<<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.
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.
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.
I mean, as long as they're basically using the same ingredients and process, why not say something like "Wisconsin Parmesan" instead of essentially "Fake Parmesan"? I couldn't care less about getting Parmesan from the actual place in Italy, but I would like the same ingredients and the same cooking process.
> 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:
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.
Feta comes from φέτα/~"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?
It seems crazy that you can have Greek immigrants in Australia making feta cheese the traditional way and not being able to sell it as Feta. It seems to me to be protectionism pure and simple. But that is what Europeans seem to want.
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. You see that happening already with Monterey Jack instead of Mozzarella.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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].
>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.
> 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.
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.
>"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.
Many traditional cheese is made in caves. Each cave has different temperature, humidity and with a unique microbiota that is exclusive and relatively stable. This is often the bottleneck in production. You can't made more cheese than the space available in caves.
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
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!
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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 poké, 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.
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. "
"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.
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.
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.
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.
One has to protect what has added value qualities. Industrial products made by immigrant families in the US or Canada is still industrial, without any real value other than a name, and some generic protein and calories count.
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?
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.
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.
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).
Parmesan from Parma is a particular food. If you're OK with pecorino, that's a different taste, but it's a decent substitute in many recipes, and pecorino is preferable for some recipes. No doubt there are very nice hard cheeses made in places that are not famous for cheese; that's cool too.
BBut let's not mush all hard cheeses together under the name of the most-famous hard cheese. It's famous for a reason.
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)
[+] [-] greatgib|4 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] flexie|4 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] roelschroeven|4 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] briefcomment|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] throw0101a|4 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] jkldotio|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] alexitorg|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rat9988|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mustafa_pasi|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] anoncake|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] PicassoCTs|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] l320093jj|4 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] rodelrod|4 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] tchalla|4 years ago|reply
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
[+] [-] Dah00n|4 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] unishark|4 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] anoncake|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] neximo64|4 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] Bayart|4 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] pvaldes|4 years ago|reply
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
[+] [-] api|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] djbebs|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Kim_Bruning|4 years ago|reply
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!
[+] [-] despera|4 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] mucholove|4 years ago|reply
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|4 years ago|reply
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuet
[+] [-] himinlomax|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Zababa|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] _nub3|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] zeristor|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dougmwne|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Arnt|4 years ago|reply
The US has unusually many large companies and unusually few small ones and farmers, so this question matters.
[+] [-] Telemakhos|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|4 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] lamontcg|4 years ago|reply
Would you like some whine with your Camembert?
[+] [-] danielscrubs|4 years ago|reply
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|4 years ago|reply
New York City feels rather like a foreign country to me, though the range-of-quality observation is indeed true everywhere in the US.
[+] [-] yummybear|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] distances|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pyuser583|4 years ago|reply
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?
[+] [-] denton-scratch|4 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] 8jef|4 years ago|reply
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?
[+] [-] adeltoso|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] oh_sigh|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mantas|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] denton-scratch|4 years ago|reply
BBut let's not mush all hard cheeses together under the name of the most-famous hard cheese. It's famous for a reason.
[+] [-] raverbashing|4 years ago|reply
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)
[+] [-] hackeraccount|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|4 years ago|reply
[deleted]