The PDO approach impairs competition by making it impossible to legally refer to food with a name that people understand. In the US we see similar complaints a

The PDO approach impairs competition by making it impossible to legally refer to food with a name that people understand. 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.