Australia Adopts EU's Geographical Indicator System For Wine 302
onreserve writes with an excerpt from a site dedicated to laws affecting wine: "[L]ast week, Australia signed an agreement with the European Union to comply with the geographical indicator (GI) system of the EU. The new agreement replaces an agreement signed in 1994 between the two wine powers and protects eleven of the EU drink labels and 112 of the Australian GI's. Specifically, this means that many of the wine products produced in Australia that were previously labeled according to European names, such as sherry and tokay, will no longer be labeled under these names. Wine producers in Australia will have three years to 'phase out' the use of such names on labels. Australian labels that will be discontinued include amontillado, Auslese, burgundy, chablis, champagne, claret, marsala, moselle, port, and sherry."
Re:kepsev (Score:5, Insightful)
We make some of the worlds best red wines, we are quite comfortable with our pronunciation.
More EU stupidity. More AU cowtowing. (Score:5, Insightful)
This is ridiculous. If I buy a Chablis or a Burgundy I want a particular type of wine. So what that these wines originated in certain regions in France? I don't give a damn where it was made. I would say most people who drink them don't know or care either. The end result is that if I buy a Chablis in Australia they will need to call it "dry white". This doesn't help consumers, but it does help some wine producers in France trying to get a monopoly. I'm told by a French friend who is a wine buff that the Aussie wines he can buy are superior to French wines (seriously), so this makes the whole thing sound like a ploy to recapture an ailing market.
Banning moselle, port, and sherry? What idiot agreed to this? (BTW I thank OP for not capitalising the first letter of these very generic names.)
I suggest Aussie wine makers label their bottles "Not moselle", "Not port", "Not sherry". Nice way to thumb their noses at certain diary product-eating pacifist primates and the bureaucrats who agreed to this.
Re:Australian Tokay makes me sad (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:More EU stupidity. More AU cowtowing. (Score:3, Insightful)
If I buy a Chablis or a Burgundy I want a particular type of wine. So what that these wines originated in certain regions in France?
They didn't "originate". If it's a burgundy, then it hast to come from the region of Burgundy. It's that simple. Also, for the record: if you buy a Chablis, you also buy a Burgundy. Chablis is a sub-region of Burgundy.
I don't give a damn where it was made. I would say most people who drink them don't know or care either.
Some of us haven't ruined their taste buds with bad beers and ketchup sauce, so we do care. Where the wine was produced makes a lot of difference to the taste. If you can't tell the difference, please go back to drinking Budweiser.
I'm told by a French friend who is a wine buff that the Aussie wines he can buy are superior to French wines (seriously), so this makes the whole thing sound like a ploy to recapture an ailing market.
There is no such thing as "superior", either way. There is such as thing as "different". Then it's a matter of taste. Australia, California, Chile, Algeria all make very good wines. They just aren't Burgundy, or Champagne. Would you expect a "Scotch Whisky" to come from Polland? Obviously no. It doesn't preclude Japanese to make great Single Malt Whiskies. They just don't make Scotch Whiskies. Think of it as a trademark, shared by all the producers from one geographic region. You can't buy a Macintosh from Hewlett-Packard, can you? So why should you be able to buy a Burgundy from someone that isn't located in the region of Burgundy, and therefore doesn't share in the trademark?
Re:Australian Tokay makes me sad (Score:5, Insightful)
Or to clarify: If an australian vineyard is fermenting a "Tokay" wine, they should clearly label what they are doing.
Are they fermenting an Aszú? An Aszúeszencia? A Forditás?
Tokay is really only the place where the wine was fermented, it tells you nothing about the actual type of wine you are drinking. Labelling something "Tokay" is thus misleading, if it doesn't come from Tokay. That would be like a chinese toymaker selling stuff under the label "Made in U.S.".
Re:So long as I can still get goon for $10/5L... (Score:1, Insightful)
This applies to all regions, not just French ones, which is why I can only buy cheddar from Cheddar and sandwiches from Sandwich. Oh, wait.
Pf, Wine (Score:3, Insightful)
Decent people drink beer, not wine. And since all good beer comes from Belgium, there is no need for geolocation of names.
P.S.: I know that good beer also comes from other countries, but accounting for that would require a different argument.
Marketing would be my guess (Score:2, Insightful)
The US, Australia, and others have gotten really good at making wines. Good likes winning top awards at international festivals good. This pisses off the French. Wine was supposed to be THEIR thing. When the Americans first started making wine they were supportive because they thought it was cute. "Oh you go and make your cheap wine, it is much worse than ours but it is ok for cheap stuff." Then American wine started beating theirs and they got huffy.
