The EU’s disputed system of geographical indications is taking over the planet (2017)
politico.eu
politico.eu
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.
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 )
> but let's assume that you can make sheep milk in Australia that has the same properties as Greek sheep milk.
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.
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.
However, it might make sense to allow some leeway to avoid unnecessary shipping. Not very relevant in Macedonia, but if an Australian gets Feta from Greece instead of a local substitute which is close enough for most customers that should be an explicit decision on their part.
In any case, you can still look at the "made in..." label to determine the product's origin.
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.
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).
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.
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)
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.
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.
A monopoly is when one company has the exclusive right to sell a product. PDO does not confer monopolies. PDO protects the right to use certain labels.
The USA doesn't respect PDOs. That's fine, if that's what USAians want. That's their business. I want to know what is in my food, and where it comes from; that's my business. I rely on accurate labelling.
This ranting about "EU monopolies" is annoying. It seems to me that it's from people who have never eaten the real thing, can't afford to buy real Roquefort, and resent the europeans for having better food standards than the USA.
We know producers are playing fast and loose with labelling. The way to avoid this is regulation, which PGIs are.
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.
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.
I absolutely should. What I obviously shouldn't be allowed to do is claim it's actually made by Adidas.
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.
I don't see why brands should be more protected that countries or regions name.
And im ok with that. If someone makes a shitty knock-off,i dont think the original manufacturer should get the blame.
I wrote "identical"
This is different to copyright or patents where the consumer is prevented from buying the alternative.
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.
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?
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
Same with sandwiches outside of sandwich. Probably the same with indian pale ales, etc.... The geographic term describes a style.
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?
Same with Champagne which is sparkling wine, we have tons of sparkling wines in France with their own name and no ambiguity regarding Champagne. If you call everything « Champagne », you lose information. And ultimately it’s good only for big corporations.
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
How is it not misleading to call it by the name of a place that it does not come from?
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...
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.
Just wait until the Germans join the fun, with Hamburg having the copyright on Hamburgers and Frankfurt on Frankfurters.
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.
Actually yes, when we talk about Champagne we DO talk of the location too, because the land has a specific soil which impacts the final taste. Even in France we have tons of different sparkling white wines which are not champagne, no big deal. But champagne is champagne, not any sparkling wine.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The "problem" is that typically when there is a strong food brand, it also has a strong geographic association, and so TSG is available only for lesser brands.
Can you see a world where consumers and producers are not in opposition, and actually have some alignment of interests?
I need to be able to tell the difference tho. My interest seem to be aligned with the producers.
The PDO for feta protects a cheese made in Greece that's traditionally called feta. Other countries around the Mediterrannean and in Eastern Europe make similar (but not identical) cheeses but they call it by different names, for example Sirene in Romania (which is made with cow's milk rather than sheep and goat's milk as in Greece).
I don't think it makes sense to mix up the protection for feta with protections for sirene, for example. Sirene should be protected by a PDO specific to its own make, ingredients and characteristics.
Just because lots of cheeses around the area look similar to feta, doesn't mean we can just lump them all together with feta. Otherwise, why not lump Roquefort together with Gorgonzola and Stilton? They're all blue cheeses made in Europe, after all.
This is not true and you don't know things as well as you think you do. PDO regulations absolutely focus precisely on ingredients, process and the final product.
For example, PDO regulations for feta stipulate, among other details, that it must be made with sheep's milk with the addition of up to 30% goat's milk and that the milk must come from animals born and bred in the Greek regions of Thessaly, Thrace, Epirus, Macedonia, Central Greece, Peloponse and Lesvos, from the breeds adapted to the area and reared by traditional methods. The fat content of the milk must be at least 6% w/w and the pH of the milk before the cheese is made must be at least 6.5. The milk must be made into cheese at most 48 hours after milking. The finished cheese must be aged for at least two months in brine containing 7% NaCl w/w. The final product must be a cheese "distinguished by its slightly acid and salty taste and its properties of mild lipolysis" (lipolysis imparts a piquant taste to cheese), with a maximum water content of 58%, minimum fat content of 43%, and 2% salt in water. There are more detailed instructions here:
https://ec.europa.eu/geographical-indications-register/eambr...
