Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The EU’s disputed system of geographical indications is taking over the planet (2017)

politico.eu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 265 posts

Re: The EU’s disputed system of geographical indications is taking over the planet (2017)

#61

Post by bassman9000 »

roelschroeven wrote: post #20
greatgib wrote: post #9

> The wording is strange, it looks like they say that it is wrong to say that it is inauthentic. But, there is no doubt, if you buy Greek feta that is manufactured in Australia in addition with different recipes and ingredients origins, it is clearly inauthentic and deceptive.

But the thing is, what if you produce feta with the exact same ingredients and recipe in Australia? The customer gets the exact same thing, only made somewhere else. I'm all for quality standards, so that customers can now exactly what they get. But be able to use a name based on the location where something is produced, that doesn't protect the customer at all. It only protects a selected set of producers.

But the thing is, what if you produce feta with the exact same ingredients and recipe in Australia? The customer gets the exact same thing, only made somewhere else.

You can't replicate weather and other local conditions, specially on foods that require precise humidity/temp control, even air quality. So it's not the same thing.

That's the whole point of geographical.

Re: The EU’s disputed system of geographical indications is taking over the planet (2017)

#62

Post by DiogenesKynikos »

pimterry wrote: post #32
roelschroeven wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But the thing is, what if you produce feta with the exact same ingredients and recipe in Australia? The customer gets the exact same thing, only made somewhere else. I'm all for quality standards, so that customers can now exactly what they get. But be able to use a name based on the location where something is produced, that doesn't protect the customer at all. It only protects a selected set of producers.

The argument is that the details matter. Slightly different breeds of animal, different weather conditions, or different bacterial ecosystems affect the resulting cheese. You can make something similar to these products elsewhere, but it won't be exactly the same. Some products are famous and specific enough that customers have a right to be able to know when it's the real deal (and there are many such customers - ot…

I always feel these arguments are a bit disingenuous. You would be extremely hard-pressed to tell "authentic" Feta cheese apart from "Feta-like" cheese produced in any number of places around the world.

These laws are not about protecting the consumer from inauthentic products. They're about protecting producers from competition. Exclusive ownership of famous culinary names like "Feta" and "Champagne" is valuable, and local producers throughout the EU want that edge and lobby to obtain it. Benefiting certain producers in this manner may be something that's worthwhile doing, but we should at least be honest about what the real goal of the policy is.

Re: The EU’s disputed system of geographical indications is taking over the planet (2017)

#63

Post by WanderPanda »

anoncake wrote: post #31
mantas wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So we'd end up with Nike made by Nike and Nike made by someone else? Then, in general public eyes, Nike-made-by-Nike would become true Nike.

If someone is willing to pay extra for an identical product because it's made by a more famous company they have only themselves to blame.

How long must one keep his IT infrastructure as cattle instead of pets to come to believe that such a thing like an „identical“ product exists? :p In the real world almost nothing is fungible. Additionally, even with white labelling there is value created (look at Xiaomi for an example).

Re: The EU’s disputed system of geographical indications is taking over the planet (2017)

#64

Post by bawolff »

anoncake wrote: post #31
mantas wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So we'd end up with Nike made by Nike and Nike made by someone else? Then, in general public eyes, Nike-made-by-Nike would become true Nike.

If someone is willing to pay extra for an identical product because it's made by a more famous company they have only themselves to blame.

Have you met humans? Most status-symbols are all about the brand name, identical products made by other people don't count.

And im ok with that. If someone makes a shitty knock-off,i dont think the original manufacturer should get the blame.

Re: The EU’s disputed system of geographical indications is taking over the planet (2017)

#65

Post by iso1210 »

roelschroeven wrote: post #20
greatgib wrote: post #9

> The wording is strange, it looks like they say that it is wrong to say that it is inauthentic. But, there is no doubt, if you buy Greek feta that is manufactured in Australia in addition with different recipes and ingredients origins, it is clearly inauthentic and deceptive.

But the thing is, what if you produce feta with the exact same ingredients and recipe in Australia? The customer gets the exact same thing, only made somewhere else. I'm all for quality standards, so that customers can now exactly what they get. But be able to use a name based on the location where something is produced, that doesn't protect the customer at all. It only protects a selected set of producers.

But the thing is, what if you produce a Big Mac with the exact same ingredients and recipe at O'Donnels burger joint? The customer gets the exact same thing, only made somewhere else.

Still that's OK, I slap "Made in America" and a US flag on some plastic bald eagle I make in China and I'm sure nobody has a problem with it.

