4 ms·

Because the US did the same through IP law and would do it to all foodstuffs from EU without this protection. One could say, why can't the US produce sparkling

by vasco 3y ago

Because the US did the same through IP law and would do it to all foodstuffs from EU without this protection. One could say, why can't the US produce sparkling wine or sweet red wine without calling it Champagne or Port wine? I don't agree with the concept of cultural appropriation for anything, but having huge American conglomerates pump money into a mass produced product and slapping it with the name of a tiny region of a small country to eliminate all the local small producers is the single exception where I think it applies. Plus it doesn't even lock anyone out, you can (and people do), buy land in the region and produce locally if you really want to. What you can't do is sell California wine and market it as something it's not to protect small producers.

inglor_cz 3y ago
Interestingly, both Budweiser and Pilsner are "culturally appropriated" from Czechia. These used to be beers brewn in Budweis (České Budějovice) and Pilsen (Plzeň), respectively.
- SoftTalker 3y ago
  And then there's Miller, which calls itself "The Champagne of Beers"
  - mauvehaus 3y ago
    ... which is clearly false on at least two levels.
    - lobsterthief 3y ago
      3 if you include “beer”
hyperhopper 3y ago
> why can't the US produce sparkling wine or sweet red wine without calling it Champagne or Port wine? Anybody could do that. Rather problem is it won't be successful since people recognize "champagne" and they will order that. Even if they know that sparkling wine could be the same type of beverage they will immediately assume it is inferior regardless of the actual quality. It's a nigh-insurmountable obstacle to overcome centuries of advertising, legal entrenchment, and habit for any new start up company that just wants to make a high quality good. The status quo only helps the large corporations that have been advertising and lobbying for the last century.
- vasco 3y ago
  Just produce good California wine for centuries, develop methods to produce it and you’ll have the same benefit then. Champagne or Port didn't start by taking the name of some other land and had much less money and power than anyone in the US today.
  - petre 3y ago
    They did it with Bourbon. I can't see why it can't be done with Californian wine.
- petre 3y ago
  > Rather problem is it won't be successful since people recognize "champagne" and they will order that. It could be successful if these people stop being snobs and educate themselves a bit. For instance I like Prosecco, not Champagne sparkling wine. But since the former is not a protected designation of origin, I have to revert to buying DOC or DOCG, look for Conegliano, Valdobbiadene or Milesimatto on the label. If a large wine producer from say Germany would start slapping these words on Sekt labels and flood the EU market with the product, how would I be able to tell the difference without buying and tasting the product? Luckily, the Germans like it extra dry and are proud of their own product, which is great.

by vasco 3y ago

inglor_cz 3y ago

Interestingly, both Budweiser and Pilsner are "culturally appropriated" from Czechia. These used to be beers brewn in Budweis (České Budějovice) and Pilsen (Plzeň), respectively.

SoftTalker 3y ago
And then there's Miller, which calls itself "The Champagne of Beers"
- mauvehaus 3y ago
  ... which is clearly false on at least two levels.
  - lobsterthief 3y ago
    3 if you include “beer”

hyperhopper 3y ago

> why can't the US produce sparkling wine or sweet red wine without calling it Champagne or Port wine? Anybody could do that. Rather problem is it won't be successful since people recognize "champagne" and they will order that. Even if they know that sparkling wine could be the same type of beverage they will immediately assume it is inferior regardless of the actual quality. It's a nigh-insurmountable obstacle to overcome centuries of advertising, legal entrenchment, and habit for any new start up company that just wants to make a high quality good. The status quo only helps the large corporations that have been advertising and lobbying for the last century.

vasco 3y ago
Just produce good California wine for centuries, develop methods to produce it and you’ll have the same benefit then. Champagne or Port didn't start by taking the name of some other land and had much less money and power than anyone in the US today.
- petre 3y ago
  They did it with Bourbon. I can't see why it can't be done with Californian wine.
petre 3y ago
> Rather problem is it won't be successful since people recognize "champagne" and they will order that. It could be successful if these people stop being snobs and educate themselves a bit. For instance I like Prosecco, not Champagne sparkling wine. But since the former is not a protected designation of origin, I have to revert to buying DOC or DOCG, look for Conegliano, Valdobbiadene or Milesimatto on the label. If a large wine producer from say Germany would start slapping these words on Sekt labels and flood the EU market with the product, how would I be able to tell the difference without buying and tasting the product? Luckily, the Germans like it extra dry and are proud of their own product, which is great.