So the PDO regulates the provenance of the sheep milk, as well as the location the cheese is manufactured, but obviously the focus is on the quality and organoleptic characterisics of the ingredients in the specified territories, and that because the same characteristics are not reproducible in different territories (for example because the breeds of milk producing animals are different and the flora they feed on, and therefore the soil bacteria that flavour this flora, are different).
I also note that most "feta" cheese made outside Greece is actually made with cow's milk. For example, this was the case with French, German and Danish "feta" before Greece successfully defended its PDO and it is still the case today for feta made in the US. I'm not sure about Australia, but it's probably the same there. In Greece, cheese made in the same way as feta but with cow's milk is called "telemes" and is also a PDO cheese.
As far as I can tell, no "feta" cheese made outside Greece has the piquant taste imparted to cheese milk by lipases, that characterises Greek feta.
Lots of food types that are not geographic indications have strict requirements on ingredients, process, finished product.
The geographic restriction for "feta" serves no purpose except to favor the producers who lobbied for the geographic indication. You could strip off the geographic restriction, and you'd have a normal food quality regulation.
> I also note that most "feta" cheese made outside Greece is actually made with cow's milk.
Feta cheese has been made throughout the Eastern Mediterranean for ages, primarily using sheep's and goat's milk. There's nothing particularly special or distinctive or uniform about Greek feta. The historical reason why the geographic indication is limited to Greece is that it was created by the Greek government (i.e., it was a protectionist measure passed by the government to benefit its own cheese-makers). Greece then lobbied the EU to adopt the geographic indication. That's why the PDO is limited to Greece - not because what the Greeks call "feta" is different from cheeses produced in the same way right across the border in Macedonia, Albania, Bulgaria or Turkey.
So you insist, but it's clear to me you do this without any substantial knowledge of feta, or the similar cheeses made around the area, other than what a quick googe could tell you.
In truth, it takes rather more than a quick google to realise that what you say is wrong. The other cheeses that are similar to feta and made in the Balkans, Turkey, Romania, etc, are almost always made primarily with cow's milk, sometimes with added goat's milk. Why? Because cow's milk is cheaper. Why? Because cows produce a lot more milk than sheep. Individual cows produce double or triple the amount of milk of individual sheep and cows can be milked all year round whereas sheep are only milked between February and September.
Even in Greece, non-PDO cheeses made in the style of feta (or other PDO cheeses like kasseri) are made with cow's milk, again because it's cheaper because it's more plentiful. More precisely, those non-PDO cow's milk cheeses made in Greece with cow's milk are made with cow's milk imported from nearby countries that have substantially larger dairy cow herds than Greece.
Greeks make most of their cheeses with sheep and goat's milk (pretty much every single Greek PDO cheese is a sheep and goat's milk cheese, except for Metsovone, St. Michali, Kopanisti and Graviera Naxou and the latter two can also be made with sheep and goat's milk). This is actually a very stringent restriction and it gives an easy advantage on price and profitabilty to cheeses made with cow's milk, which is why the most common adulteration of Greek PDO cheeses is with cow's milk imported from Bulgaria, Turkey, etc.
So basically what you say is completely wrong. Greeks are forced to make their cheeses according to the PDO regulations. Everyone else is free to make theirs any old way they want. That's why Greek feta is different than other cheeses in the region. It's the market forces.
You keep making assumptions based on incomplete knowledge of the cheese market and then you state these assumptions with great certainty, even though they are completely wrong. Please don't do that, that's just spreading misinformation.
Yes, they are, and I have no problem with that. When I buy "Comté", 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 "Comté" to help sell a knockoff. These days Comté 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 Comté, I want Comté, made in Jura, by Montbéliardes cows. If they don't respect this, it's not Comté.
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.
There are both un-smoked and smoked variants, different shapes etc. I think the traditional is the braided one. Definitely recommended if you ever visit Orava/Tatras.
In this country, we have long made a product called "Cheddar Cheese". Unfortunately, cheddar is not covered by Protected Designation of Origin rules. So most of the cheddar in the shops is imported.
Real cheddar is now pretty hard to find. In my youth, I lived for a while in cheddar country; there was a cheese shop on the corner that sold the most amazing, nutty, crumbly cheddar. It's decades since I've eaten anything like it; even premium cheddar from top-class cheese shops doesn't match it (few Americans have ever eaten cheese like that).
