Jump to content

Talk:Geographical indications and traditional specialities in the European Union

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 August 2019 and 27 November 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ac2524a.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:14, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]
Outside the European Union, corporations attempt to trademark for their own use such geographical designations as 'Parma ham,' while striving to keep their own products, such as 'scotch tape' from becoming 'genericized' trademarks.

Seems rather POV to me. -- Khym Chanur


I agree. It would be useful to indicate how/whether such names are protected outside of the EU but not in this way. I suggest moving the text here (as you did above) pending further information. -- Viajero 08:53, 27 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Optim, do we really want to get into the business of listing all of the products covered by this legislation? The external link at the bottom of the page links to a European Commisssion site which does our work for us. My feeling is that it isn't worth duplicating this kind of information unless there is a real likeihood we can be comprehensive OR we can provide some kind of added value. -- Viajero 19:21, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Wikipedia is GFDL, other sites are (C). IMO GFDL'ness is enough to justify inclusion in WP. But I dont care much, if you like feel free to revert the page, it's no problem for me. I also dont think that I will find time to list all of the products. Optim 19:26, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)

The United States generally opposes protection of geographical designations of origin (since many of these that are protected elsewhere are commonly used generic terms in the United States, such as parmesan cheese). For example, one can buy American-produced "champagne", "feta", "gruyère" and "camembert".

This doesn't seem right. Champagne has to come from Champagne, France. If not, it is called "Sparkling Wine".

Garrett247 (talk) 02:57, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:40C:8100:768:88EA:57D1:F56:E001 (talk) 22:15, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"American Champagne"? Seriously? Nobody in the world (apart from street winos) cares a fig about American champagne - and nobody with knowledge of the sparkling dry white wines of Europe (Champagne, Cava, Prosecco and other similar 'Methode Champenoise' varieties) would be seen dead drinking 'American Champagne' (if they even knew what it was).
During the currency of the Soviet Union, vast quantities of artificially sweetened carbonated white wines were produced in the Crimea and sold as 'Champagne'. I would imagine 'American Champagne' was an attempt to undercut the Russo-Ukrainian wine on price and quality.
The US is capable of producing very high quality sparkling white wines by the 'Champenoise' technique using local grape cultivars. These are wines of real depth and quality - sometimes, international award winning. I 100% guarantee that their American makers never, ever refer to their products as 'American Champagne'.2A01:4B00:AE0E:6200:F14F:4154:E34F:7F80 (talk) 14:10, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]
http://agritrade.cta.int/Geographical%20Indications-8.pdf "Geographical Indications and the challenges for ACP countries", a discussion paper (April 2005)

Can anyone help? —Ian Spackman 10:25, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cheese made with Penicillium roqueforti should be called Roquefort. The neighborhood where it is made is irrelevant.

For example, how do I protect the name, "Cheese eating surrender monkeys", so that I cannot be mislead? If I want to mess up a rival's party, I would hire a world class stinky Frenchman, and pay a premium, when a greasy Greek with dead fish in his pocket just won't do.

Europeans are soooo silly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.239.119.18 (talk) 20:10, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

'Cheese Eating Surrender Monkeys' is not a name. It's a phrase comprising four words, none of which can be 'protected' in any jurisdiction. Did you not understand how protection works? Are you making an actual point, or just posting juvenile drivel?2A01:4B00:AE0E:6200:F14F:4154:E34F:7F80 (talk) 14:14, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughts on assessment

[edit]

This seems more on the B side than not but I do have some concerns. Extra opinions are sought. First and foremost is that referencing need some major help. There is a lack of historical context detailing how the concept of a PDO came into account. It also seems like there can be more details on Australia, Canada as well as comment on how this concept is considered outside of the Western World. AgneCheese/Wine 00:14, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kona Coffee?

[edit]
Kona coffee, the best and the most expensive coffee, from the Kona village on the Big Island island of Hawaii.

I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. Can someone help here please? The best I can come up with is:

...such as Kona coffee, the best and the most expensive coffee, from the Kona village on the Big Island island of Hawaii.

-or-

Kona coffee, the best and the most expensive coffee, is from the Kona village on the Big Island island of Hawaii.

Either way its seems rather POV, not to mention trite. Who says Kona coffee is the best? And why do I, the average reader, care?Awhit003 (talk) 04:55, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Food and drink Tagging

[edit]

This article talk page was automatically added with {{WikiProject Food and drink}} banner as it falls under Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here . If you have concerns , please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 09:58, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Protected Geographical Status

[edit]

Hmmm... I've been searching for the explanation of the "Protected Geographical Status" category mentioned in the article, but surprisingly found none - it seems that this expression is the generic name encompassing all of the other categories (PDO, PGI, TSG). Shouldn't the main article be moved to "Protected Geographical Status" as the current main title seems to only reflect one of the three possible subcategories of PGS? PeterRet (talk) 15:21, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

There are several "see also" links in the middle of the article which are either duplicate or dead. These "see also" references are already covered in the "see also" section at the end of the article. So... I removed the dead/redundant links in the middle & left in the links in the "see also" section. Namely, the following two lists seem to have been merged into a single article,

-- Michael (talk|contrib) 03:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification on allowed designation

[edit]