That is somethign that has always perplexed me about alcohol is this bullshit protection of brands by area. For example did you know you can't buy a non-American bourbon? You can buy whiskey from all around the world, but bourbon is only American. This isn't because there is some magic secret to making it, but because it is a protected term for the US. So if you made it somewhere else, you'd have to find another name for it. Doesn't matter if it was 100% the same as American bourbon (which is more or less just a whiskey made with mostly corn and aged in fresh oak barrels) you'd have to find a new name.
All this shit is really stupid if you asked me. Wines should be known by their common names. I don't care if that's where they came from first, that doesn't matter. Any one should be allowed to make any kind of spirit and call it that provided it meets the criteria. The country of origin shouldn't be a criteria, only the process of production.
Re:More EU stupidity. More AU cowtowing. (Score:5, Insightful)
I think you've missed the point. The purpose of the names like Bordeaux, Burgundy, Chianti, etc. is not to tell you that it is good, though it does usally tell you that it is at least ok. It is to tell you that it is in the style that the area is famous for. An Australian Pinot Noir might be stunning, but you can't meaningfully call it Burgundy because it isn't that style. It might be better than every wine made in Burgundy, but it still _isn't_ burgundy.
If Australia's winemakers ever cooperate enough to develop a distinct style that's consistent along say the Barossa valley say then by all means call it Barossa wine instead of Shiraz. But until then, I think it's much clearer to talk about the quality of Australian wine and use a generic name like Chardonnay rather than the name of a region in France that probably does not stylistically match the Australian wine anyway.
Even the Europeans do this. If you are making wine in Chianti and want to do something differently then you _cannot_ call your wine Chianti - because it isn't wine made in the style of that region. What it means is that when you pick up a bottle of Chianti, you know what you're buying (though not the quality). Australian Chardonnay could be anything, from a subtle unoaked variety to a monster.
Perhaps not as much as you think (Score:5, Insightful)
Go look up some of the double blind taste test studies done. People aren't nearly as good at telling wines apart when they don't know before hand. Wine snobs (and wine vinters even more especially) like to claim some extremely subtle differences base on the smallest thing, but the scientific evidence isn't there to support it.
Hell if you like, conduct your own experiment. It isn't that hard or expensive. Here's what you do:
1) Buy the wines to be compared. You can either buy a number of wines, or just buy two. If you buy many, you run a test where people rank them from best to worst numerically. If you buy two, buy two that are as similar as possible, but supposedly different, like same grape, same price, different region. You then do an ABX test where people get three glasses labeled A, B and X and are asked which of A or B is the same as X.
2) Assemble a panel of people. You can be on it. Get whoever you think has good taste in wine, it is all up to you. You'll need at least 10 but more is better.
3) Get two people to run the experiment for you.
4) Have person #1 fill glasses with wine, and label them with A, B, C, etc or A, B, X. They randomize what goes in which glass (for best results use a computer for randomization), and record the wine that was placed in each glass on a sheet of paper. You don't get to see it, nobody does. They write down the results only, nobody talks to them. They need to be in a room all by themselves, no peeking.
5) Have person #2 come and serve the wine to the testers, one at a time. They don't talk to person #1, just come and get the wine. They write down the results from the people's tests. Either the numerical rank of each letter, or which of A or B matched X. They can't tell the results to anyone doing the tasting, or to person #1.
6) When all people have finished testing, come and get the two papers. Match up the results to the wine on a spreadsheet.
Doing this, provided it is done properly (as in nobody looks at the papers and the two testers don't communicate) you'll get valid results. There will be no chance knowledge of what was going on could bias the results.
However, don't get mad if the result is "Nobody could tell the difference to a statistically significant amount."
Re:More EU stupidity. More AU cowtowing. (Score:1, Insightful)
That's a red herring. Brands involve more than just taste. Quality control, continuity, rules governing production, etc. are all part of the brand, even if you can't tell a difference by tasting just one bottle. A sneaker clone from China may be exactly like a Nike sneaker (and actually originate in the same factory as after-hours production). They still can't call them "Nike" shoes.
Trademarks are important. Without trademark protection, building and maintaining a reputation would be much harder. If manufacturers have less incentive to build reputation, they have less incentive to make quality products. Trademarks, even though they are primarily a marketing instrument, also protect consumers, both short term and long term.
Re:More EU stupidity. More AU cowtowing. (Score:1, Insightful)
A wine producer is making his product with his own property, and using whatever names he damn well pleases isn't harming anyone.
Are you serious? Should Samsung be allowed to call their phones Nokia just because they produce them on their own? Names that don't mislead consumers are important - both for consumers and for all self-respecting producers.
