Wall Street protesters: We're in for the long haul

[garbon]

oh 

Well, my point was you can't legislate taste, but you can ensure proper labeling.

I don't think there is anything improper about my California champagne.

[The Minsky Moment]

I don't think there is anything improper about my California champagne.

Nothing improper; it's just a contradiction in terms.   

[Martinus]

@garbon: so where's the harm in me branding my drink "Coca Cola" if the consumer can't tell the difference in taste?

The name is legally owned via trademark and I don't think Coca Cola has ever been used to describe everything in its class (although I'm aware of the coke bit).  On the other hand - champagne and feta have been and in many places continue to be used to describe everything in their particular class. It seems artificial to restrict those classes down to singular items that are produced by a certain group of individuals in a certain place, who aren't even engaged in a common enterprise.

That's not an argument. The "legal ownership" of Coca Cola is purely a legal construct, a convention (and a pretty new one, if you compare it to the history of law). Likewise, geographical designation is legally awarded and a part of the same convention.

[garbon]

@garbon: so where's the harm in me branding my drink "Coca Cola" if the consumer can't tell the difference in taste?

The name is legally owned via trademark and I don't think Coca Cola has ever been used to describe everything in its class (although I'm aware of the coke bit).  On the other hand - champagne and feta have been and in many places continue to be used to describe everything in their particular class. It seems artificial to restrict those classes down to singular items that are produced by a certain group of individuals in a certain place, who aren't even engaged in a common enterprise.

That's not an argument. The "legal ownership" of Coca Cola is purely a legal construct, a convention (and a pretty new one, if you compare it to the history of law). Likewise, geographical designation is legally awarded and a part of the same convention.

I'm not going to take lessons from you on what's an argument. Stop wasting my time.

[Ideologue]

In October 2008 the Association of Lebanese Industrialists petitioned to the Lebanese ministry of Economy to request protected status from the European Commission for hummus as a uniquely Lebanese food, similar to the Protected Geographical Status rights held over regional food items by various European Union countries. Fadi Abboud (president of the Lebanese Industrialists Association), stated that "Israelis have usurped several Lebanese and oriental products". According to Abboud, Lebanon exported the first hummus dish in 1959. As a response, food critic Janna Gur wrote: "The success of certain brands of Israeli hummus abroad may have been what brought about Abboud's anger", leading him to claim that Israel has been "stealing" their country's national dishes, like hummus, falafel, tabbouleh and baba ghanouj. In response, Shooky Galili, an Israeli journalist specialising in food who writes a blog dedicated to hummus, said that "trying to make a copyright claim over hummus is like claiming for the rights to bread or wine. [...] Hummus is a centuries old Arab dish—nobody owns it, it belongs to the region."  As of late 2009, the Lebanese Industrialists Association was still "preparing documents and proof" to support its claim.

The hummus I eat is made in the U.S. and it's fine.  Probably better.

[Zoupa]

The hummus I eat is made in the U.S. and it's fine.  Probably better.

Probably not better, no.

[Admiral Yi]

Probably identical.

[Ideologue]

The hummus I eat is made in the U.S. and it's fine.  Probably better.

Probably not better, no.

Long way to America from Lebanon.  At the least it's cheaper.

[dps]

Don't most edible products tell where they are made? 

Country of origin only, and then only on the back label

Wines are an exception, though.  Even without EU-style naming regulations, they usually tell you more than just country of origin.

And I'd hope that if something is labelled as a California champaign, people can figure out that it's not from Champagne.

[garbon]

Wines are an exception, though.  Even without EU-style naming regulations, they usually tell you more than just country of origin.

And I'd hope that if something is labelled as a California champaign, people can figure out that it's not from Champagne.

Yep. Even grocery stores separate out the country of origin.

[chipwich]

That's not an argument. The "legal ownership" of Coca Cola is purely a legal construct, a convention (and a pretty new one, if you compare it to the history of law). Likewise, geographical designation is legally awarded and a part of the same convention.

Trademarks and copyrights are awarded on the grounds that they were created by the owners (or whoever buys or inherits that mark) Eastern French winegrowers did not invent the idea of being from Champagne.

[Zoupa]

Probably identical.

Produce grown in different locations taste different. 

[Neil]

oh 

Well, my point was you can't legislate taste, but you can ensure proper labeling.

Yeah, but what the EU is doing isn't really proper labeling.

[Neil]

Probably identical.

Produce grown in different locations taste different. 

So does produce grown in the same location.

[crazy canuck]

Don't most edible products tell where they are made? 

Country of origin only, and then only on the back label

Wines are an exception, though.  Even without EU-style naming regulations, they usually tell you more than just country of origin.

And I'd hope that if something is labelled as a California champaign, people can figure out that it's not from Champagne.

I dont understand the Garbon argument of wanting names to be meaningless.  Why make the consumer have to search a label to determine if they are drinking real champagne or some Californian sparkling wine pretending to be Champagne?