Whisky from a German Glen? The E.U. Won’t Drink to That | Hacker News Reader

Whisky from a German Glen? The E.U. Won’t Drink to That

nytimes.com

16 pointskwindla29 comments

See also the Canadian distillery[1] using the "Glen Breton Rare" label. Located in Glenville, Nova Scotia ("New Scotland") I feel like they have a bit of legitimacy to their name.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glenora_Distillers

Glen Breton? That sounds like it's simultaneously from Scotland and Bretagne. Sounds like the EU court would disapprove, but I notice it's available here. Apparently their labelling does make it clear it's from Canada rather than Scotland. Maybe that helps? But then the German brewer should be able to do the same.

"The term 'glen,' a Gaelic word that means 'narrow valley,' is not specifically included in that protection."

Well, the Scottish Gaelic word is actually gleann, and glen in Manx (a Gaelic language) actually means clean. Glen is an English borrowing of a generally Celtic word (compare Welsh glyn and Cornish glynn; both Brythonic languages, not Gaelic). In fact, the only modern Celtic language where the word is spelled glen is Breton, which is spoken in France.

The contention is not whether it can be called whisky/whiskey but whether it can be marketed under a name containing "Glen" as that word evokes Scotland.

It seems like a cheap attempt to cash in by the Germans. If their stuff is good, let it stand on its own merits.

Quite. They even admit to it being a "pun" on the name of the local town, rather than merely 'named after'.

Wait, does this article call Belgian frites "a local variation of French fries"? That's fighting words!

It's a local variation of Dutch patat, of course.

Good luck telling Wisconsin cheese heads they can't call cheese what they've been calling it for decades.

I don’t think Wisconsin is in the EU.

But they would like to sell their products there.

If they want to sell it in a particular market, they have to obey the rules of that market. The EU market is a very attractive market, but with very strict standards.

This is basically the source of most EU-US trade disputes. The US wants to sell to the EU according to US standards, and the EU won't allow it.

Then they must market it differently.

Related; these guys got away with it (but it's not a brand, just a specific bottling): https://www.masterofmalt.com/whiskies/svenska-eldvatten/sven...

This independent bottler also has a rum called "WeiRon", named after a famous Gothenburgian actor, Weiron Holmberg.

This kind of lame pun-based humour is considered a Gothenburg stereotype in Sweden, so you could say that these guys are pushing it to its limit.

Kind of misleading headline, since it suggests the ECJ already forbid the use, where it merely said that's possible that it is misleading.

I personally find the European food labeling rules to be strange.

But I'm an American, and we have our own strange rules too.

You actually have food labeling rules? /s

Actually, looks like you'll get some - by 2021:

https://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceRegulation/GuidanceDocument...

Come on, the spirit if the law in the EU is not to make labelings misguiding.

I don’t think you can have both really - someone will always be in a weaker position. But I would rather know that if I am paying for a bottle of champaigne - I am paying for what it is, rather than for some designer drugs.

The problem though is you can easily imagine the correct conditions for producing the food/drink can be found (or artifically constructed) in any variety of places; the us protects a companies branding, but its very strange (to me at least) to protect a location's branding. Particularly on a type of production style.

If it ain't produced like wisconsin cheese, then fine, you shouldnt call it that, but if it's more or less equivalent, then who the hell cares if it was made in wisconsin versus ohio?

But Champagne is a region in France. Wine made using the same method is known as "Methode Champenoise" (or, less commonly, "Cremant"). You can use either of those on your "Champagne" made elsewhere, but if it's not from the Champagne region you can't call it Champagne.

Seems reasonable enough to me.

Edit: That said, the case in OP does seem unreasonable - if they were attempting to use the word "Scotch" then it might be a different matter but I don't see why "Glen" should be protected.

Appellation protection is the lamest form of protection.

Nothing is special because it comes from a certain lat/long. Despite the fierce objections of sommeliers, "terroir" is cargo-cult pseudoscience.

Not being able to call bubbly wine "champagne" is like not being able to call a disc of ground beef between a sliced bun a "hamburger" because it wasn't grilled in Hamburg, Germany or not being able to call pizza "pizza" if it wasn't baked in Pisa, Italy.

Also out: Frankfurters, Vienna sausages, California rolls, Buffalo wings, baked Alaska, Worcestershire sauce, Mississippi mud pies, Peking duck, and Mayonnaise not made in Frankfurt, Vienna, California, Buffalo, Alaska, Worcestershire, Mississippi, Beijing, and Mayenne, respectively.

And forget about selling Monterey Jack cheese not made in Monterey, California.

Even in the EU, not every origin name is protected. For instance, Gouda cheese may be produced anywhere, the Dutch were unable to get that name protected.

FYI "pizza" has nothing to do with the city of Pisa.

Actually it likely comes from the latin verb "pansere", meaning "to press".

Assuming you'd be able to replicate Coca Cola's secret recipe close enough that no one can tell them apart, why wouldn't you be able to brand it as such?

This is very much the root of the issue.

The location branding is the reason why people are willing to pay an extra markup because there's an expectation of authenticity. Whether it has any impact on the product or not is irrelevant, it's purely marketing.

Also a notable difference between the US and Europe (and plenty of other places elsewhere) is the legacy / history which have contributed to a location's specialties and their fame.

It might sound ridiculous on your side of the pond but here folks do mind it.

I am on this side of pond, and it still sounds ridiculous to me. I don't think that someone who really wants to pay more for an imaginary taste of authenticity will not be able to read a place of production. Other consumers apparently don't care.

Since Germany/Deutschland has an ‘e’ shouldn't it be “whiskey”?

Maybe according to some language theory, but not how it's used here, the standard German word is "Whisky". If "Whiskey" is used at all, then only as an exception when referring to stuff where the makers refer to it as such, so Irish or American Whiskey. (e.g. you might see a category "Whisky & Whiskey" in online shops...)

The local distilleries all use "Whisky" as far as I know.

Since Germany never gained independence from the UK by force of arms, it should be "whisky".

This is a joke: given that they only have to fit the two data points of the USA and Ireland, one can make up any number of "rules" for whether it's "whisky" or "whiskey".

It's been quite a few years that articles such as this one have been coming out, how could the americans possibly still be surprised by European food regulations?

Glen Buchenbach does not sound German and is pretty obviously named like that to try and associate its brand with Scottish brands, just as the Commission said.

>The European Court of Justice said on Thursday that a German distiller’s use of the term “glen” could mislead or confuse customers about the origins of its beverage, potentially suggesting it was a product of Scotland.

Only a few months until the UK drops out of the EU, and then this will be completely legal.

I don't think you are correct in saying this. Brexit negotiations are ongoing, and I haven't seen any indications that either side is interested in dropping this aspect of regulation; but one thing worth bearing in mind is that the UK has relatively fewer of these designations in comparison to the EU, and thus you could argue has less to lose. But I very much doubt it will come to that, and I think it would be a loss for both sides if it did.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com