That is: the competition from industrial cheese-makers has forced out the traditional makers, driven down the quality of the cheddar that's on the market, and made it much harder to find proper cheddar. The good stuff can only be found in specialist cheese shops, and even that is a shadow of what it used to be.
I approve of Protected Designation of Origin. More generally, I approve of regulated food labelling (GMOs? Growth-hormone beef? How can I exercise my market-power as a consumer, if I'm not allowed to know what's in the pack?)
That's not true, because most feta produced outside Greece is made with cow's milk, rather than sheep and goat's milk. In Greece it's made with sheep and goat's milk.
Why does that make any difference? First, because cow's milk is relatively tasteless compared to sheep and goat's milk. Goat's milk in particular has a strong "gamey" flavour and sheep's milk is also "heavier" than cow's milk.
Sheep's milk also has a different composition than cow's milk. Depending on breeds and season, sheep's milk has almost double the amount of fats and proteins (caseins and whey proteins) than cow's milk (and also goat's milk, which is about the same as cow's milk in composition).
More importantly, feta made with sheep and goat's milk has a piquant taste imparted by the lipolysis that is the result of lipases found particularly in goat's milk. Although to be fair, lipases are nowadays added to cheese milk as an additive, because they are destroyed by pasteurisation (and most Greek cheeses are not made with raw milk). However in practice lipases are never added to cow's milk "feta" possibly because consumers used to cow's milk "feta" don't expect it to be spicy-hot, as real feta should be.
There's also various other organoleptic characteristics that distinguish sheep and goat's milk cheeses from cow's milk, for example the firmness of the paste - more elastic in cow's milk cheeses, more crumbly in sheep and goat's cheeses. etc. etc.
tl;dr, yes, you can absolutely tell the difference between Greek feta and "feta" from outside Greece, provided you know what Greek feta tastes like. Which I think you probably don't. I think you're just assuming that it must all be a big bunch of lies to sell cheese that's just the same as any cheese.
Well, it's not.
It sounds like what you're most worried about is Northern European producers using cow's milk, but there are producers throughout the Eastern Mediterranean using sheep's and goat's milk.
Cheese made across the border from Epirus in Albania (careful: the Greek-speaking Orthodox minority in Albania are Northern Epirotes, not "Greek Albanians") may be very similar, but it's not called "feta" in Albanian. I don't know what it's called to be honest, but "feta" is the name traditionally used by Greeks. So in this case it wouldn't make sense to call it "feta" even if it has a similar character to feta. Which, to be honest, I don't know because I haven't tasted that cheese.
Anyway the point is that you can tell feta apart from ""Feta-like" cheese produced in any number of places around the world", contrary to what you said.
And in any case, it seems to me very likely that before reading my comment you didn't realise that feta is not made with cow's milk, as most people don't, so I think you should concede that your original comment was made given incomplete information.
That depends on which cheese we're talking about. There's enough variation between different Greek fetas that lumping then all into one group and excluding other closely related cheeses does not make sense, from a purely culinary point of view.
> Cheese made across the border from Epirus in Albania ... may be very similar, but it's not called "feta" in Albanian.
And that's the point. The distinction is purely national and linguistic. White briny cheese made with goat's and sheep's milk in Epirus and southern Albania are not treated differently by the EU because of intrinsic differences between the cheeses. They're treated differently because the Greek government was able to successfully lobby for a geographical indication that excludes cheeses produced outside its borders.
"Lobbied"! Seriously.
"Culinary point of view"? Give me a break. You haven't even tried Greek feta, let alone all those other cheeses...
I simply think it's a bit absurd to try to claw back a generic food name, simply because it originated in one country. I can at least sympathize with Champagne as a geographic indication, since there is a region with that name, but "feta" is just a Greek word (borrowed from Italian) that's become international thanks to the Greek diaspora.
And you haven't eaten all those "identical cheeses" or you'd know they're not identical. Although I suppose you may just have a very poor sense of taste.
