Forbes on Kobe Beef (and Champagne)

[Admiral Yi]

Most of the time when I drink champagne it isn't from Champagne.

Go on.

[garbon]

Most of the time when I drink champagne it isn't from Champagne.

Go on.

Not sure what you'd like me to say.

[Admiral Yi]

Not sure what you'd like me to say.

Do you ever announce that you are drinking Champagne while drinking sparkling wine?

[Syt]

Most of the time when I drink champagne it isn't from Champagne.

Go on.

Not sure what you'd like me to say.

[garbon]

Not sure what you'd like me to say.

Do you ever announce that you are drinking Champagne while drinking sparkling wine?

I'm still not really sure where you are going. Let me give you some scenarios.

1) Someone asks me what I'm drinking. I say champagne and they correct me.
2) I'm at a restaurant and order champagne (with the product from Champagne not on the menu) and I get corrected by the person I'm with
3) I ask at a restaurant if they have any champagne and get told that they have a selection of sparkling wines
4) I'm typing on languish and say that I had some champagne at brunch and then get told that no I didn't.

Now granted 1-3, almost never happens (though it has) as I tend to stay away from establishments and individuals who might feel the need to correct me.  But like I said, there really isn't any benefit to me to have the word champagne limited to a product from a specific region.

[grumbler]

It clearly does mean something that's why you pay extra for it and have celebrity chefs pushing it. 

Actually, I don't pay more for it nor do I know of any celebrity chefs pushing it.  I don't even know anyone who ever talks about celebrity chefs or who pay extra for it.

In countries with these protections that's justified the meaning is attached to a method, location or heritage of producing.  If I buy extra virgin olive oil I know that, under EU law, it has a certain meaning (I think it has to be first press for example).  Similarly Lincolnshire sausages must have a certain percentage of pork (far higher than average), but aside from that only salt, pepper and sage.

In the US, we have something called "brands" that serve that purpose.  A Hebrew National hot dog or sausage has to meet certain standards, for which I will pay extra.  I won't pay more if the hot dog package says "extra virgin."

Now, of you want your governments to define all the various food qualities for you, fine (though I note that you don't even know for sure what standards lie "extra virgin" actually mean). 

In the US it seems you get the worst of both worlds.  You pay the extra price for parmesan or extra virgin olive oil but the product you get isn't necessarily any better or different than standard olive oil or any hard cheese.  So you get the price without the meaning.

I don't pay extra, and don't know anyone who does.  maybe people who watch celebrity chefs do, but they deserve to be conned.  I am not in favor of enlarging my government to try to keep fools from being parted from their money.  Parmesan cheese is not at all expensive around here, btw.  It's just another type of cheese.

Also there's nothing snobbish about it and I dread to think what sort of life you've been leading if parmesan and olive oil qualify as 'elite' European foods.

I dread to think of the sort of life you must be leading if the reading comprehension skill you possess makes you think that parmesan and olive oil are considered "elite" European foods by anyone in this discussion. 

[alfred russel]

I think champagne is something of an exception - I truly believe that the term has reached the point of generality, and is no longer unique to the Champagne region of France.

I think Kleenex has also reached such a point of generality, but I can't use that name for my generic tissue paper.

[DGuller]

4) I'm typing on languish and say that I had some champagne at brunch and then get told that no I didn't.

That reminds me of a very classic line from a satirical movie that was very popular in Soviet Union.  "Only aristocrats and degenerates drink champagne in the morning..."  Funny how fitting Soviet wisdoms can be to American life.

[Malthus]

Why should the onus be on the consumer that a product is what it says it is?  What's the difference between this and any other type of copyright or, say, weights and measures?  I think this is a totally legitimate aim for government and one of the oldest - insuring that what is for sale is what the merchant promises.

Why should Kobe beef, parmesan or extra virgin olive oil be allowed to be mere puff - an advertising gimmick - when, say, Coca-Cola is safe?

To my mind, the issue is whether something "is what it is". Product labeling should, ideally, include country of origin - most regulatory systems require that if you claim something is (say) made in Japan, that it actually be made in Japan; I'd even go the extra step and make country of origin mandatory (in some cases it already is).

The product must also be what it claims. If the product is marketed as beef, it can't be cat or rabbit. If the product is marketed as a specific kind, grade or quality of beef, it has to be that as well.

But where a kind of product is simply associated in the public mind with a particular country, it doesn't follow that only products from that country have to have that label - where an exactly identical product can be made elsewhere. I know some places have made that so by statute, but in  my opinion, absent a statute, it doesn't and shouldn't follow. A certain type of cheese may be associated with a certain region of Italy or France, but if the exact same kind of cheese is made elsewhere, it seems the most convenient thing for the consumer to call it the same thing, rather than inventing an awkward circumlocution like "parmesan-style cheese", which actually conveys less information to the consumer, and is more misleading, than "parmesan cheese, made in the USA". The consumer, reading "parmesan-style cheese", has no way of knowing whether the stuff is simply 'parmesan cheese (made elsewhere)' or 'some sort of horrible cheeze-wiz type concoction'.