Re:Australian Tokay makes me sad (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm also disappointed at the ban on the name "port". I rarely drink but when I do it's usually port. Next time I feel like a bottle I won't know what to buy!
This is spot-on. The move to restrict names that originated as place names but have become style descriptors is ridiculous, IMO, and the decisions about what is protected and what isn't are purely political with no regard as to actual genericization.
It makes no sense that "Parmesan", "Sangria", and "Champagne" are geographically restricted but "Cheddar" and "Philadelphia cream cheese" aren't.
Champagne, Switzerland has been producing wine since before Dom Perignon came up with his method of making sparkling wine, but they're not allowed to label it as "Champagne"--that's because everyone knows "Champagne" is a word indicating a particular style, and calling the Swiss (non-sparkling) wine "Champagne" would confuse consumers.
Once you've recognized that, restricting the name by geography is ludicrous.
These laws actually serve to confuse consumers, not to help them--things like "port" are style descriptors in the English language. The right thing to do is to require actual claims of geography to be accurate (already the case) and let Duoro label their port as "Made in Duoro", Jerez label their Sherry as "Made in Jerez", etc.
Re:Symbols (Score:2, Insightful)
The current system, where any wine producer can just stick any place name on their wine, doesn't make sense.
It'd be like seeing something labeled "Scottish salmon", when in fact it was caught and processed in Norway.
That's not the current system, If you labeled salmon caught in Norway as Scottish, then you would be breaking the law. Wine names have never meant that the wine came from a specific region, you have to label where your wine is coming from(which is a much more common-sense way to figure out where wine is coming from).
I'm glad that common sense is being imposed. Not that I care very much really, but I'm certainly not against such an outbreak of common sense.
Common-sense is imposing the meaning of words from a group of self-important countries half-way around the world on your citizens?
Re:So long as I can still get goon for $10/5L... (Score:4, Insightful)
No, not really. The whole "Champagne" battle between the EU and the US a few years ago just left everyone thinking it was the US that were the assholes. Champagne comes from champagne. End of story. Want to make a similar style somewhere else? Call it after your own region, make your own name instead of piggybacking on someone else's hard work.
What it showed the world is that the US only cares about trademarks when it's to their benefit. Which is fine, but if its citizens could stop pretending to live in a free and fair nation, the rest of us will get off your backs.
Re:Australian Tokay makes me sad (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:More EU stupidity. More AU cowtowing. (Score:4, Insightful)
well, Port is the name of the city from where Port wine comes from. And the same goes for many of those names. Of course it is wrong to call a wine Port when it doesn't come from where it says!
This is wrong. There is no city named "Port". Strict EU-controlled port comes from all over the Douro region of Portugal.
It's the same as if someone started labelling their products "proudly made in the US" when they weren't, as long it still "felt like a u.s. product" (which is basically your argument).
Do you refuse to eat sandwiches unless they're made in Sandwich, cheddar cheese that's not from Cheddar, or Belgian waffles that aren't from Belgium? Do you get really confused when your Russian or Italian dressing is made in the USA, or your Roman candles and Venetian blinds are made in China?
Are you outraged that most Brazil nuts come from Bolivia and confused about how a salon can offer a French manicure and a Brazilian wax when none of the employees are from France or Brazil?
Port, champagne, parmesan, and many other words that originated as geographic monikers have long since become English words with stylistic (rather than geographic) meanings.
Re:Dont't like the idea anyway... (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is that I, as a casual consumer, cannot know the dozens of varieties available on the market. I might think that Australian port is my favorite, but how am I supposed to find that product on a shelf after the name change? The product is "port," I've never thought of that as a Brand name. The industry has done a fairly good job communicating to the public that "sparkling wine" and "champagne" are analogous, but what's their strategy for teaching me new names for all these--"Auslese, burgundy, chablis, claret, marsala, moselle, port, and sherry"? I don't know if I have the spare bandwidth in my brain to absorb all that, especially since I don't go to a liquor store for wines more than three or four times per year and thus don't have a lot of exposure to this information.
Re:Australian Tokay makes me sad (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Australian Tokay makes me sad (Score:2, Insightful)
Even if they are using the grapes from Tokay in Australia, the soil is different. The soil has a noticeable effect on the wine produced, even if the grapes and methods are the same, so restrictions on regional names make sense.
Except that last time I read about this just a few weeks ago it seemed like the wine "experts" couldn't notice that it was the same white wine when they compared the same white wine to the same one with added color making it look red ... Personally I want to add that I somewhat doubt the taste of the actual color is 100% out of the equation.
Also the same wine in old/beautiful bottles also tasted better than when it wasn't in the same bottles ..
And there was some comparision of French and Californian wines where the later won or whatever.
