Because currently the USDA and FDA equivalents in EU actually work, and the laws that require food inspections are stricter. The worry is that TTIP market access policies will force uniform, lowest-common-denominator rules, eliminating european food QA policies.
TLDR: European regulations force more stringent regulations on producers of eggs; therefore eggs are cleaner and you can store them for weeks without refrigeration.
This is why eggs in Denmark (as of my last visit) cost approximately 1.5x to 2.0x as much as eggs in the USA.
There is a cost to having free-range eggs. There's a cost to controlling egg-quality so they can remain unwashed, and unrefrigerated for days.
Now in the US, you can choose if you want to pay that cost and thus shop at different supermarkets that cater to your tastes. In the EU countries, you must pay the cost because its mandated by the government.
If you'd prefer blander food, that requires more refrigeration, and deeper cooking because its inexpensive... you can't make that choice. It's taken away from you by the government.
The problem with your suggestion is information. The difference in quality is not in any way made available to the consumer. Terms people believe to indicate quality mean basically nothing, as indicated in this article. These cheap products, which are often the only choice, are intentionally advertised as the higher-quality product. So, no, it is not a matter of Americans having more options. They're being openly deceived, while their regulatory agencies are intentionally dismantled.
Denmark isn't a great comparison because it's one of the places in Europe with the highest cost of living. Also these regulations aren't just to do with free range eggs but any battery farming facility.
You might be on to something, that you should have the right to cheaper food, even if it notionally means poisoning yourself.
The problem is though that you are not always in a situation where you can make an informed choice. Even if all the necessary information is provided at the point of sale (an exhaustive list of the details of the production of the food).
You don't always consume at the point of sale: You may be buying sandwiches or be in a restaurant. Perhaps you could have regulations about the point of consumption having to declare all details there. I can imagine that becoming quite tiresome in Starbucks.
If you have that, how do you enforce it? How much do you spend? How much time do you spend updating these rules to cover all the new permutations that an evolving market produces every day.
Effectively this has what has happened with eggs in USA by transferring the cost of producing clean eggs onto stores and consumers who must now bear the cost of refrigeration.
There is an environmental cost to all this energy used as well, in storage and transportation. Then there is food wastage because these eggs spoil more easily. So it's not even all about "your" choice any more ...
By enforcing standards at point of production it drastically reduces the amount of red tape required to ensure consumers get a certain quality product.
What I meant by choice is that the USA has standards that can be considered minimally safe by 1st world nations. Companies can and do exceed those standards for food quality and safety, and end up producing better products that consumers can choose to buy then.
Another example of the difference between the US and EU with regards to encouraging choice is labelling.
In the EU, food must be labelled for origin, and other factors. In the US, that's all option but if a food company does label, it has to meet strict standards as to accuracy of the label.
Do consumers care about GMO corn vs non-GMO corn? In the EU, the question is non-optional, you must label. In the US, the question is optional---some companies label themselves as non-GMO and charge higher prices, some do not label themselves anything and could be using GMO or non-GMO products.
"Now in the US, you can choose if you want to pay that cost and thus shop at different supermarkets that cater to your tastes."
The point of the article is US consumers can't really choose what they're buying, because we are constantly, systemically lied to about the contents of our food purchases.
I buy Pasture Raised eggs from Whole Foods, about $6-$8 per dozen. Expensive but the only eggs I've found in the US with actual orange yolks like I found overseas. Even the farmers markets here disappoint. Pale yellow yolks are a very bad sign.
That's not quite true. What all your sources say, is that it is influenced by chicken feed. Specifically "the amount and type of carotenoids the chicken consumes."
You can argue that it doesn't matter what chickens eat, and you could win. But I'd wager that to a great many people the quality of food does matter.
"Some studies have shown, however, that eggs from pasture-raised hens can have more omega-3s and vitamins but less cholesterol due to healthier, more natural feed."
The better indicator of quality is how well the yolk and white hold together. A low quality egg will have a runny white and the yolk will break very easily.
You can store European eggs for longer because they're unwashed, precisely because they're dirtier. It's a value judgement, and I don't think it should be regulated either way.
Being dirty doesn't magically make eggs last longer; these eggs don't need to be washed because they're not very dirty.
While I can't speak for all European eggs, you can store UK eggs for longer, outside the fridge, because they are likely to be significantly less dirty at the point of collection, the chickens they came from are less likely to be infected with salmonella, and because they are not subjected to a damaging process (washing) that aids the transfer of harmful substances from the outside of the egg to the inside.
