried
| American-made "cheddar", and it's so far from the real
| stuff it's closer to "vegan cheese".
|
| If this is due to generally lower standards, or actually
| because of the differences in milk and/or bacterial
| cultures, I couldn't possibly comment. But it is
| noticeable.
| ska wrote:
| There is actually some very good American cheddar,
| although mostly it's a bit different than the "real"
| thing.
|
| However, it's become a staple through massive production
| of something quite different.
|
| I imagine a lot of it has to do with inputs, there has
| been a race to the bottom for milk prices which means
| both breeds and feed compromise on taste for volume, all
| milk is pasteurized, minimal aging is done in massive
| blocks, etc.
| DiogenesKynikos wrote:
| "Cheddar cheese" has been produced in America for
| hundreds of years - the technique was brought over by
| English colonists. There are many different types of
| "cheddar" in the US now, including several different
| regional cheddars (think Vermont cheddar and Wisconsin
| cheddar). Some are more like English cheddar, some are
| quite different. But it would be silly to insist that
| only cheddar from Cheddar in England can be called
| "cheddar."
| chrisseaton wrote:
| > it would be silly to insist that only cheddar from
| Cheddar in England can be called "cheddar."
|
| If it's made in the style of Cheddar then why not call it
| 'Cheddar-style cheese', of 'cheese made using the Cheddar
| process' instead?
| fennecfoxen wrote:
| Cheddaring is a manufacturing technique where you stack
| the loaves of cheese curds, to squeeze out some
| additional whey.
| Zababa wrote:
| > These laws are not about protecting the consumer from
| inauthentic products. They're about protecting producers
| from competition.
|
| Yes, they are, and I have no problem with that. When I
| buy "Comte", I want the money to go in the region where
| my grandparents were born and raised, where we spent lots
| of vacations visiting museum, caves and enjoying the
| local cheese. I don't want some kind of global industry
| stealing the name "Comte" to help sell a knockoff. These
| days Comte is not my favorite cheese, I have a soft sport
| for Italian cheeses and discovered recently some Eastern
| European ones that are delicious. But when I want Comte,
| I want Comte, made in Jura, by Montbeliardes cows. If
| they don't respect this, it's not Comte.
| jhrozek wrote:
| Off topic but which Eastern European cheese did you find
| that you like? The only ones I even saw sold outside its
| are of origin were usually underwhelming. I'm originally
| from central/Eastern Europe and know very small and local
| producers but I'm really interested in what you found you
| can buy in your area.
| Zababa wrote:
| I have no idea how to pronounce it, but one I really like
| is I think a braided and smoked cheese like this one: htt
| ps://dks22p812qygs.cloudfront.net/UserFiles/ib_product/14
| ...
|
| The other that I really like looks a bit like this: http:
| //cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0250/1387/8893/products/Arr..
| . but I think that it's younger than the one here.
|
| I have no doubts that the local ones are probably way
| better, but I still haven't taken the time to visit
| Eastern/Central Europe.
| kergonath wrote:
| > But the thing is, what if you produce feta with the exact
| same ingredients and recipe in Australia? The customer gets
| the exact same thing, only made somewhere else.
|
| Just give it a sexy, Aussie-sounding name and Bob's your
| uncle. No need to pass your product for something it is not.
|
| There are also many marketing opportunities if you are not
| constrained by the traditional or old-fashioned image
| associated with PGIs.
| jkldotio wrote:
| Feta comes from pheta/~"slice", so it's not named after a
| region. Melbourne has one of the largest Greek populations in
| the world. Why don't these Greek people have right to their
| heritage? If the British were to start trying to say that
| "sandwich" was protected and American sandwiches were
| "inauthentic and deceptive" would you take such a claim
| seriously?
| alkonaut wrote:
| > Why don't these Greek people have right to their heritage?
|
| Probably because it would be difficult to find any reasonable
| middle ground between "can only be made at the geographical
| origin" and "can be made anywhere by anyone"
|
| Also for a lot of product the origin more than the heritage
| of the people is central, such as the climate and soil in
| Champagne (which perhaps soon will be most historically
| authentic in southern Sweden after some climate change).
|
| This is about regions keeping the right to their products,
| not necessarily _people_ retaining that right. Move from
| Champagne and you can't make Champagne. Not that complicated.
| Feta is a regional produce too - the name doesn't really
| change that.
|
| > If the British were to start trying to say that "sandwich"
| was protected and American sandwiches were "inauthentic and
| deceptive" would you take such a claim seriously?
|
| No?
