Hacker News Reader

> But generally Americans who buy higher-end European foodstuffs expect Europe to have strict controls on what's allowed to be called what on a label exported from the EU.

It is still largely political.

As a french guy who lived half his life in Switzerland, I find it a disgrace that french and us companies are allowed to make and sell some tasteless cheese called gruyere and emmental when they are not originating from Gruyères (a Swiss village and area) or the valley of Emmen (again in Switzerland).

If you want a similar french cheese you should look for Comté (not the same flavor as Gruyère AOC but also very tasty), otherwise eat the real deal, and a matured (at least 12 months) Gruyère AOC from Switzerland. If you want variety there is a whole load of other really nice swiss and french cheeses that tastes very good and do not steal someone else's name. Special mention to l'Etivaz.

> I find it a disgrace that french and us companies are allowed to make and sell some tasteless cheese called gruyere and emmental when they are not originating from Gruyères (a Swiss village and area) or the valley of Emmen (again in Switzerland).

Same goes for brie, camembert, feta, mozzarella, ... The "real" thing is as great as the fakes are terrible.

> I find it a disgrace that french and us companies are allowed to make and sell some tasteless cheese called gruyere and emmental when they are not originating from Gruyères (a Swiss village and area) or the valley of Emmen (again in Switzerland).

Is the true problem where the cheese originates from, or the lack of taste?

Personally, I only care about the latter: if the same taste can be achieved by following the same methods (example below: Kentucky Bourbon), the origin is irrelevant to me and my tastebuds.

> Is the true problem where the cheese originates from, or the lack of taste?

I would say both if the name comes from a specific place.

I mentionned the Comté earlier. It is made with the same methods as the Gruyère, from Milk of same or similar cows, all pertaining of the same families. Both taste very good yet you can't mistake one for another. The only difference is where the cows live and some difference in cows race repartition in the respective area. Mostly Montbéliardes and Simmental in Franche-Comté, more Holsteins and Red-Holsteins in Gruyère.

The same taste should be achievable by following the same method - so if we consider the cow breed as part of the method here (I don't know much about cows TBH) would the origin still matter to you?

I don't think it is true. Subtle varieties in climate, soil also make a difference.

Take Wines for example. There are great wines from different part of the worlds using the exact same grape varieties, same wine barrels and corks origin. Yet while there are common characteristics the properties of the end product vary through climates and soil differences.

I think it is more sane to have great wines from NAPA, Baja California, Chile, Italia, Australia or Burgundy in France or whatever having their own names. Calling them all Bordeaux would harm both the Bordeaux producers and that great wineyard in Valle de Guadalupe that deserve its own notoriety and pride.

> So in this case, as an American browsing high-end groceries, I figured "Dijon Moutarde" would be an "appellation d'origine contrôlée" but I am mildly surprised to find out that it is not, and that I should look for "Moutarde de Bourgogne" instead.

I'm French and I can attest that my friends didn't know that [AOC for mustard is "Moutarde de Bourgogne" not "Dijon"] before I learned it a few years ago (well into adulthood) and told them about it. I think it's one of the few cases like that where the AOC doesn't match the intuition.

> Our country doesn't really have much in the way of "geographical" boundaries for the production of certain products...it's fine to label and sell a "Wisconsin Sharp Cheddar (made in Texas)". Or a "Bourbon Whiskey" made in Colorado. Words on labels are generally pretty meaningless here.

That’s not quite true. While it is rarer, mostly because the US doesn’t have nearly the regional history of Europe and because it generally takes a more libertarian approach on production, there is a legal protection system for regional items (Protected Geographical Indicator, PGI). One example (that’s also registered as an EU PDO) is “Napa” or “Napa Valley” for wines. It also applies for Vidalia Onions, Florida Oranges, Idaho Potatoes, Humboldt Fog and (ironic, as it’s counter to your example) Kentucky Bourbon; however, I don’t believe those are also registered PDOs.

As to Champagne, there was a long while that the US simply refused to acknowledge PDOs (again, because of the more laissez-faire/free commerce attitude) and many “American Champagnes” were produced before PDO was even a legal framework in the EU (1992). For that reason, it’s still a flimsy PGI in the US. That being said, as many winemakers in California are now selling in Europe, given its increased prestige in the wine community, many of them have chosen to rebrand as “Sparkling Wine” of their own accord.

> (ironic, as it’s counter to your example) Kentucky Bourbon

I'm aware of this and was hoping someone else would elaborate on labeling laws in the USA. You've done a fantastic job with these examples, most of which I never knew about!

Just as a counter-counter-example to kick things off, here is whiskey labeled Bourbon made in Colorado[0]. Here are the actual laws on Bourbon[1]. Also of note is the rather more restrictive "Bottled-in-bond Bourbon" laws[2].

Still, I didn't know the USA had any actual state-restricted labels. Idaho potatoes are a hell of a discovery for me...I had no idea that Idaho potatoes were "Russet potatoes from the state of Idaho".

0: https://lawswhiskeyhouse.com/our-whiskeys/

1: https://caskx.com/2021/08/19/bourbons-legal-definition/

2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bottled_in_bond

I think that "Bottled in Bond" is little more than a marketing gimmick now. The kind of distillery that a consumer would want this guarantee from is not going to go to the expense of doing so. The kind of distillery that would participate is already of high quality and does not need that kind of guarantee.

Bourbon is required to be aged in a brand-new oak barrel. A long time ago this may have been a big expense for a distillery, but now the secondhand market for those barrels is so high that a distillery gets a lot of revenue from selling their used barrels to other alcohol producers. They are in high demand, especially for export to Europe!

Alcohol producers, distillers included, are now very welcoming of visitors and offer tours and other tourism-related activities. It is a lot easier for a consumer to verify the quality of a product now than it used to be. If you want your own barrel of bourbon, a lot of places will do that for you. I've got a family member that helps run a distillery in Michigan that hosts special events such as weddings. The bride and groom get a smaller barrel as a wedding favor, placed in the venue for all guests to sign and write messages on, etc. The barrel is filled and aged in the warehouse, to be bottled on a future anniversary date, with the bottles and the empty barrel then delivered to the couple years later. They can even participate in the distilling process if they wish, or visit during the aging process to see their barrel in the warehouse, etc.

> Just as a counter-counter-example to kick things off, here is whiskey labeled Bourbon made in Colorado[0]. Here are the actual laws on Bourbon[1]. Also of note is the rather more restrictive "Bottled-in-bond Bourbon" laws[2].

Notice how it’s labeled “Bourbon” and not “Kentucky Bourbon”.

It might(?) not be illegal to label sparkling wine made in california as such, but I don't believe I've ever seen labeled as such. It is not uncommon to see "method traditionale champagne" or similar in smaller print somewhere on a bottle of California Sparkling though, but it's not part of the primary labeling. We've been buying cali sparkling and french champagne on the semi-regular for a couple of years now and I've only seen french wines use/claim the title of Champagne. Mumm Napa makes fantastic sparkling wine though, and is widely available all over northern california for $20-22/bottle in several varieties.

https://www.totalwine.com/wine/champagne-sparkling-wine/spar...

Sure, it's labeled "California Champagne" but the vast majority of consumers in the USA who are buying for NYE probably don't know that means its "not actual Champagne".

I think your knowledge exceeds about mustards what EU custormers do know.

Also it is possible to become AOP brand so maybe in the future we see a Dijon mustarde geographical brand.