Its a chemical layer that's removed by washing, that makes eggs need refrigeration. Until washed, they're an antiseptic capsule. After - bacteria can enter through exposed pores in the shell.
What do you mean be "store longer"? I've stored average American eggs in the refrigerator for multiple months without a problem (I only use them on the rare occasion that I bake something).
I am under the impression that European eggs are not refrigerated. My understanding is that once you refrigerate an egg, the membrane separates from the shell, requiring that you continue to refrigerate it, as the egg is no longer properly sealed. Since American eggs are refrigerated to begin with, you need to continue refrigeration.
Those that want TTIP, want lowest common denominator, to force the EU into lower standards and force what would be democratic decisions into crappy backroom arbitrage. The capitalists have a world wide conspiracy to kill democracy.
TTIP mandates use of private arbitrage courts, which in theory could be influenced by the stronger (not on merit) of two parties, against regulations already present in the EU. For example, if EU requires the use of substance X to be no more than Y% in 1 kg of apples, but such regulation is absent in USA, an American producer could sue EU for anticompetitivenes and win.
Because TTIP is heavily influenced by the lobbying of big multinationals, the Monsanto's and the likes. As a result it favors the big food companies over small local producers. Eventually TTIP will lead to less local variety of food products and more food that is imported and therefore less fresh.
Monsanto is an agrichemical and seeds company. It is not in the food business. I know 'Monsanto' is sometimes used as a general synonym for 'evil company', but this is somewhat inappropriate.
Because in the EU there are laws that say that if something is labeled as virgin olive oil, it has to be olive oil and nothing else. Greek Yoghurt has to be made in Greece and nowhere else. Lobster meat has to be lobster meat, and Kobe beef absolutely has to be Kobe beef. TTIP basically(in extreme simplification) says that if something is allowed in US it should be allowed in any other signatory country - which would obviously lower our standards as they are much higher than those in US.
It's generally suggested here in the US that you buy olive oil labeled as being from California, as the Italian labels are often adulterated or mislabeled. The periodic scandals out of Italy seem to support that view: http://www.eater.com/2016/6/30/12070668/olive-oil-fraud-ital...
It is a problem with US regulators assuming that EU regulations are something more than scams to bid up the price of olive oils by claiming they came from a particular region (usually one that makes some bogus terrior claim) when in fact they do not. If the EU cannot enforce its own vaunted food regulations then I suppose the US should just stop accepting any claims regarding food provenance and dispense with any DOP compliance whatsoever...
EU laws aren't being enforced. All the fake olive oil is coming out of Italy. If you want real virgin olive oil in the US, you have to buy the California ones. It was also reported that Kobe beef was being sold at European restaurants even when Europe had a ban on Japanese meats during the Mad Cow Scare. Those are things just off the top of my head, i bet if you actually dug in, Europe has many examples of where fake products are sold.
Sorry, to be blunt, but this is bullshit. There are scams (olive extra-virgin was a big problem), but in general the rules do work and problems are being addressed, e.g. in Italy every olive tree is now digitalized [1].
If you want 'extra protection/certainty' then please buy labeled 'bio-food' with strict condition. Sure also there, you might find cheaters, but it is rare.
> EU laws aren't being enforced. All the fake olive oil is coming out of Italy.
Not seeing how the two sentences follow. Why should the EU be enforcing its laws on food packaged there, if the latter is destined for shipment to the US where pretty much anything goes?
well for one thing wouldn't the EU want to be known as providing good food? The EU should simply not allow the products that are not true to be sourced from a EU country.
Your values aren't worth squat if they aren't applied to all you do. This just means that if you are willing to sell shit labeled as flowers to a foreign nation it will happen at home too
The regulations we're talking about concerns the marking of food. You are still allowed to sell shitty vegetable oil, you're just prohibited from calling it Extra Virgin Olive Oil when you're selling it in EU. The fact that the shitty oil can be labeled whatever in the US is outside the scope and reach of the EU.