| jkldotio wrote:
| So you've conflated regional with generic, a distinction I
| pointed out first, without any worked reasoning at all.
|
| People generally lose their trademarks quickly if they
| don't enforce them and allow them to go into the language h
| ttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_generic_and_generici
| ...
|
| I honestly don't see you as providing a real argument from
| first principles.
| alkonaut wrote:
| I used Champagne as an example, but the same applies to
| Parmesan, Feta and Vasterbotten which are reginal by
| tradition in one case and by name in two.
|
| What's important to me as a consumer is I want to support
| the producers of the original region, not much else.
| unishark wrote:
| But the poster you challenged was specifically
| complaining about a generic product name that was not a
| place name. Because it opens Pandora's box in terms of
| every generic food name being reclaimed by the place it
| originated.
|
| The list of place names which are also products, and the
| rhetorical ease of defending their protection for such
| cases, does not make the argument about protecting local
| generic names as well, precisely because it is not as
| easy to defend such names. What criterion would you use?
| The degree of feel-good small-town credentials of the
| claimant?
| alkonaut wrote:
| I agree there may be a subtle difference between
| "actually geographic" and "traditionally regional but
| generic" but I don't think it's actually important. That
| Pandora's box seems well worth opening.
|
| If a product was made exclusively in a region for some
| amount of time (say a few hundred years, and nowhere
| else) then I think that's a pretty strong case for
| protecting that tradition in the region whether the
| produce bears that name or not.
| unishark wrote:
| Seems like that would still include all foods that have
| been around a long time in old countries. Such as sushi
| for Japan.
| alkonaut wrote:
| Possibly, but "dishes" and "exportable products" seem a
| bit different from an industrial perspective. I don't
| think dishes will ever be up for discussion in this
| context.
| dantheman wrote:
| Why not just put where it is manufactured? then you can
| support the place? don't they already do that?
| mustafa_pasi wrote:
| The notion of "authentic" food is a manufactured marketing
| gimmick. There is always variation present, even from household
| to household, but for marketing purposes we now like to pretend
| that some particular food is always prepared exactly in this
| one way, with no room for deviation at all. This is nonsense.
| vinceguidry wrote:
| You're using the word 'authentic' to refer to what should
| properly be called 'traditional'.
|
| For example. I was watching a few videos by Isaac Toups, a
| Cajun chef. Being Cajun myself, I was curious how he'd
| approach the cuisine. At first I saw a few of the things he
| was doing and guessed he wasn't from the Lafayette area, but
| in fact he is. So I watched his techniques more closely.
|
| I determined his cooking technique to be _authentically_
| Cajun, but not _traditionally_ Cajun. He incorporated
| techniques from his roots, to make new dishes. This is how we
| can have Cajun pizza, Cajun spaghetti.
|
| Tradition is making what your grandma made, the same way she
| made it. Authenticity is making what your grandma would love
| to make if she were still young and spry.
|
| It's worth discussing how authentic a restaurant is. Taco
| Bell is most certainly not authentic Mexican, and different
| Mexican restaurants can be more or less authentic even while
| neither make traditional dishes.
|
| Restaurants can be purposefully inauthentic, I think fusion
| is as far as this can go while still remaining identifiabally
| ethnic. I recall a Neapolitan-style pizza joint that would
| put whatever you wanted on their pizzas that still had that
| crispy, charred crust. They didn't pretend to be traditional
| or even authentic. It was all about great pizza, and while it
| wasn't the best pizza in the city, I greatly enjoyed many
| meals there.
| ska wrote:
| I think this comment is targeted at the wrong level of
| abstraction.
|
| E.g. Obviously there is not one way to make cheese, but
| cheeses themselves are unique. Most of this argument is about
| how much variation is acceptable before it's really something
| different and should be labeled differently so consumers are
| well informed.
|
| EU and USA seem to be at extremes on this, the former arguing
| that if I make cheese doing the same thing except for being 1
| field west of a region, I shouldn't be able to label it X,
| while many American companies think they should be able to
| use different cows with different feed and different
| processes and quality control and still call it X.
|
| I suspect there's a better middle ground, but not sure anyone
| will reach it.
| flexie wrote:
| Geographic indications is far less intrusive and far less
| monopolistic than a trademark is.
|
| If I make a search engine the exact same way Google does, I
| cannot call my search engine Google. Neither in America, nor in
| Europe or in Asia, or even Africa or South America. And this
| brand is not even 30 years old. One single company, Google, has
| trademarked the brand for relatively little money on the entire
| planet, and it serves a very limited group of billionaires and
| relatively few employees.