Edit: No, really, I straight up don't believe you that you've tried different cheeses around the Balkans. Maybe you tried one or two, but not the way you make it sound, like you tasted a great variety and found them all the same. First because that's absurd -even if all those cheeses were similar in taste they wouldn't be identical, because that's not how cheese works. And second because you've already made up a whole bunch of stuff in this conversation, like all that nonsense about lobbying. You're clearly trying to "wing" it. So I don't believe what you say.
However, I have had feta cheese in the Balkans outside of Greece, and however unrefined my palate may be, I know that the statement that "You can't make feta that tastes like feta outside of Greece" is untrue. There's nothing special about the artificial political boundary between Greece and Albania that allows the sheep that graze on one side of the border to produce milk that makes good feta, while preventing the sheep that graze on the other side of the border from doing so.
About lobbying: when one political body repeatedly petitions another political body, that's commonly called "lobbying." The Greek government pushed for years to have feta cheese recognized by the EU as a product that can only be produced in Greece. It had to fight court battles and lobby the EU Commission. Greece now pushes to have the EU write the "feta" cheese PDO into trade deals. If you object to the word "lobbying," I don't know what better word you'll find to describe this.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Further, Feta, for instance, has existed for hundreds of years. It's no more owned by one person than Greeks themselves at this point. It's spread over the world, in the same way as Parmesan, or other cheeses and foods. The supposition that this is exactly like trademark law is absurd and mechanical.
Because that is what the "feta-like" phrasing is doing in consumer's minds. Put the same feta side by side, where one is labeled "DOCG greek feta" or whatever, and the other is called "feta-like cheese", and the greek feta will outsell the other 100% of the time.
Geographical origins serve the same purpose as registered trademark, the only significant difference is that they don't belong to a single corporation.
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.
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.
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.
Just call it Australian feta-style cheese, and if consumers like it, they'll buy it. But at least they'll be able to choose if they want the "Greek feta as in from Greece" or a different thing, with different guarantees.
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?
People generally lose their trademarks quickly if they don't enforce them and allow them to go into the language https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_generic_and_generici...
I honestly don't see you as providing a real argument from first principles.
What’s important to me as a consumer is I want to support the producers of the original region, not much else.
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?
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.
Now, if Greeks, living in Greece, making cheese with the milk of Greek animals can't call their cheese "feta" why should Australians whose grandparents came from Greece be able to?
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.
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).
And yet it has been so linked; there is a PDO designation for Pizza Napoli. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:...
You can make these pizzas anywhere you like; but you have to use proper mozzarella, and rather special tomatoes. I have not found a way of making a good Pizza Napoletana using tomatoes that are not San Marzano. I'm sure it's possible to make decent mozzarella outside of Italy; but nobody seems to be doing it - Danish mozzarella is a nasty, rubbery fake.
We (consumers) need proper labelling, backed by law. Without that, you get a slide to the bottom. Labelling for origin is part of that.
Hey, if you don't care about the geographical origin, ignore the label and buy Danish mozzarella, or generic tinned tomatoes. It's cheaper. But if you do care, and accurate labelling isn't enforced by law, then you are deprived of choice. Without choice, there's no efficient market.
It's telling that you ask, because it means you don't know, but Greek feta is made with sheep's milk, optionally with up to 30% goat's milk, while cheese called "feta" made outside of Greece is almost always made with cow's milk. Greek feta has a characteristic piquant taste imparted to it by sheep and goat milk lipases, while cow's milk "feta" cheeses made outside Greece, do not.
Cheese made with sheep's milk has very different orgranoleptic characteristics than cheese made with cow's milk. Sheep's milk has almost double the fat and proteins than cow's milk so it's a much richer cheese. Sheep's milk also lacks the carotene in cow's milk so sheep's milk is actually white, while cow's milk is more of a yellow tinge (depending on breed and feed). Cow's milk used to make feta-like cheeses must often be treated by whitening agents or the cheese will not be the white colour expected of feta. Sheep's milk (and goat's milk) needs no such treatment.
I think the reason you ask the question is that you're used to eating cow's milk cheese sold as "feta" and thinking of it as "feta", when it's really nothing like feta. This is what you get when you let anyone call anything by any name. The meaning of words gets muddled and you end up thinking "eh, it's all the same thing anyway". Eventually, you lose the ability to distinguish different products by taste or smell because the character of the product gets diluted down so much that it's really a big same-y tasteless, odourless, boring thing. And then of course you wonder "why not just call it all the same"?
