Forbes on Kobe Beef (and Champagne)

[Malthus]

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.

Seems to me if the "correct" term is actively misleading others as to what the stuff is, it really isn't "correct" in the first place.

[Admiral Yi]

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.

It's not being corrected.  You ask for champagne.  They infer that you would be interested in sparkling wine, and clarify that they don't have any Champagne but do have the second.  "We don't have that, but we have something close."

[Sheilbh]

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'.

I don't think so.  My experience in EU where this is the case is that different alternatives become available.  So basically you have feta for example which is protected - it's from Greece, from a certain breed of sheep and made in a certain way.  The Greeks were delighted to get that because Danish cheese makers were producing 'feta'.  Now that's got a different name (I can't remember) and describes itself as a salad cheese.  It does actually taste worse than feta in my view.  But it sits in the same area in the supermarket, it looks the same and there's a minor price difference.

Similarly if I want a hard cheese then in my local supermarket there'll be own brand 'hard white cheese', gran padano, pecorino romano, parmigiano-reggiano (and probably some more) all doing roughly the same thing but they do have different tastes and uses.  If all you're interested in is price then you can go for the cheapest one - if you just want the name you can go for organic, classically educated parmigiano-reggiano and pay for it. 

Similarly on sparkling wine.  I don't know much about wine so I can't comment, but here I don't think there's any snobbishness about sparkling wine.  Champagne's nice and French - but you can also get Cava which is great and Spanish, or Prosecco which is Italian. 

I think these laws protect the producers and consumers of goods, but the market hasn't developed by producing dreadful knock-off versions.  Lambrini isn't sold as 'champagne style' sparkling wine.  In large part that's because the qualities associated with those originals are very widely known and have strong associations.  So a 'parmesan-style' cheese that was like cheese-wiz would fail because no-one buying 'parmesan-style' cheese would have wanted or expected that.  While 'hard white cheese' or similar but slightly cheaper cheeses will do well and seize those lower price points.

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.

But the issue with parmesan - as discussed in that article - is the various regulations that go into how you make it.  There are restrictions on what cattle can be used, how you store the cheese and then levels of quality control beyond that to protect the 'brand identity' of parmesan.  So it's more than checking whether it's Italian or not.

When I worked in a bar we had a bourbon training thing with a descendant of Jim Beam (his job now was talking to people about bourbon for the company ) and I don't think American laws on what is and isn't a bourbon are that dissimilar.  But I think this with everything.  If I buy bourbon or an Islay whisky I want to be able to pick up a bottle that so describes itself and know that's what I'll get.  The same goes for cheese or ham or oil.  It would probably go for wine too but I'm ignorant on that stuff so...

[garbon]

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.

It's not being corrected.  You ask for champagne.  They infer that you would be interested in sparkling wine, and clarify that they don't have any Champagne but do have the second.  "We don't have that, but we have something close."

That was 3.

[garbon]

But the issue with parmesan - as discussed in that article - is the various regulations that go into how you make it.  There are restrictions on what cattle can be used, how you store the cheese and then levels of quality control beyond that to protect the 'brand identity' of parmesan.  So it's more than checking whether it's Italian or not.

But then you also have to fall in line that all of those "quality processes" actually make for a superior and distinct product.  Besides what happens when there is a bad year? Does all of the Champagne get thrown out as it doesn't meat the quality standards?  I've actually no idea though it seems unlikely given that people can speak about good and better years.

[Barrister]

The EU rules on "Feta" are completely assinine.  There's nothing particular to greece in how it is made.

[Admiral Yi]

That was 3.

I can see how #2 could be a correction.  Fancy restaurant, snobby waiter, "those wines are not really Champagne, you social climbing little ghetto punk."

Though how snobby can a waiter be in a restaurant that doesn't carry a single bottle of Champagne.

[Admiral Yi]

But then you also have to fall in line that all of those "quality processes" actually make for a superior and distinct product.  Besides what happens when there is a bad year? Does all of the Champagne get thrown out as it doesn't meat the quality standards?  I've actually no idea though it seems unlikely given that people can speak about good and better years.

If the brand is crap or average then the market will treat it accordingly.

[garbon]

In fact, Sheilbh, one of the things you brought up was customers getting bilked as a place said it was Kobe beef and unbeknownst to them it wasn't actually...but they were still happy with their meal.  Not that I'm advocating deception but if all those quality standards don't result in a product that can easily be noted as distinct by non-connoisseurs, what's the point in creating a legal distinction?  Why couldn't growers in Greece who follow certain standards create their own brand?

[garbon]

But then you also have to fall in line that all of those "quality processes" actually make for a superior and distinct product.  Besides what happens when there is a bad year? Does all of the Champagne get thrown out as it doesn't meat the quality standards?  I've actually no idea though it seems unlikely given that people can speak about good and better years.

If the brand is crap or average then the market will treat it accordingly.

Agreed, so you don't need a special food name designation. The market can freely react to branded California champagnes without separating them into a separate category called sparkling wine.

[Sheilbh]

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

That's worth it.  They're clearly an arse.

But then you also have to fall in line that all of those "quality processes" actually make for a superior and distinct product.  Besides what happens when there is a bad year?

Not necessarily superior but different and distinct.  You're not saying that x cheese is better so deserves protection but that it's different.  In the same way as Coke is different from Pepsi.

Within parmesan itself there is a further quality control before the producers release it as parmesan but that isn't necessarily the case with all products.  The rejects are, I think, released as gran padano.

I know Barrister says the rules on feta are assinine.  I disagree.  I'm only talking about Sainsbury's own brand stuff but in my experience the Greek feta tastes better than the Danish stuff and isn't that much more expensive.  Certainly though it tastes different.

[garbon]

Not necessarily superior but different and distinct.  You're not saying that x cheese is better so deserves protection but that it's different.  In the same way as Coke is different from Pepsi.

You aren't simply saying that though as coke and pepsi are both brands. Here you're going even a step even beyond brands as you're saying that not only should the brand be protected but that the category is distinct enough to be protected as a distinct class.  But then, you (personally ) are also saying that people could be tricked into buying something not in that distinct class.

Within parmesan itself there is a further quality control before the producers release it as parmesan but that isn't necessarily the case with all products.  The rejects are, I think, released as gran padano.

Good to know.

[Sheilbh]

Not that I'm advocating deception but if all those quality standards don't result in a product that can easily be noted as distinct by non-connoisseurs, what's the point in creating a legal distinction? Why couldn't growers in Greece who follow certain standards create their own brand?

It's not about quality necessarily but difference.  But that's what they're doing.  This provides a brand protection to all producers of that product in that region.  It's a way for them to do that together rather than effectively requiring every farm to create their own brand identity.  It extends the protection to all producers in the region who meet the minimum standards.

The way I see it is instead of a brand being owned by a single company like Coke it's a brand owned by a community of producers.

I read the article but haven't experienced Kobe beef so I can't comment.  If people enjoy it that's great. But I'd see it the other way.  I don't understand why those producers don't try and establish their own brand instead of piggy-backing off the reputation of Kobe.

[Admiral Yi]

Agreed, so you don't need a special food name designation. The market can freely react to branded California champagnes without separating them into a separate category called sparkling wine.

I'm not so sure that the general public can distinguish that easily.  Korbel puts effort into making their bottle look European.  No watercolor sunsets on the label, no "Angry Beaver Vineyard."

[Sheilbh]

You aren't simply saying that though as coke and pepsi are both brands. Here you're going even a step even beyond brands as you're saying that not only should the brand be protected but that the category is distinct enough to be protected as a distinct class.  But then, you (personally ) are also saying that people could be tricked into buying something not in that distinct class.

  Explain slower please