Fair enough, but then again, you were complaining specifically about _Italian_ olive oil rather than EU values as a whole. Keep in mind that Italy has large regions that were traditionally run by the Mafia and the Camorra:
Also, keep in mind that - in contrast with the US and as already raised elsewhere - the EU tends to crack down on would-be fraudsters and prosecute when they find issues. Also, it's not unheard of for businesses to tip health inspectors to check out their competitors at the slightest hint of fraud. It might merely be an impression, but the same in the US seems to require alerting consumers and sometimes alarming them before the FDA bothers to wake up (as put on film in e.g. A Civil Action or Erin Brockovich).
This is a great argument to whip people into a frenzy, but it's a little bit of a straw man. The US has labeling laws as well - it's not that the government doesn't care, it's that they're nearly impossible to enforce at scale. Without genetic analysis of literally every shipment, how is a regulatory authority to know what's what if the paperwork is otherwise "in order?"
Look, as somebody that's lived many years in Europe and in US, the situation is incomparable. I don't know why - either you have crappy laws, or you have crappy enforcement. If you read the article, it claims both. The FDA has super-low requirements to do anything - and manages to do even less than required to.
The european market is significantly bigger than US one (380m people) but manages to have much better labeling standards.
The reality, as in so many other areas with regard to the US, is crappy enforcement. If inspection authority was enforced at the state level (while still being funded by the federal government) I suspect you'd see much greater results.
EU does enforce food safety and labeling laws quite well. That might be because every EU country has its own FDA equivalent that provisions much smaller market. Sure, incidents happen, but fake food is nowhere such widespread in EU than USA.
Speculating, I wonder if there's the echoes of an historical effect too: frontier peoples make do with whatever food they can get, in contrast many regions in Europe have centuries old traditions requiring very specific treatments of food items; does USA have that sir of tradition (the only one I know of is putting off-milk flavour in chocolate).
also all EU producers ferociously compete with each other and won't esitate to force the local health authority to inspect foreign products at the slightest hint
The point is, which many commenters seem to be missing, is UK Trading Standards and equivalent EU bodies regularly test to see that foods meet claimed ingredients and are not adulterated. Prosecutions, sanctions and bans are frequent. The periodic outrages are relatively rare and become front page news.
If you claim on the label that your product is 52% tuna it can be (and frequently is) randomly tested and if it's not tuna, or 52% you can be open to prosecution.
By the sounds of the US system you're probably eating horse regularly, but no one ever tests to establish this.
In the case of the UK, austerity has resulted in Trading Standards being stretched to breaking point or beyond as funding has sunk way below actual need. Presumably the Tories will soon point to this as proof that a state owned system cannot work so let's privatise it.
Brexit leaves me deeply concerned the UK will resemble the US more.
Sorry, I thought you were claiming that fake food was not widespread. ("because every EU country has its own FDA equivalent that provisions much smaller market")
> if the last scandal you have found is dated back to 2013, that only confirms my point.
Words fail me at your reasoning. How closely do you think I follow foreign food purity issues?
Well if you don't follow foreign food purity issues (closely) then, please, try to comment a little bit more humble. Maybe asking instead of definitive statements?
If you can't increase the number of tests, increase the punishment and let it affect the entire chain from supermarket to producer. You want being found guilty of a violation to be a nightmare scenario that will end people's careers and entire companies.
In USA you need not label GMO food as GMO. [1] Because "The FDA has determined that the fish is as safe and nutritious as nongenetically modified fish, and will therefore not require the company or retailers to label the fish as genetically engineered."
Which is fine (I say as European). Requiring GMO labeling is is about as sensible as requiring DHMO labeling - it's scaremongering not based on science.
While I tend to agree that the actual food is probably safe , there are several valid ideological justifications for such labeling. I would also support seed variety labeling wherever it is reasomably practical, as consumer choice can only be choice if fact are available. The history should also have taught us that if the industry tries to avoid labeling, they should generally be required labeling. They are likely not afraid of ink expenditures, rather they want to sell me one thing and tell me it is something slightly different, for profit.
Patenting mechanics of life and GMO are two separate issues not really connected to each other. There's plenty of plant development, for instance, that is covered by patents or patent-like protections, even if it's not GMO in the sense you talk about.
(It's often GMO in the sense "let's take a bunch of seeds, expose them to radiation and carcinogens, and experiment with whatever comes out.)
In some countries (e.g. mine), these rights are not called "patent" but are not substantially different from what they are where the name is patent.
> Patenting mechanics of life and GMO are two separate issues not really connected to each other. There's plenty of plant development, for instance, that is covered by patents or patent-like protections, even if it's not GMO in the sense you talk about.