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.
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.
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.
For the record and FWIW, it wasn't intended to be a rhetorical question, and I didn't think the comment I was responding to answered it, at least not adequately. But it's probably not worth quibbling over at this point.
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.
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.
Cheddar Gorge is a canyon, full of mobile hamburger stalls. There are no fields there, and no creameries. West Country Farmhouse Cheddar isn't produced in Cheddar Gorge. It doesn't even have to be produced in Somerset.
It's not crazy at all. The PDO for feta protects only certain regions in Greece so for example the cheesemakers in Crete, the Ioanian Islands or the Cyclades, cannot sell their white, sheep's milk cheese as "feta" anymore than Canadians of Greek origin can. If not all Greeks in Greece can sell their cheese as feta, why should Canadians?
Now, there are a couple of misconceptions about cheese technology in your comment that I'd like to correct:
> You see that happening already with Monterey Jack instead of Mozzarella.
Jack cheese is nothing like mozzarella cheese. Mozzarella is a pasta fillata cheese while Jack is not. I'm not sure why you can't tell the two apart but a possible reason might be the inferior quality mozzarella sold in the US market (I assume you are in the US if you're speaking of Jack). You wouldn't confuse Mozzarella di Buffala Campagna or Fior di Late for Jack if you were drunk on good Italian wine.
> In the long run the reputation of products will match their quality, and if it is any good, people will be eating Australian white goat cheese instead of Greek Feta.
Australian white goat cheese is not comparable to feta. Feta is a cheese made with sheep's milk and with the addition of up to 30% goat's milk. Goat's milk adds characteristic flavours but a 100% goat's cheese made in the same way as feta would have very different organoleptic characteristics than feta.
Also, most feta cheese made in Australia is made with cow's milk.
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.
The US has applied for 1 food product GI - Alaska Pollock Fish in 2021 [1].
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
What's that so-called « unjustifiable », dare I ask ?
Your preferences and your conditioning bias you to believe that there is only one correct interpretation. It is your favorite, and you can justify that by believing that it is the original and the only proper version. You miss that product when you are away from home.
I feel the same way about some local foods that I grew up with, but I don't support Global Trade Law that would prevent someone else from trying to reproduce (or interpret) the food in question without being required to invent a new name for it.
I think a more equitable (and workable) approach to this problem is to establish organizations whose members a) create defensible trademarks, b) accept memberships from producers who meet quality/regionality/whatever standards, c) promote this differentiation in the market.
I understand that "Champagne" means something special to residents (and economic development groups!) in that region of France. But to the vast bulk of the world, "champagne" is just a product and usually a pretty crappy one.
Buffalo wings, and buffalo mozzarella. Two great tastes that taste great together. You might not think this is an even exchange, but many will disagree, and it's entirely subjective anyway. So I say "Thank you and you're welcome!" :)
For what regards the rule, the main reason it exists is to protect local businesses I think. Many of these productions are local and small. If someone big from US or China comes with a product of the same name the industry where the product was created is lost forever.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
If you can figure it out well enough to (for example) cheaply grow truffles in a backyard greenhouse, you could make a mint.
Canadian cheese tastes like nothing on a good day. If by negligence, consumer taste or regulations it seems it's not bothering most consumers.
1) Is not easy to replicate it, even if you steal the recipe.
2) The laws that regulate the process will differ for other countries, because the culture is different and there are also concepts like kosher, etc.
3) And you can't use a building always. The undesirable microorganisms in a house will overcome easily the desirable ones contaminating the product
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!
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.
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!
The US has unusually many large companies and unusually few small ones and farmers, so this question matters.
Do, for example, try to suggest that Unilever or Nestlé 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.)
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?
They created and registered the trademark. Before they started using it, the mark did not exist. They funded ad campaigns to spread the trademark, and they license it at no cost to Florida producers of citrus products.
The difference between trademark protection and a PDO is that the PDO seeks to unwind the historical dispersion of language and culture, purportedly for consumer benefit (and certainly there is some benefit) but -- let's be honest -- this is clearly economic protectionism.