The article makes it unclear how producers located outside of a qualifying area can legally refer to their products under the law. If a producer of, for example, Asiago cheese were to be forced to relocate production to an area outside the qualifying geography is there an industry convention for referring to their product after their relocation? The article appears to make it clear that referring to their product as "Asiago style" or any other sort of "Asiago" reference would be illegal so is there no legal way for the producer to inform their customers that their product is simply Asiago cheese whose production had to be relocated?Zebulin (talk) 18:26, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"forced to relocate production to an area outside the qualifying geography...." Then, it's no longer recognised as Asiago cheese under EU rules. The producer can call it whatever he chooses but - here's the kicker, it cannot then be sold as 'Asiago' within the EU.2A01:4B00:AE0E:6200:F14F:4154:E34F:7F80 (talk) 13:56, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Effect of TTIP

[edit]

I gather that TTIP threatens PDO designations, e.g. http://ipkitten.blogspot.de/2015/01/german-agriculture-minister-not-every.html (though that may not be a good source), http://www.rollcall.com/news/should_congress_reconsider_ttip_commentary-237284-1.html , http://www.origin-gi.com/index.php/en/site_content/117-news/6761-16-07-2014-origin-ttip-stakeholder-presentations-events.html , http://www.euractiv.com/sections/trade-society/germans-fret-about-kentucky-fried-bratwurst-under-ttip-311067 . Does anyone feel up to adding information about this here and/or in the Transatlantic_Trade_and_Investment_Partnership? PJTraill (talk) 23:14, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I see there is already something under TTIP#National Objections about this, though as of writing “PDO” does not occur in that text, which is why I failed to find it. But a reference here would be worth having. PJTraill (talk) 23:20, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lost references

[edit]

The article shows references pointing nowhere. Maybe there were an older version when it worked, or it was copied without context from an other article. Can somebody resolve these?: {{ref|1383–2003}}, {{ref|1992reg}}, {{ref|510–2006}}, {{ref|40–94}}, {{ref|89–104}}, {{ref|1493–1999}}, {{ref|1576–89}}, {{ref|1601–91}} JSoos (talk) 22:53, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Geographical indications and traditional specialities in the European Union. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:32, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move to ?

[edit]

Title says EU, but other countries have been added, and other countries are doing this kind of protection. Should another article be created for the rest of the world, or should this article move to a more generic title and become a global representation? --valereee (talk) 11:35, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If the article was re-named to omit "European Union" there would no doubt be criticism that there was an undue focus on Europe. Ideally it should be split to an EU article and one on the general concept, but until anyone volunteers to do the work I think we'll have to live with the current title.Tammbecktalk 13:12, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Why is the UK still included here at all, following Brexit on 1 January 2021? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:53, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Why is the UK....?. Because the article is not, in terms of content, exclusively about the EU. On the general point, in my limited understanding, it is the EU that have really worked at setting up these regional and traditional categories. A "worldwide" article would merely reflect the greater interest in this in the EU than elsewhere. If my understanding is wrong, then there should be plenty of material to add to fix any imagined EU bias. Splitting into 2 articles would be a typical Wikipedia failing - forgetting that the reader would be irritated by having to read 2 articles that cover the same subject in different places. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 17:07, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The article opens "Three European Union schemes of ..." So all of the named UK products are still certified under one or more of these schemes, even though UK has left the EU? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:18, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am not suggesting that the article is well written - clearly the lead needs to reflect the article as it stands. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 18:35, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Notwithstanding article quality, I thought that was a simple question that might lead to a very straightforward edit to the article. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:41, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am also a bit uncomfortable with having a list (which is already long) under different legal schemes, where examples from only 2 schemes outside the EU are mentioned (Serbia, Mexico). The UK products should stay in anyway even if we make this an EU list, as they are still protected in the EU and there have and will be no alterations since Brexit, as the EU scheme is open to non-EU registrations... Why not have 1 listpage per scheme? L.tak (talk) 20:32, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure the article says UK products are still protected in the EU? The section on United Kingdom sys "All existing EU geographic indications on 31 December 2021 are protected under UK law... " should it also say "All existing EU geographic indications on 31 December 2021 are protected under EU law... "? If so, we need a direct source? And why is that 31 December 2021 and not 31 December 2020? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:47, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, that date was wrong indeed; it should be 31 December 2020. The guidance of the UK indicates it (https://www.gov.uk/guidance/protected-geographical-food-and-drink-names-uk-gi-schemes), and the EU states it quite clearly "The EU and the United Kingdom have also agreed that the stock of existing EU-approved geographical indications (GIs) will be legally protected by the Withdrawal Agreement unless and until a new agreement applying to the stock of geographical indications is concluded in the context of the future relationship. Such geographical indications are existing intellectual property rights in the United Kingdom and the EU today." I will add the link L.tak (talk) 21:10, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for the clarification. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:12, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PDO

[edit]

There is separate page called Protected designation of origin, which is basically a list of Geographic indications. The talk page of that page was redirected to this page. I have recreated the that talk page, and started a discussion on the scope at Talk:Protected designation of origin that may be of relevance. L.tak (talk) 10:56, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is Camembert a PDO ?

[edit]

In the intro, it is mentioned that "food such as gorgonzola, Parmigiano-Reggiano, feta, the Waterford blaas,[5] Herve cheese, Melton Mowbray pork pies, Piave cheese, Asiago cheese, camembert, Herefordshire cider, cognac, armagnac, and champagne can only be labelled as such if they come from the designated region."

As far as I remember, "Camembert" became a generic word, and only "Camembert de Normandie" (PDO-FR-0112) is protected.

https://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/eambrosia/geographical-indications-register/details/EUGI00000012895 2A01:CB1D:3C0:A1F7:79E6:7465:BE84:1F1 (talk) 20:28, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Geographical_indications_and_traditional_specialities_in_the_European_Union&oldid=1246897736"