>That's not the way it works, as explained in my previous comment. Except it actually is how it works, because if making sure that the consumer is aware of the

>That's not the way it works, as explained in my previous comment. Except it actually is how it works, because if making sure that the consumer is aware of the local origin is the one thing its supposed to do, you wouldn't have the production process being part of whats being protected as well, and you'd be able to sell any random soft goat cheese as Parmesan just because it was made in that reason. After all, they're not lying about where its coming from, now are they? The fact of the matter is that the exact location of the manufacturer is pretty much irrelevant for the average consumer, and the names of the wines, cheeses, etc... being protected are treated by most consumers as simply the name of the product itself, disconnected from its production location beyond a "it was originally invented here". If you ask the average person on the street outside of italy where "Grana Padano" cheese is made, you'd have some people say "oh its from somewhere in italy", but almost no one would be able to tell you the exact region that the protected origin designation is so strongly trying to "protect". The answer to that is simply that it just doesn't matter and the name is viewed by consumers as primarily a designation of the product being sold, rather than the location it was produced in. Your arguments are the arguments used by the EU to justify the unjustifiable and to be quite frank i'm done with that crap. If a product is molecularly indistinguishable from another there is no legitimate reason they can not have the same name. If you are so hung up on ensuring consumers being able to know where it was made, slap a "made in X" label on it. Anything else is bullshit.