Edit: "Florida Orange Juice" is also clearly economic protectionism! Californian (and Brazilian) growers are disadvantaged by the active and ongoing efforts of the FL Dept of Citrus.
But they have a trademark. My objection to PDOs is that they're often re-fighting battles that were lost hundreds of years ago. Historical revisionism promulgated by economically self-interested groups, backed by governments, with the goal of global enforcement, and sold as consumer protection ... is silly when it fails, and abhorrent when it succeeds. IMO!
Would you like some whine with your Camembert?
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. "
New York City feels rather like a foreign country to me, though the range-of-quality observation is indeed true everywhere in the US.
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.
> 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.
Well, tough luck. My home-made cola can be every bit as good as Coca-Cola, but I can’t go around calling it that way.
As other people noted, the regulations are there to protect local producers and consumers, not non-local producers. They can get their own tradition recognised and get their own PDO instead.
> 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.
Nobody is preventing them from making any kind of cheese.
Coca-Cola is a brand name, not a general term for a type of drink that's been in use for hundreds of years.
"Feta" is just the word that Greek people have used for the past few hundred years to refer to a range of different brined white cheeses that have been produced for thousands of years in the Eastern Mediterranean. Through an accident of history (namely, Greek immigration to Anglophone countries), the Greek word for those types of cheeses has spread around the world. If things had turned out slightly differently (for example, if large numbers of Turks had immigrated to the US in the early 20th Century), we might be calling feta cheese "sirene" or "beyaz peynir."
Greece is now cashing in on that linguistic happenstance to try to force competition out of the market.
> Nobody is preventing them from making any kind of cheese.
They're just preventing them from marketing the cheese under its common name. It's as if one country gained a monopoly on the word "chocolate," and forced producers in other countries to invent a new name that nobody recognized.
Plenty of people have no idea champagne must be made in a region of France.
If they’re not aware of the requirement, it’s certainly not misleading to remove it.
In trademark law, you have to prove that a trademark violation creates confusion.
Are there any studies on how many consumers expect champagne to made in Champagne?
The law in this country is that you can't call it champagne if it's not from champagne. Anyone that drinks champagne knows this. Same for Melton Mowbray Pork Pies; if they're not from that region, or not made in the right way, you're breaking the law if you call them Melton Mowbray.
I really can't see why it isn't bad and misleading, to use a designation of origin on a label that is false.
If consumer research shows that most consumers are aware Champagne always comes from Champagne, and they consider sparkling white wine from Portugal to be “not Champagne” - then keep the restrictions.
In the other hand if most consumers aren’t aware of the distinction, or don’t care, then it’s simply protectionism.
This could create different rules in different places, but that’s just because different consumers require different protections.
But the EU doesn’t seem to care about whether consumer confusion is actually happening.
That’s ironic, as the EU prides itself on serving consumers via regulations.
The lack of consumer research and consumer advocacy is very “un-EU.”
Edit: Champagne might not be the best example, because geography does matter. Different soil produces different grapes.
Edit 2: What is misleading about including the place of production in the phrase “Made in Champagne, France”. “Acme Fine China, made in the USA” makes sense.
My parents used to have a blanket on their bed, with the following label:
"Genuine Witney Blanket. Made in Manchester."
England may be a small place, but Witney is very far from Manchester, in terms of English geography. Witney used to be the centre of English blanket-weaving; there were at least two of the biggest English blanket-weaving companies in Witney. (Witney is a small town near Oxford)
Manchester was the centre of the English cotton-weaving industry since the 18th century. It's not hard to understand why the blanket-weavers might move to Manchester. But "Genuine Witney"? Yeah, the blanket was made by EarlyWarm, a Witney firm; but trading on a place-name when you don't employ anyone from that place or contribute to the economy of that place, is just wrong.
If you call something “Acme Italian Marble, Mined in Spain” You’re just blatantly contradicting the “made in statement.”
That’s straight out consumer deception.
“Real authentic oak furniture. Made from polycarbonate.”
Drive around and you'll find small batched terroir quality products all over North America. These are products that should protected and promoted all the way to icon land, not bad imitations of something 100 times better and originally made abroad.
Big business people are always after the lowest "not hanging anymore" fruits, the ones splattered on the soil. They need to up their game and do better. Much better.