You can maybe get a patent for the process, but can you get a patent for the resulting lifeform or its individual genes? My understanding is that you can not, but if that's wrong I'd love to be corrected.
I agree that gene patents and whether to use GMO manufacturing are two different issues, but given that all of the GMO companies seem to be grabbing patents on their products, not buying GMO products seems like a good way to not support these practices. Especially since we already have GMO labeling in some places, whereas patent-information markings are very unlikely to ever be implemented.
>...can you get a patent for the resulting lifeform or its individual genes? My understanding is that you can not, but if that's wrong I'd love to be corrected.
Yes, you can get a patent. There are even organisations that aspire to patent organic plant variants that obviously aren't GMO. [0]
>given that all of the GMO companies seem to be grabbing patents on their products
No, not all are. First of all, not all developers of GMO technology are even companies - they may be universities or government agencies, for instance [1]. The widespread and misguided opposition to GMO technology works to the benefit for large companies (like Monsanto), though, because they have the resources to hire enough lawyers to manage the process where it matters.
Secondly, there's nothing "grabbing" about filing for patents or equivalent IPRs for plant variants; it's what you need to do to protect your variant even when you plan to release it into public domain (so that a malicious party would not claim them).
The public is not made only/mainly of science-challenged people as you're subtly implying.
There are other reasonable motivations for labeling GMO, ie. political and environmental (not all environmental reasons are "GMO is frankenstein food").
Moreover, the GMO scaremongering will last, as any other fad, for a limited amount of time. The part of public who rejects GMO for shallow (no) reasons, will quickly forget and move one to be scared of something else.
I'm not so sure. People are still sure that MSG will slowly kill them, when it's actually been proven to be 100% harmless as far as we know. You still see "No MSG" labels on tons of food.
Mandatory labeling gives the impression that it's relevant information. Whether your food is GMO is totally without consequence. I don't see why the government should burden and mislead the rest of us so you can more easily wage your political campaign from the comfort of your local Whole Foods.
I'd actually be fine with mandatory labeling if it said something like "GMO. Totally harmless but the food hipsters wouldn't shut up until we forced everyone to read this stupid label."
The scientific literature doesn't show MSG to be completely harmless. Some people definitely have negative reactions it and other sources of free glutamates.
>"Excitotoxicity is the pathological process by which nerve cells are damaged or killed by excessive stimulation by neurotransmitters such as glutamate and similar substances." //
Is excitotoxicity of glutamates a myth, it must be if the claim that 'MSG is completely harmless' is true.
> Some people definitely have negative reactions it and other sources of free glutamates.
And some people have an allergy to water. I think GP meant "harmless" as referring to general population. There are always people who are allergic or otherwise harmed by things that are harmless to the 99.99% of humanity. Additional labeling might be justified if their number grows beyond a rounding error. And that still doesn't change the fact that unless you're the confirmed rare case for which X is harmful, you have no reason to fear it or to believe (and spread) misconceptions about it.
Funny that you quote from the excitotoxicity article but not the MSG article, which lists study after study proving that MSG in food is harmless. All reports of negative effects are anecdotal and unsubstantiated. This is for one of the most widely consumed chemicals in the world.
>study after study proving that MSG in food is harmless //
The side issue is objective truth here. So, you're telling me that no one has ever been harmed by consuming normal quantities of MSG? That's what "proven harmless" means.
It only requires one study to show some link between MSG and negative health effects to make it rational to seek that information, something like this http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27312658 maybe, suggesting neuronal destruction (using mice as a model). It's not proof.
For example, from the Wikipedia article on "Glutamate flavoring":
>"At a meeting of the Society for Neuroscience in 1990, the delegates had a split opinion on the issues related to neurotoxic effects from excitotoxic amino acids found in some additives such as monosodium glutamate."
If neuroscience experts don't have consensus, that would be a reason to avoid "additives such as MSG", no?
I still think that if we're going to do this democracy thing that people who want "no MSG" labels ['no free glutamate' would probably be more useful] should get them regardless of my view of their scientific basis.
Personally MSG doesn't really bother me, I don't like the "enhanced" taste with foods that are rich in it but a little seems fine. I do get headache and bloatedness after having the UK version of Chinese Restaurant food, seemingly more so than with other food types, but I'm pretty sure that's just over-eating [perhaps the enhanced flavour encourages it?].