PGIs, like trademarks and "Made in USA" protections are good for the consumer. It empowers them. Nobody is stopping you buying cheese made in the greek style way, or stopping you putting cheese and some lettuce and a couple of burgers in a bun. They're stopping someone from passing off what they made as something else.

Re: The EU’s disputed system of geographical indications is taking over the planet (2017)

#66

Post by rwmj »

roelschroeven wrote: post #20
greatgib wrote: post #9

> The wording is strange, it looks like they say that it is wrong to say that it is inauthentic. But, there is no doubt, if you buy Greek feta that is manufactured in Australia in addition with different recipes and ingredients origins, it is clearly inauthentic and deceptive.

But the thing is, what if you produce feta with the exact same ingredients and recipe in Australia? The customer gets the exact same thing, only made somewhere else. I'm all for quality standards, so that customers can now exactly what they get. But be able to use a name based on the location where something is produced, that doesn't protect the customer at all. It only protects a selected set of producers.

Nothing stops you from making this style of cheese in Australia, it's just that to sell it into the EU you have to call it something else. Literally you have to make up a new name for it, that's all.

Interestingly the Australian wine industry fought a long and hard battle in the 1980s to use French names like "Beaujolais" (against the French INAO). They lost. And now they produce their own wines with different names and have been hugely successful at it. Probably more successful than if they had been seen as making "knock-off" Beaujolais.

Re: The EU’s disputed system of geographical indications is taking over the planet (2017)

#67

Post by golemotron »

alkonaut wrote: post #41
roelschroeven wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But the thing is, what if you produce feta with the exact same ingredients and recipe in Australia? The customer gets the exact same thing, only made somewhere else. I'm all for quality standards, so that customers can now exactly what they get. But be able to use a name based on the location where something is produced, that doesn't protect the customer at all. It only protects a selected set of producers.

> The customer gets the exact same thing, only made somewhere else. That’s not exactly the same thing: buying one item gives support to producers in the original location while buying the other product doesn’t. I’m sure an American company (or Australian Greeks) could make a better product , but the actual physical product itself is just half the story.

Except when the 'local thing' is a local business owned and/or financed by a multinational. It's the easiest way to get around such things and it happens all the time.

Re: The EU’s disputed system of geographical indications is taking over the planet (2017)

#68

Post by TravelPiglet »

roelschroeven wrote: post #20
greatgib wrote: post #9

> The wording is strange, it looks like they say that it is wrong to say that it is inauthentic. But, there is no doubt, if you buy Greek feta that is manufactured in Australia in addition with different recipes and ingredients origins, it is clearly inauthentic and deceptive.

But the thing is, what if you produce feta with the exact same ingredients and recipe in Australia? The customer gets the exact same thing, only made somewhere else. I'm all for quality standards, so that customers can now exactly what they get. But be able to use a name based on the location where something is produced, that doesn't protect the customer at all. It only protects a selected set of producers.

Why not call it something else and it would sell equally well on its own merits?

You are basically given a better starting position because of the association with the name Feta, Champagne or Cognac.

If Nike, the North face or some other trademark owner moves production to a different factory, you can’t continue production of the same goods even if the quality is the same.

The GI and trademark name translates to extra value.

Re: The EU’s disputed system of geographical indications is taking over the planet (2017)

#69

Post by himinlomax »

roelschroeven wrote: post #20
greatgib wrote: post #9

> The wording is strange, it looks like they say that it is wrong to say that it is inauthentic. But, there is no doubt, if you buy Greek feta that is manufactured in Australia in addition with different recipes and ingredients origins, it is clearly inauthentic and deceptive.

But the thing is, what if you produce feta with the exact same ingredients and recipe in Australia? The customer gets the exact same thing, only made somewhere else. I'm all for quality standards, so that customers can now exactly what they get. But be able to use a name based on the location where something is produced, that doesn't protect the customer at all. It only protects a selected set of producers.

What if you make Cola that tastes exactly like Coca Cola, with the same ingredients?

Geographical origins serve the same purpose as registered trademark, the only significant difference is that they don't belong to a single corporation.

Re: The EU’s disputed system of geographical indications is taking over the planet (2017)

#70

Post by [deleted] »

roelschroeven wrote: post #20
greatgib wrote: post #9

> The wording is strange, it looks like they say that it is wrong to say that it is inauthentic. But, there is no doubt, if you buy Greek feta that is manufactured in Australia in addition with different recipes and ingredients origins, it is clearly inauthentic and deceptive.

But the thing is, what if you produce feta with the exact same ingredients and recipe in Australia? The customer gets the exact same thing, only made somewhere else. I'm all for quality standards, so that customers can now exactly what they get. But be able to use a name based on the location where something is produced, that doesn't protect the customer at all. It only protects a selected set of producers.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN