5 ms·

It's only Dijon mustard if it is from the Dijon region of France. Otherwise, it's just spicy mustard.

Spivak 4y ago
Food protectionism is so dumb. It’s still champagne, bourbon, balsamic vinegar, bolognese, pecorino romano. You wouldn’t say it’s not a hamburger unless it’s from Hamburg. Or a Philly cheesesteak unless it’s made within city limits. Yes, the specific taste can be specific to the region’s produce or historic process but that’s true of anything if you’re willing to mythologize it. You shouldn’t be able to claim it made where it isn’t but Dijon mustard meaning “mustard made in the style as popularized in the town of Dijon” is not something you get to claim geographic dominion over long long long after it’s been the genericized accepted term for the specific food. Dijon is a kind of Spicy Mustard but the implication doesn’t go backwards and there’s no other name for it.
- mc32 4y ago
  >You wouldn’t say it’s not a hamburger unless it’s from Hamburg" Hamburg is not the origin of hamburgers --at least it's rather contested, Frankfurters on the other hand... That said, Buffalo wings are best in Buffalo. And keep in mind: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffalo_buffalo_Buffalo_buffalo_buffalo_buffalo_Buffalo_buffalo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffalo_buffalo_Buffalo_buffal...
  - Spivak 4y ago
    Same thing with French fries. I'm actually kinda surprised you say that about Buffalo, I would would have assumed that because of it's insane popularity, low barrier to entry, no real "secret sauce" heh, and the sheer number of iterations that the odds of the best Buffalo wings happening to be in Buffalo was pretty low. Neat.
    - p1necone 4y ago
      The best French fries are found in Belgium thankyouverymuch.
- Glawen 4y ago
  > Food protectionism is so dumb. It’s still champagne, bourbon, balsamic vinegar, bolognese, pecorino romano. I don't agree, when I shed some money on champagne or balsamic vinegar, I want to be sure to have the real deal and not a bland commercial copy surfing on prestigious name. AOP labels ensure that I am getting the real product I'm looking for. I've been in Russia and tasted their Cognac and Champagne, it's nowhere close the french stuff and they know it. It really taste different.
  - Spivak 4y ago
    So get the one with the “made in Champage” stamp. In your defense for having the names be protected you literally called Russian sparking wine (not champagne by your definition) “their champagne.” I can’t possibly make a better case for the terms being generic than that.
- namdnay 4y ago
  it's not protectionism, there's nothing stopping you from making your own hard ewe's milk and selling it. it's just respecting the definition of the name, in much the same way as a trademark "hoover" might have become a household name, but does that allow anyone to slap a "hoover" name on their vacuum cleaner?
  - Spivak 4y ago
    No, respecting the definition of the name is acknowledging that the style of whatever originated and/or was popularized in that pace. The names aren’t brands any more than Yorkshire pudding, Brazilian steak house, or Nashville hot chicken. The difference between these and balsamic is a government that is propping up the regional industry with a bs legal protection that doesn’t benefit customers or clear up any confusion. Nobody thinks that NY strip steak is flown in or their Genoise cake was baked in Genoa.
    - namdnay 4y ago
      Those are recipes/styles, not ingredients. And again, it’s not protectionism - it’s not like they’re stopping you from making your own sparkling wine and labeling it “sparkling wine made with the champagne method”. It’s basic consumer protection, I don’t want to have to dig into every product to see if it’s real or fake
      - Spivak 4y ago
        So is Champagne, the specific strains of grapes used have changed over the years. And even if it was the ingredients, surely any sparking wine made with those ingredients could be labeled champagne, and they're grown all over. Champagne made in California is as real as anything in France. It's protectionism because they know that champagne is the more recognizable term, and banking on people not knowing that they're alternatives, like dairy producers in the US trying to protect the term "milk" after years of "almond milk", "oat milk" existing in everyday speech. It's entirely manufactured hypothetical consumer confusion. Specific brands can have all the trademark protection they want. Defining buffalo wings as wings made in Buffalo and only using chickens raised and slaughtered there is silly.
- lozenge 4y ago
  Where has it "genericized"? Maybe in the US where the EU DPO isn't enforced. I in the UK have never felt these terms to be genericized.
- denton-scratch 4y ago
  > It’s still champagne, bourbon, balsamic vinegar Oh, dear, balsamic vinegar. I would like to taste real balsamic vinegar. It's cause for regret that there are two kinds of Balsamic Vinegar of Modena: stuff for cooking, and stuff for sipping, both of which have protected designations. The stuff for cooking is basically fake, containing stuff like caramel, and costs a tenner a bottle. The stuff for sipping costs £200 for a pint, and takes 12 years to make. I'd like to know where I could buy just a snifter of the stuff, to taste.
  - VK538FY 4y ago
    I go to Italy every few months and buy a few bottles of generic balsamico for cooking. Cost about 1.20 EUR per 700 mL bottle at Coop. No caramel or funny ingredients. Surely not aged like the expensive stuff but it performs its job well in my kitchen.
Moto7451 4y ago
The article mentions that this is not true for Dijon mustard. It is named for the recipe and not the region. More critically it lacks an AOS/AOP which is what keeps Champagne in Champagne. In the article they mention that Dijon mustard made in France is now made in the neighboring subdivision and therefore would violate a hypothetical AOS/AOP.
forty 4y ago
You should read the article, it explains precisely why you are wrong
denton-scratch 4y ago
That's a legitimate point of view. However it's perfectly legal to name any old mustard "Dijon". It's not a protected designation. Most mustard sold as "Dijon" isn't from Dijon.

