And currently the dairy industry in Europe is litigating to ensure that only mammalian milk is allowed to be sold as milk, this would appear to going in the face of hundreds of years of history of calling other things milk. I wonder what Milk of Magnesia will have to be renamed to
Wow. Goes to show how things can go unnoticed. I just went the the fridge to fact check your comment (!) and discovered cashewmilk, coconutmilk, and soymilk. I had never noticed the disappearing space
For whatever it's worth, the lawsuit was brought by a German society that aims to ensure fair competition by truth in advertising. (Were they bought by the dairy industry? Possible.)
The judgement is clearly based on the definition "The term “milk” shall mean exclusively the normal mammary secretion obtained from one or more milkings without either addition thereto or extraction therefrom." from EU law made by the European Parliament and the Council. (Were they bought by the dairy industry? Possible. But given this sentence that is part of EU law, the court didn't have much choice.)
Many languages are spoken in the EU (as anyone can check by the several translations available for the many documents published by the EU: https://curia.europa.eu), so this sounds really silly.
I say this because most meanings are lost in translation if we're to use them literally.
Take the english word 'oil'.
- In Spain, oil would be translated to 'aceite': olive oil is 'aceite de oliva'; engine lubricating oil is 'aceite de motor'. The same thing happens in French, but a literal translation would sound weird in Portuguese, because
- In Portugal, olive oil is simply called 'azeite', a word that is not used for sunflower seed oil, called 'óleo de girassol', or motor oil, called 'óleo' or 'óleo de motor'.
A similar thing happens with the word 'cream', translated to 'natas' if it refers to the solid phase of cow milk, or 'creme' if it refers to some form of paste, be it an edible spread, a soup, or some body lotion.
So the very fact that they translated 'cream' as 'natas', in the portuguese version, means that the context is everything and that people are not unquestioning automata.
The protected food names scheme makes a lot of sense If a food label highlights a regional traditional food then it must come from that area if they have applied for protection. Seems in consumers and manufacturers best interest. Here's a map of British protected foods, I see none I would contest: https://goo.gl/tyE4Bm
My judgment is somewhat clouded by the fact that I have no idea what many of the things on this map are, but in general, I get it if we're talking about, like, Prince Edward Island oysters, but I don't think regional distinctions make much sense for preparations. I think it makes more sense to delineate the preparation required to call something by a particular name (so, for instance, if you wanted to really clamp down on Parmesan cheese, I'd prefer specifying the method you have to use over just saying if it's from Parma it's good but if it's from Wisconsin you can't call it that).
Both are usually needed. This is because many properties of the final product are determined by the local fauna/flora as well.
In addition there is the whole question of IP for names of cities/regions. I mean if a place makes efforts to ensure that good quality products are made there, it becomes like a brand that needs to be protected.
So for me protecting Parma Ham is just the same as protecting Coca Cola, just that the moral person is the community living in the place instead of a multinational company.
Nothing prevents you from making of copy of Parma Ham and building your brand, just like you can copy Cocal Cola or any other product. Just don't use the name.
I mean, ultimately I don't agree with this perspective. Nobody would maintain that only Burgundians can make Beef Burgundy, or only Ukrainians (what's the demonym here, Kievites?) can do Chicken Kiev, right?
I'm not convinced that 'Welsh Lamb' is in any real sense a regional traditional food that differs from English lamb, but on consumer protection grounds I also don't reckon that you should be able to label random lamb as Welsh anyway. And some others ('Yorkshire Forced Rhubarb' is the one I know best) really are quite distinct from their equivalents elsewhere and really should be recognised as its own thing.
Manufacturers (esp agricultural) are the ones protected. We don't have the same "food fraud" issues that have become a problem in the states (mislabeling fish, etc.).
People used to say "french campaign," they knew some of it was made elsewhere. I would wager more people knew that some champagne was made elsewhere than people who knew that champagne is a region. Same for Greek Yoghurt or feta cheese. These were considered types of products.
Good or bad, these are pure agricultural lobby initiatives, not consumer protection. IMO, it's not too different from Hollywood getting regional trademark protection for to word "romantic comedy."
No it's not in the consumer's best interest. I really don't care if I'm drinking Champagne or Prosecco, as long as it tastes good.
Instead of this current racket, where food names become less clear, the regional food manufacturers should be forming associations that build brands. These brands can then utilize logos, trademarks, anti-counterfeiting designs and other enforceable IP to stand out as being "Original Champagne" or "English Cheddar," or whatever is needed.
> No it's not in the consumer's best interest. I really don't care if I'm drinking Champagne or Prosecco, as long as it tastes good.
I'm not sure that's the best example. In addition to being made in different places, Champagne and Prosecco are made from different grape varieties, and Prosecco is normally made using a different process (Charmat rather than 'traditionelle' - fermented in tank rather than in bottle). They're really quite different products. The generic term that covers both kinds is 'sparkling wine', and if you don't care which kind you get as long as it's good, that seems fine.
> I really don't care if I'm drinking Champagne or Prosecco, as long as it tastes good.
Well I do, because even if both taste good, they don't taste the same and I don't want to discover which one I have really bought only after having spent 50€ on my bottle.
If the name has no importance, then why insist on calling your product that doesn't come from Champagne, "Champagne"? And if it has a real importance, then it makes sense to respect it.
I am French and I am very happy with the quasi-trademark rules.
This way, when I buy a product named "X", I know that it follows a standard without having to look at all the details. If I think "X" is overrated, I will buy the lesser known "Y" that I know is just as good, because it has its own standard. Same as with name brands, really.
Speaking about Champagne, fundamentally, it is just a sparkling wine. No one forces you to buy Champagne if you want sparkling wine. In France, we have alternatives that can be just as good: Cremant, Blanquette, Clairette,... or even generic "mousseux".
The only thing that makes Champagne Champagne is that it has to meet a certain standard, and part of it is that it has to be made in the Champagne region.
I mean, it's like buying a Swiss watch that has nothing to do with Switzerland. It may be a very good watch, but don't call it a Swiss watch unless it is Swiss.
Being Portuguese, I too am in favour of geographic indications.
Like Port, or Madeira. There is no such thing as Champagne in Portugal. We too have sparkling wine, but we could not call it Champagne if we wanted.
Unfortugnately, we now have CETA. So if things go wrong, Canada will be able to export to the EU many protected products not included in CETA's (largely incomplete) Annex 20.
