4 ms·
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 labeli
by 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 agoSo 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.
- namdnay 4y agoYou seem to be under the impression that defining Champagne as coming from Champagne is a recent thing. It's not, it's been like that since the 19th century, even being codified in the Madrid treaty of 1891 - long before anyone was making sparkling wine in the USA . The fact that the US didn't initially sign these treaties and allowed people to sell fake Champagne to their consumers for so long doesn't really change that