This might not be obvious but the primary problem with GMO is that as a farmer you have to buy (in FSF terms) proprietary seeds and fertilizers. After the first harvest the the soil has been "contaminated" with GMO seeds. Even if you stop using the GMO seeds immediately you can still be sued by the seed manufacturer.
> People are still sure that MSG will slowly kill them, when it's actually been proven to be 100% harmless as far as we know. You still see "No MSG" labels on tons of food.
"People" is sure of that... and so what? Food with additives sell. Have a walk in the street and observe what's the volume of organic (I'm using "additive-free-as-possible" for comparison purposes) food sold against "regular" one.
Talking at home about good intentions, irrational fears and so on translates little to purchasing habits. I actually heard only two people in my life talking about MSG, and only one is the "food hipster" who doesn't buy.
Of course, cases like associating skulls and crossbones with microwave ovens are an entirely different story.
> so you can more easily wage your political campaign from the comfort of your local Whole Foods.
I'm not sure if you're intentionally disingenuous here; the supermarket (generalizing, purchasing of goods) is actually the least comfortable place where to wage political campaigns, because it's the place where one puts the money where the mouth is if he really believes in his ideas, and doing so is expen$ive.
> Totally harmless but the food hipsters wouldn't shut up until we forced everyone to read this stupid label.
Let me make sure I understand you correctly.
In the jar of yogurt I have in front of me, whose main readable are is ~250 cm², an OGM writing would take an estimated 0.8 cm² (it would necessarily follow the typical guidelines of mandatory warnings), and it would also be in a part which has no immediate visibility. I therefore exclude that as "forcing everyone to read".
I also extremely rarely see advertisements in the supermarkets with warnings - this would cannibalize a part of their own offer.
Can you explain who and how would exactly "force" the public to read such warnings?
Note that of course some food would, for marketing purposes, shovel "GMO free" in shiny colours. That's advertisement, it's not government-regulated mandatory warning.
BTW there seems to be a development for some more sensible marking of GM foods beyond the GMO/non-GMO labeling which really tells you nothing of value.
The idea with this is that you put much more information available:
A vast majority of what you eat has been developed, not thousands of years ago, but some years or decades ago, using processes such as induced mutagenesis and selection. The variance in genome produced by GMO technology is very small compared to the changes in developed plants, which is not researched at all prior to feeding to humans.
Do you think you should get to dictate to others what food they eat?
It doesn't matter if you think how people choose their food is not sensible, what matters for GMO labeling is whether you think they should be allowed to choose.
Don't know what you mean by DHMO in this context, are you trying to make a joke about water? FWIW we have labeling for food dosed with water, eg bacon, such labeling is perfectly proper.
The problem isn't with labels per se. Sure, informed choice is best and all. But people are asking for GMO labels not because of a need to exercise informed choice - the campaigning is done because of irrational fears of GMO. Call it asking for an OK-ish thing for very wrong reasons.
And DHMO in this context means the GMO fear makes about as much sense as DHMO fear. People are afraid because it sounds "chemically".
>the campaigning is done because of irrational fears of GMO.
But not allowing be to have the data to make a choice because a certain undefined cadre of society considers that choice to be irrational seems exceedingly likely to have a chilling effect.
So now you can't label your goods as phthalate-free because someone somewhere decided, perhaps with the help of a plastics manufacturer (yes I'm cynical), that "there's no rational reason to avoid them"?
This prevents people from being more conservative with risk than the authority who decides we're not allowed to have that information; yes it also means people can make a decision that you wouldn't but we all have the information available.
You're assuming and generalizing what people think based on nothing but your own prejudice. Maybe GMOs pose no risk (even though the definition of 'GMO' is so vague that it is impossible to be so generally affirmative), but what if I want to eat traditional varieties, what if I don't want to support multinational companies which ruin the lives of small farmers around the world, don't I have a right to do so ? Should that right be taken away from me because you don't think personally it is something worthy of concern ?
If you the GMO products are consistently 15% cheaper (thanks to better yields and lower waste they are promising) and routinely labeled organic (thanks to the promised reduction in pesticides requirements), consumers will be attracted to it.
If GMOs have nothing to offer, why would the consumer want them, harmful or not?
> and routinely labeled organic (thanks to the promised reduction in pesticides requirements)
Except they won't be, because "organic" doesn't involve less pesticides - it often involves more pesticides but of a more "natural" flavour. It may have started from the desire of some consumers to buy food that's made locally and with a more pre-industrial feel to it (because they believe it's healthier), but now it's just a way to milk people who have strong opinions about food.
In the EU (as we still are in the UK for the moment) this http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/organic/eu-policy/eu-legisla... is the situation with food labelled "Organic". It's certainly not about being pre-industrial, it's about being sustainable and cautious with natural resources and health.
> Greek Yoghurt has to be made in Greece and nowhere else.
This is a really stupid regulation though. It's just protectionism for Greece, like the regulation that you can't call it "champagne" unless the grapes were grown in Champagne, France. There is no reason to expect this; consider Cheddar cheese, Peking duck, French toast, and Hamburgers.
There is reason to expect this if you want some expectation of eating what you're being sold. It's an extension of reasonable labelling.
It's interesting you pick out cheddar. Consider Cheddar cheese - much of it was so direly awful as barely meeting requirement to be called edible let alone cheddar. Labelling your cheese "cheddar" should give me some expectation of production process (it can't be cheddar if it's not been cheddared or aged) taste and texture just as labelling Fire Engine Red paint gives me expectation of colour inside the tin. Would it be stupid protectionism to be disatisfied that I received pale pink paint in the tin?
Fortunately there's an EU PDO protection for Cheddar - "West Country Farmhouse Cheddar", so this is what I now usually buy. It requires a minimum aging of nine months and that the milk come from the same farm producing the cheese. It's a dramatically better product.
No it's not just protectionism. If I buy Bleu d'Auvergne (it's a French cheese) in the Netherlands, I want to be sure I get the real deal, as a consumer.
exactly. the laws protect the customers from scam low quality product equivalents.
margarine is never labeled 'tastes like butter' here. same with Grana Padano. Sure everyone has the ability to produce knock off Parmesan. But when I want the real thing I know I'll get it.
In this particular case, as with the Champagne example, the name of the product indicates its origin. Bleu d'Auvergne means "Blue from Auvergne" (a region in France), where blue is short for "blue cheese".
If someone outside of France (Auvergne, more specifically) can concoct a product with similar quality, let them label and market it under their own name.
If you fork an open source project, wouldn't it be convenient to come up with a new name for your project?
But presumably there is more than one brand of Blue d'Avergne? I'm not suggesting one should be able to steal the trademarks of any of those brands.
And if someone from a different place makes a product that is compositionally identical then probably their ability to market it will depend on the customer's recognition that it is exactly the same thing.
You're confusing brand/trademark with origin labelling. A farmers market will inevitably have multiple cheeses created by different producers, all of which may be labelled "Blue d'Avergne".
Yeah, brands do happen, I bought a cheese labelled "Blue style cheese" the other day because it was cheaper and may have been made in Poland to the same process.
If you take for instance "Champagne" - you might have an equivalent product but it's not "Champagne" unless it comes from the Champagne region of France. Yet alternative sparkling whites such as "Prosecco" (Italy), "Cava" (Spain) and "Cristal" (US) seem to do quite well. If you have a good enough product, you shouldn't have any need to claim equivalence with another regional variety.
The same reason you cannot use someone else trademark even if you use the same formula. Origin guarantees are just collective trademarks for small producers.
Moreover quality of the product is not always the only reason to buy a product (see fair trade, organic product, religious belief ...)
They can label it as made the same way. They can do comparative marketing - 'we use the same techniques but better ingredients, our product is better'.
What they can't do is pretend their product is the actual traditional product from some other geographical location.
There seems like no possible way that can be detrimental to consumers?
Even the water can make a significant difference. The animals producing the meat will influence taste depending on their life and what they're eating. It's reasonable that a regional product will turn out markedly different to the same recipe in a completely different environment.
It's reasonable to want the product as intended, not what it becomes after a series of shortcuts and cost savings to produce ostensibly the "same" product.
It's only heavily industrialised foods where this starts not to matter, mainly as it becomes so disntaced from those inputs.
Cheese is actually a tricky example. Cheeses produced outside of their origin geo tend to have somewhat different microbiomes and, therefore, somewhat different tastes and other characteristics. See, for example, this episode of Gastropod: https://gastropod.com/say-cheese-2/
I'm by no means an extremist on the topic. I think it would be pretty silly at this point to say that only Cheddar from Cheddar, England could be labeled as such. But origin naming rules aren't silly either.
Food is not like building a car in a factory. It's not a formula like chemistry.
