As you might expect from a lawyer that spends a lot of time thinking about how law applies to the food and beverage business, I am obsessed (obsessed!) with Geographic Indications, the TRIPS word for Appellation d'Origine Controlle (FR), Protected Designation of Origin (EU), Denominazione di origine controllata (IT), Certification Marks (US), etc.
Historically, the US has looked to take advantage of European intellectual property by "borrowing" their designations of origin for things that bear little passing resemblance to "cheese," let alone "parmesan" or "asiago" or "feta."
The chicken is now coming to roost, so to speak, with the current trade war. It turns out that when you slap huge tariffs on your trading partners, they don't like that and they look elsewhere. When they look elsewhere, the others ask that you play by their rules. If their rules are better (e.g., aren't huge tariffs), then you play the game. So, when our bumbling fool of a head of state imposed tariffs on Mexico and pulled out of the Trans Pacific Partnership, the partners to those looked to get their goods elsewhere - namely Europe. And Europe came in and say, we'd be happy to send you all the Asiago cheese you can handle, but you have to agree to play by our Asiago rules - so, no Asiago from anywhere other than Italy.
In an event that I assume Sen. Tammy Baldwin has no recollection of, I actually spoke to her about Geographic Indications and how we, Wisconsin, were missing the boat. [ed note: the short version of this story is that we were both being interviewed for a documentary about beer]. And, she responded with something like this. I think her position, the typical American position, and definitely the official "Wisconsin Food Producers" position is that anyone should be allowed to call their hard white salty cheese "parmesan" because "What else would you call it?" Well...maybe Asiago?
Look, this full discussion is much longer. I actually get most of the way into the full rant in a podcast that I did with Edible Alpha about trademarks in food [ed note: that was part 2, you can find part 1 here.
But, the short of the argument is this: if "terroir" in food means anything - and I think the whole premise of the sustainability, locavore, slow food, whatever-you-want-to-call-it movement is fundamentally based on it meaning something - then, we [ed note: the "royal we" not literally you, the reader, and me, Jeff, the author, but yes, us too] need to protect Designations of Origin as meaning something. And that means, that when someone in a particular place creates something that you like and they call it something to show their pride in their place that you - manufacturer in the middle-of-nowhere foreign country - can't create something that vaguely resembles that thing and call your thing the same thing. Because that's misleading the public, it's deceptive trade practice, it's counterfeiting, it's infringement.
The State Journal article mentions that "The U.S. has been battling the EU over the geographic naming restriction during trade negotiations dating back to the Obama administration." This is wrong. This "battle" dates back to arguably, the Paris Convention in 1883 and certainly to TRIPS in 1995, but even back to the adoption of the American Viticultural Areas in 1981 and a first attempt at such a thing back in the 1930s.
No comments:
Post a Comment