The discerning (or snobbish  ) consumer still has the choice of buying "parmesan cheese, made in Italy" or wherever, if they so choose. This gives the choice to the consumer, rather than acting as some sort of protectionism for the producer.

[Admiral Yi]

I'm still not really sure where you are going. Let me give you some scenarios.

1) Someone asks me what I'm drinking. I say champagne and they correct me.
2) I'm at a restaurant and order champagne (with the product from Champagne not on the menu) and I get corrected by the person I'm with
3) I ask at a restaurant if they have any champagne and get told that they have a selection of sparkling wines
4) I'm typing on languish and say that I had some champagne at brunch and then get told that no I didn't.

Now granted 1-3, almost never happens (though it has) as I tend to stay away from establishments and individuals who might feel the need to correct me.  But like I said, there really isn't any benefit to me to have the word champagne limited to a product from a specific region.

#2 and 3 are not cases of people correcting you, they are cases of people providing you information.

#1 I can see your beef.  It's a presumption on their part that you don't know what real Champagne is.  Now you could easily counter that presumption by using Champagne to only describe sparkling wine from the Champagne region, but for some reason you prefer not to.  So it's this conflict between the desire to not be judged as culturally ignorant on the one hand and whatever motivation impels you to call sparkling wine "champagne" (keeping it real? distaste for affection?) on the other that is the real issue here.

[Sheilbh]

In the US, we have something called "brands" that serve that purpose.

Exactly.  That's the comparison I'd make, these foods are brands.  Producers make product and have done for a long time in a certain way and in a certain place.  Because of that they charge extra.  Both the producers and consumers should be protected from freeloaders stealing their brand name and recognition without producing the same product in the same way and of the same quality.

Now, of you want your governments to define all the various food qualities for you, fine (though I note that you don't even know for sure what standards lie "extra virgin" actually mean).

I don't need to know in legal terms.  That's the benefit of that meaning something is I know that I can pick up any brand of 'extra virgin' olive oil and it will be what I want extra virgin olive oil for in food.

I don't think governments do define various food qualities the producers do and the government, if satisfied that they meet various criteria, grant them protected status - like any other copyright, trademark or whatever.

#1 I can see your beef.  It's a presumption on their part that you don't know what real Champagne is.  Now you could easily counter that presumption by using Champagne to only describe sparkling wine from the Champagne region, but for some reason you prefer not to.  So it's this conflict between the desire to not be judged as culturally ignorant on the one hand and whatever motivation impels you to call sparkling wine "champagne" (keeping it real? distaste for affection?) on the other that is the real issue here.

In that situation you tell the person to fuck off.

[Admiral Yi]

In that situation you tell the person to fuck off.

If you tell that person to fuck off you forfeit any future right correct someone else's misinformation.

[derspiess]

Not sure what you'd like me to say.

Do you ever announce that you are drinking Champagne while drinking sparkling wine?

I'm not grabon, but I can't bring myself to do it. 

What cracks me up is that if I do tell someone I'm drinking sparkling wine, they often assume that means I'm drinking one of those cheap $4 bottles of artificially carbonated piss with the plastic stopper in place of an actual cork.

I'm conflicted on the general issue.  I actually like the Euro appellation style and it bugs the crap out of me when people misuse proper terms for wine, beer, cigars, and some foods.  But I also dislike excessive government regulation. So I guess I'd favor strict but voluntary non-governmental control over stuff like that, but that's probably impossible.

[garbon]

I'm still not really sure where you are going. Let me give you some scenarios.

1) Someone asks me what I'm drinking. I say champagne and they correct me.
2) I'm at a restaurant and order champagne (with the product from Champagne not on the menu) and I get corrected by the person I'm with
3) I ask at a restaurant if they have any champagne and get told that they have a selection of sparkling wines
4) I'm typing on languish and say that I had some champagne at brunch and then get told that no I didn't.

Now granted 1-3, almost never happens (though it has) as I tend to stay away from establishments and individuals who might feel the need to correct me.  But like I said, there really isn't any benefit to me to have the word champagne limited to a product from a specific region.

#2 and 3 are not cases of people correcting you, they are cases of people providing you information.

#1 I can see your beef.  It's a presumption on their part that you don't know what real Champagne is.  Now you could easily counter that presumption by using Champagne to only describe sparkling wine from the Champagne region, but for some reason you prefer not to.  So it's this conflict between the desire to not be judged as culturally ignorant on the one hand and whatever motivation impels you to call sparkling wine "champagne" (keeping it real? distaste for affection?) on the other that is the real issue here.

2 isn't being corrected? I'm pretty sure it is a correction if I say champagne and they point out there is only sparking wine. Same with 3, no need to point out i'm using the "wrong" term.

Besides, I don't think I'm using the wrong term and sparking wine sounds ridiculous. In fact, I generally don't hang out with people that use that term either as they tend to help me into one of those four situations outlined above.

[CountDeMoney]

In that situation you tell the person to fuck off.

If you tell that person to fuck off you forfeit any future right correct someone else's misinformation.

What about saying nothing, and smashing them across the forehead with the bottle?