The milk matter, cereal matter, where cow live matter. The whole supply chain. it's really difficult/impossibile to replicate that.
You can have something similar, but call it with the generic name.
In Italy you can get really good food everywhere. But i can assure you, you can feel the difference between location.
For that we get DOC, DOP to certify location, tradition, etc.
It can get even more subtle than that. Speaking with a restaurant owner in a tiny village on the Pyrenees, I told him he would make a killing if he opened in a restaurant in Barcelona.
"It wouldn't work. The animals would have to be transported. They would sweat and that affects the taste".
Can only speak for myself, but as there is no really objective way to measure that kind of equivalence, we as consumers are left with the rather blunt tools of traditions and establishing brands when it comes to food. Some of the product types which are protected are several hundred years old, predating all trademark laws which would otherwise have had a similar effect.
There are also some products in EU which are sold as '<something something> style <fooditem> because of the reason you state, but with that said: They rarely reach the quality of the 'real deal'. Apparently it is not very easy to create similar quality products?
It's a way of effectively implementing trademarks for geographically based industries that predate IP law.
You're not opposed to trademarks, are you? (I don't see how any rational consumer could be, otherwise it's a free-for-all with fraud and fakes.) It's exactly the same thing, except for traditional industry.
People are free to call their new products whatever they like, as long as they don't take one that's already taken. They should compete on their merits, not freeloading on the goodwill established by an existing brand (i.e. geographical area with specific standards of production etc.)
I don't see it as stupid at all! To me, Greek Yoghurt has to come from greece, that's what I expect as a customer. Any non-Greek Greek yoghurt is simply labeled as "Greek-style Yoghurt" and that's easy enough, when I go to the shop I know exactly what I'm getting.
That's a interesting example – I totally agree with you in the general case, but I'd actually always thought of 'Greek yoghurt' the same way I thought of 'French fries'!
> To me, Greek Yoghurt has to come from greece, that's what I expect as a customer.
Why do you expect that? It can't be based on the name, since virtually all foods with an origin name were not actually made there. I'm pretty sure you don't expect Cheddar cheese to have come from Cheddar? Would you accept ordinary yoghurt that was imported from Greece being sold as "Greek Yoghurt"?
If I imported Camembert cheese from Cheddar, it would still be Camembert. If I imported Cheddar cheese from Hong Kong, it would be Cheddar. French toast sold at a Denny's in New Mexico was made in New Mexico, not France. Peking duck is duck prepared in a style characteristic of Peking, not any duck prepared in whatever style but sold in Peking. And Greek yoghurt is yoghurt prepared in a style characteristic of a Greek company that decided to sell thickened, sweetened yoghurt.
in many, many cases quality of original vs copy is really not the same, cheeses which require very long and specific processes to mature are a good example (ie I've yet to taste Gruyere that would be equal to original Swiss one with AOC stamp, French copies are pretty bland in comparison and not cheaper either). Same can go for virtually any type of food. And yes I would prefer original cheddar compared to some done by some john doe in next town 'following original recipes' and I would vote with my wallet for it.
it might be a strange concept for non-europeans, but for us, this is one of the best things that came from EU integration. if I buy a copy, I want to know it's a copy and not original. simple as that.
It isn't a case of there being regulation for the sake of it, but rather that the regulation has come into existence off the back of decades of what customers have expected from their produce.
This is not about protectionism for producers, rather the protection of consumers. Noone is telling the consumers what to buy, merely telling them what they can expect when they buy.
To take the example of wine, consumers of Bordeaux wines have accepted that since the classification of growths in 1855 there is a formalised structure and hierarchy of producers. One can know that wine from a First growth will be superior in quality to a lesser growth. From looking at the wine label, a customer immediately can tell that the wine will be of a certain quality without having to take a gamble. Codifying this into EU law allows no other winemaker within the EU to produce a wine with a label that claims the wine is a First Growth Bordeaux. This is great for consumers.
The EU is not protecting producers in that anyone can make wine to compete with these Bordeaux wines but cannot 'piggyback' off of the 'brand' (for want of a better word) that Bordeaux has built for its producers.
Now matter how much you may want to get an authentic product, you can't expect to get it without regulation. As the article shows very well. Therefore the reason for the regulation can't be the expectation itself.
The reason for that regulation is a combination of protectionism on one side and a desire to be well informed about the products you're eating.