|
| A geographical indication, on the other hand, serves not just
| one company but typically hundreds or thousands or even ten
| thousands of independent companies with up to hundreds of
| thousands employed. If I want to sell wine as Bordeaux wine,
| all I have to do is to have a vineyard in Bordeaux and live up
| to the requirements that the other Bordeaux vineyards also
| comply with.
|
| Note, that Google is free to keep its trademark although it
| changes its services to the detriment of consumers. Meaning, it
| maintains the trademark that all governments of the world are
| paid peanuts to protect on its behalf and can continue to lure
| consumers to believe that it is still the same service, for
| example still not "doing evil". But if I change my Bordeaux
| wine, for example if I change the blend to include grapes that
| are not part of the approved Bordeaux grapes, I cannot keep the
| geographical indication.
|
| I am not saying trademarks should not exist or that companies
| with government protected trademarks should be forced not to
| change their products or services. But I think it's important
| to remember that the trademark is often sells a lie about what
| a company used to be. And I think the protection of trademarks
| should be linked to taxes paid in the geographic markets where
| the trademarks apply. Please note that geographic indication as
| a type of intellectual property right that applies to producers
| of products typically leaves more revenue and taxes in the
| countries where they are consumed.
|
| It is in many ways a more modern, inclusive and fair IPR.
| lisper wrote:
| Why is drawing a boundary around a geographic region any more
| fair than drawing a boundary around a corporation? Either way
| you have a group of people who benefit and a group that does
| not. If you want to be part of the group that benefits from,
| say, the Google brand, you don't even have to move. All you
| have to do it buy Google stock.
| throw0101a wrote:
| > _But, there is no doubt, if you buy Greek feta that is
| manufactured in Australia in addition with different recipes
| and ingredients origins, it is clearly inauthentic and
| deceptive._
|
| There is pizza. There is New York (style) pizza, Chicago
| (style) pizza, Detroit, Montreal, etc. Each of those (styles)
| can be made anywhere. There's no reason why Chicago-style
| (deep-dish) pizza couldn't be made in London. Beside the
| physical location, what 'technical differences' are there
| between feta made in Greece versus Australia?
|
| There are similar 'feta-style' cheese found in many other
| places:
|
| * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feta#Similar_cheeses
|
| Personally I don't necessarily mind protected labels, but I
| think that when you register a new one that an 'official
| alternative' should also be mandated so that people who want to
| make 'knock-off products' can know what to use if they're using
| the same recipe/process. This way consumers know what is "real"
| and and what is an alternative.
| slightwinder wrote:
| Pizza is a dish with limited lifetime. It wouldn't be
| practible to link it to a location. And is there anything
| specific about the different styles that linkes them to the
| location?
|
| With ingredients you have the specific local conditions,
| namely the plants, animals, soil, weather, which all
| influence the outcome. Additionally there is also the local
| knowledge, traditions and laws which influence the endresult.
|
| And finally we also have the reason where there are patents,
| copyrights and trademarks in the first place. People invest
| time and money to bring a product to fame, and it's kinda
| unfair and sometimes even harmful if you allow anyone to just
| highjack the success and sell your own inferiour product
| under their fame.
|
| > There are similar 'feta-style' cheese found in many other
| places:
|
| Indeed, but similar is not the same.
|
| A negative example in that regard would be wasabi. The
| original japanese wasabi is hardly available outside of
| japan. Yet most people believe that the fake-wasabi is the
| real thing and that they experience the authentic taste of
| japanese dishes (mostly sushi).
| [deleted]
| adeltoso wrote:
| Food in the US is just such a pile of shit and ability to
| distiquish quality from garbage in americans is so non-existent
| that it doesn't surprise me that there is someone here in the US
| that really believes you can make Parmiggiano or Feta outside the
| area they got invented. They just don't get it and I feel sorry
| for them. I lived decades in Europe and US. If you are a dairy
| and have milk, make your own cheese, maybe in 500 years it will
| be decent, just don't produce knockoff products because "they
| sell", you are doing a disservice to your fellow americans by
| depriving them from learning how to taste things.
| oh_sigh wrote:
| Ah yes, food snobbery at its finest. Quality and garbage is
| generally easy to distinguish by price and taste, and
| shopkeepers discretion. And I really don't understand what part
| of the parm making process is necessary to happen in
| central/northern italy vs anywhere else in the world.
| lamontcg wrote:
| > To Washington, Brussels' insistence on protecting GIs smacks of
| arrogance and greed.
|
| Would you like some whine with your Camembert?
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-06-27 23:01 UTC)