Added value quality food (or else) products are sought after by many million Americans willing to pay a premium. Can't you smell the money trail?
But if there aren't labelling laws, then I won't be able to buy real parmesan with confidence.
Price is not a reliable guide to quality. Nor is "shopkeeper's discretion". Knowing that the cheese is made in accordance with strict regulations is a good guide.
> But if there aren't labelling laws,
No one argued against labeling laws except the strawman in your head. The question is whether something is specifically necessary about occuring in the region of Parma in the cheese making process of Parmesan. I don't think it is necessary to not let Kraft call their product "parmesan cheese" for the sake of consumer protection, when existing laws already make it illegal to falsely label your product - for example, trademark laws would not allow you to fake the DOCG label, and existing laws don't let you lie about the origin of the product (Kraft could not say "Made in Parma, Italy" on their product).
> Knowing that the cheese is made in accordance with strict regulations is a good guide.
Again, which is nothing I argued against. You can have strict regulations while not restricting the commonly understood usage of a word. In fact, you seem to agree in your actual usage, since you called it "Kraft parmesan", and not "Kraft parmesan-like cheese product"
BBut let's not mush all hard cheeses together under the name of the most-famous hard cheese. It's famous for a reason.
Sidenote: Pecorino Romano is one of the cheeses that I can't find a local replacement for :(
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)
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
The hubris is strong in this one. Too bad, Brussel does not have any natural oil reserves.
https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php...
> That means non-EU farmers and exporters take a direct hit. When the EU wins protection for, say, Italian Parmesan and Greek feta in a deal with Japan, it means that Australian and U.S. dairies are barred from selling their products there under those labels. They instead have to rebrand and use labels such as "Parmesan-style," which often turn off consumers who may see the products as unauthentic.
Because they are! For example, as far as I can tell, most of the "feta" cheese made in the US is made with cow's milk, whereas Greek feta is traditionally made with sheep's milk and up to 30% goat's milk. This part of the tradition is protected by the feta Protected Designation of Origin.
Btw, cheese made in the same way as feta, but with cow's milk, is instead known as "telemes" in Greek (and I think telemea in Romania). Telemes is also a Greek PDO cheese. So the cow's milk "feta" sold in the US should be more correctly labelled as "telemes", but of course "feta" is more recognisable. On the other hand, the Greek diaspora that the article alleges are dismayed by the EU GIs should know the difference between feta and telemes, or at least they should if they have brought their cheesemaking traditions with them to the New World, again as the article alleges, and so they should be more annoyed that telemes is sold as feta in the US and that nobody can find a good slab of feta in the entire US.
But I digress. The article continues:
> 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 who declined to be named for fear of influencing current negotiations with the EU.
It's not that weird. Even in EU countries, not everyone can make a particular kind of food or drink that has a Protected Designation of Origin. This may be lost in translation, in the article, but for example Parmigiano Reggiano can only be made in (quoting from wikipedia):
the provinces of Reggio Emilia, Parma, the part of Bologna west of the Reno, and Modena (all in Emilia-Romagna); and the part of Mantua (Lombardy) on the right/south bank of the Po. Parmigiano is the Italian adjective for Parma and Reggiano that for Reggio Emilia.
So for instance, cheesemakers in Puglia or Sicily cannot make parmesan style cheese and call it "Parmigiano Regiano", even though they're Italians. In the same way, the feta cheese PDO only covers the Greek regions of Thessaly, Thrace, Epirus, Macedonia, Central Greece, Peloponse and Lesvos, so Greek cheesemakers in the Ionian islands cannot sell their cheese as "feta" and must sell it as "white cheese" instead. And so on.
If Italians can't make Parmigiano regiano because they're not in Reggio Emilia, and Greeks can't make feta in Greece because they're in the wrong area of Greece, it is not so far fetched that Canadian Greeks can't make feta in Canada.
Perhaps a licence to use the English language?
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.
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
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...
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.
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.
Wait, what are you complaining about, then? Cognac and Champagne are places.
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.
And don’t think you can just go calling your knockoff ‘scotch’ to get around it, either.
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.
And no. As was discussed elsewhere in the comments this has nothing to do with "knock-off products"