Food protectionism is so dumb. It’s still champagne, bourbon, balsamic vinegar, bolognese, pecorino romano. You wouldn’t say it’s not a hamburger unless it’s from Hamburg. Or a Philly cheesesteak unless it’s made within city limits. Yes, the specific taste can be specific to the region’s produce or historic process but that’s true of anything if you’re willing to mythologize it. You shouldn’t be able to claim it made where it isn’t but Dijon mustard meaning “mustard made in the style as popularized in the town of Dijon” is not something you get to claim geographic dominion over long long long after it’s been the genericized accepted term for the specific food. Dijon is a kind of Spicy Mustard but the implication doesn’t go backwards and there’s no other name for it.

mc32 4y ago
>You wouldn’t say it’s not a hamburger unless it’s from Hamburg" Hamburg is not the origin of hamburgers --at least it's rather contested, Frankfurters on the other hand... That said, Buffalo wings are best in Buffalo. And keep in mind: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffalo_buffalo_Buffalo_buffalo_buffalo_buffalo_Buffalo_buffalo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffalo_buffalo_Buffalo_buffal...
- Spivak 4y ago
  Same thing with French fries. I'm actually kinda surprised you say that about Buffalo, I would would have assumed that because of it's insane popularity, low barrier to entry, no real "secret sauce" heh, and the sheer number of iterations that the odds of the best Buffalo wings happening to be in Buffalo was pretty low. Neat.
  - p1necone 4y ago
    The best French fries are found in Belgium thankyouverymuch.
Glawen 4y ago
> Food protectionism is so dumb. It’s still champagne, bourbon, balsamic vinegar, bolognese, pecorino romano. I don't agree, when I shed some money on champagne or balsamic vinegar, I want to be sure to have the real deal and not a bland commercial copy surfing on prestigious name. AOP labels ensure that I am getting the real product I'm looking for. I've been in Russia and tasted their Cognac and Champagne, it's nowhere close the french stuff and they know it. It really taste different.
- Spivak 4y ago
  So get the one with the “made in Champage” stamp. In your defense for having the names be protected you literally called Russian sparking wine (not champagne by your definition) “their champagne.” I can’t possibly make a better case for the terms being generic than that.
namdnay 4y ago
it's not protectionism, there's nothing stopping you from making your own hard ewe's milk and selling it. it's just respecting the definition of the name, in much the same way as a trademark "hoover" might have become a household name, but does that allow anyone to slap a "hoover" name on their vacuum cleaner?
- Spivak 4y ago
  No, respecting the definition of the name is acknowledging that the style of whatever originated and/or was popularized in that pace. The names aren’t brands any more than Yorkshire pudding, Brazilian steak house, or Nashville hot chicken. The difference between these and balsamic is a government that is propping up the regional industry with a bs legal protection that doesn’t benefit customers or clear up any confusion. Nobody thinks that NY strip steak is flown in or their Genoise cake was baked in Genoa.
  - namdnay 4y ago
    Those are recipes/styles, not ingredients. And again, it’s not protectionism - it’s not like they’re stopping you from making your own sparkling wine and labeling it “sparkling wine made with the champagne method”. It’s basic consumer protection, I don’t want to have to dig into every product to see if it’s real or fake
    - Spivak 4y ago
      So is Champagne, the specific strains of grapes used have changed over the years. And even if it was the ingredients, surely any sparking wine made with those ingredients could be labeled champagne, and they're grown all over. Champagne made in California is as real as anything in France. It's protectionism because they know that champagne is the more recognizable term, and banking on people not knowing that they're alternatives, like dairy producers in the US trying to protect the term "milk" after years of "almond milk", "oat milk" existing in everyday speech. It's entirely manufactured hypothetical consumer confusion. Specific brands can have all the trademark protection they want. Defining buffalo wings as wings made in Buffalo and only using chickens raised and slaughtered there is silly.
lozenge 4y ago
Where has it "genericized"? Maybe in the US where the EU DPO isn't enforced. I in the UK have never felt these terms to be genericized.
denton-scratch 4y ago
> It’s still champagne, bourbon, balsamic vinegar Oh, dear, balsamic vinegar. I would like to taste real balsamic vinegar. It's cause for regret that there are two kinds of Balsamic Vinegar of Modena: stuff for cooking, and stuff for sipping, both of which have protected designations. The stuff for cooking is basically fake, containing stuff like caramel, and costs a tenner a bottle. The stuff for sipping costs £200 for a pint, and takes 12 years to make. I'd like to know where I could buy just a snifter of the stuff, to taste.
- VK538FY 4y ago
  I go to Italy every few months and buy a few bottles of generic balsamico for cooking. Cost about 1.20 EUR per 700 mL bottle at Coop. No caramel or funny ingredients. Surely not aged like the expensive stuff but it performs its job well in my kitchen.

Moto7451 4y ago

The article mentions that this is not true for Dijon mustard. It is named for the recipe and not the region. More critically it lacks an AOS/AOP which is what keeps Champagne in Champagne. In the article they mention that Dijon mustard made in France is now made in the neighboring subdivision and therefore would violate a hypothetical AOS/AOP.

forty 4y ago

You should read the article, it explains precisely why you are wrong

denton-scratch 4y ago

That's a legitimate point of view. However it's perfectly legal to name any old mustard "Dijon". It's not a protected designation. Most mustard sold as "Dijon" isn't from Dijon.