I don't care much, I don't like wine.
Chances however are that it's close to 100% snobbery and just the knowledge of knowing you have a more expensive product in your glass. The goal for anyone drinking wine, beer or liquor should be to get drunk.
I can taste the difference of chocolate or flavored teas. I wouldn't be so sure / seriously doubt it was far as noticing a difference on growing location thought. Rather processing, amount of sugar, flavorings, eventually kind of bean in the chocolate case.
As I would notice if I drank a gin with cranberry juice and ruschian added to it instead of a vodka with orange juice ... :D
Taste the difference of the grains? Doubt it :D
Re:Geolocation is bad. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:More EU stupidity. More AU cowtowing. (Score:4, Insightful)
What I don't get is if these new world wines are so great, why they don't have any pride in their own regions and have to name them after places in Europe.
Re:Perhaps not as much as you think (Score:3, Insightful)
I have been eating a wide range of food, lots of water and plenty of wines and I can tell the difference between two bottles of the same vineyard but of two different years.
The point of the GP was that this type of statement is likely wrong. The only way to know for sure that you can tell the difference is through a double blind test as described above. Anything else is tainting the results and likely giving you a false impression.
Re:More EU stupidity. More AU cowtowing. (Score:3, Insightful)
Would you expect a "Scotch Whisky" to come from Polland? Obviously no. It doesn't preclude Japanese to make great Single Malt Whiskies. They just don't make Scotch Whiskies.
Think of it as a trademark, shared by all the producers from one geographic region. You can't buy a Macintosh from Hewlett-Packard, can you? So why should you be able to buy a Burgundy from someone that isn't located in the region of Burgundy, and therefore doesn't share in the trademark?
(Emphasis mine)
But there's a system in place for establishing and protecting trademarks and the regional producers never used it. Generally, once you stop protecting a trademark, you lose it. Why are they able to fight this now so late in the game?
Re:Dont't like the idea anyway... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Symbols (Score:3, Insightful)
You're somewhat wrong.
In Europe, wine names such as "Tokaj", "Chianti", "Port", "Champagne" and many others have been trademarks bound, by law, to specific regions and types of grape and even production methods. Some of these parameters are so narrowly defined that winemakers from those regions sometimes opt to skip the protected trademark in order to have more freedom in their wine making.
Some of these legal protection schemes go back to the 18th century: Chianti in 1717, Tokaj in 1730, Port in 1756.
Champagne is much more recent, only being legally defined in 1927.
That said, I really do understand that citizens from non-European countries, who are quite accustomed to use these words in a more generic sense, think it's wrong to suddenly take these words from the public domain and make them into protected trademarks.
Re:More EU stupidity. More AU cowtowing. (Score:5, Insightful)
You're splitting hairs. The city is properly written "Porto" or "Oporto" today. The name of the wine, "Port", is actually named after that city. The wine does in fact come from the region that includes that city, but the city exists and the wine is named after it.
The practice of using the name of a well-known wine to describe your product has two problems. One, it's actually much more recent that you suggest. Two, it was almost exclusively done to confuse consumers and get a higher price for your wine by suggesting that your wine is similar to this other, well-known style. Except that this was primarily done by early New World purveyors of crap wine (e.g., certain makers of jug wine).
In fact, the stigma caused by low-quality wine producers of a few decade ago using European place-names as false descriptors is bad enough that most good wine makers in all the New World countries do not label their wines in this fashion. This includes Australia, as a matter of fact. Good exported Australian wines all follow the grape-name convention and don't piggyback on European place-names. (One of the examples given, Tokay, is a weird exception. It's become common to refer to one of the grapes used for this wine as "Tokay", or variants. But then, there are a bunch of those old grapes that they're still trying to figure out the genetic history of.)
One of the major problems of borrowing European descriptors is that, outside of Europe, they're uncontrolled descriptors. That is, they have no legally-enforced restrictions on their use. I know you and other people here like to claim that they're useful to consumers, but that's simply not true. For wine, all uncontrolled descriptors are absolutely worthless, because they are widely abused. If you're in the U.S. and a wine calls itself "Burgundy", all you really know is that it'll probably be red. (You can also guess, because of the aforementioned stigma, that it'll suck.) If you want to make helpful comparisons, you can do it in the descriptive text, in which it's perfectly acceptable to say that the wine is made "in the style of X". The wine "name" and other front-label data should almost entirely use legally-controlled terms, because they're actually reliable and thus useful to the consumer.
Re:kepsev (Score:5, Insightful)
Created MTV.
Re:Dont't like the idea anyway... (Score:3, Insightful)
They get to sell liquor in the EU.