And we used to complain about almond production consuming too many resources (water) per output...
Yes, they only have two hinds each, but front legs are sold too (paletilla), papada (jowl), morro (snout), manitas (hoof), lengua (tongue), oreja (ears), various embutidos (cold meat) made traditionally stuffing meat and fat inside pork intestines (like chorizo, salchichón...)
And of course everything else that's traditionally edible anywhere in the world (loin, ribs, etc.) EDIT: except muslim countries of course.
The American version is “everything but the oink”
Changing the production of the top-quality ham to match that of cheaper ham doesn't really solve anything. It just fools customers until they learn.
Spain might try to protect the trademark of "jamón ibérico" the same way that France protects Champagne but in the end, you'll be able to buy good jamón produced elsewhere the same way you can buy a good bottle of sparkling wine from Italy, Spain or California. There are a lot of acorn fields in the US, China and Korea so plenty of room for pigs to eat.
It's as much for the consumer as it is for the producer. And there are rows of "Sparkling Wine according to the Champagne method" in French supermarkets, right next to the real stuff
Oh, but they do. This goes a lot beyond simple geographical "truth in advertising", and is indeed a lot more similar to a trademark. As you mention, it's not enough for a wine to be produced in the region of Champagne to be allowed to be called Champagne, it has to be produced within very narrow parameters. Jamon Iberico is indeed protected, and again, there's quite a bit more going into this than ham produced on the Iberian peninsula. It's more pronounced with feta cheese, which does not have a geography in the name, yet have to be made in particular areas of Greece.
This is not to say this is bad, trademarks are generally a good thing, but let's not pretend there aren't strong protection-motives at play.
(As an aside, the process also sometimes backfires and inhibits innovation as in the case of "super-Tuscans", some fantastic wines produced in Tuscany, but not qualifying under the Chianti protection, and instead was released as table wine, ie. the lowest classification, while Chianti had languished as a profoundly mediocre product.)
Of course there are protection motives - but can you criticise the EU for ensuring that stalls aren't flooded with fakes? As a consumer I don't want to have to do extensive research on everything I buy - "Is this organic strawberry really organic?", "Are these Jersey Royals really from Jersey?", "Is this really Champagne?"
They sure do. They bake regulations on the naming into foreign trade agreements
I understand wanting free range --but this is an artificial diet constrained to grasses and acorns --swine usually are omnivorous and would eat more, but this ham requires only those two --so they must dedicate lots of land to each hog.
People have strange priorities, or, to put it differently, people seem to not want any resources used for farming regardless of how it's used.