|
I oppose this action as it is an extension of the dictatorial control over language that many European countries hold. "Florida oranges" does not mean the same thing as "grown in Florida." I see no reason someone shouldn't be able to take an orange tree from Florida and plant it in California and let people know where the tree originated.
I believe this all got started with the French being upset about people producing "champagne" outside of the Burgundy region of France. No, you cannot buy "champagne" made anywhere else. Now you have to buy "sparkling wine" or "Krystal" if it was produced outside of France. It's no longer "parmesan cheese" unless it comes from Parma Italy, "roquefort" is now "bleu" and so on. There are so many products connected to a geographical location that soon we'll only be allowed to use generic names for anything. It gets really upsurd when you get to examples like "Budweiser" beer that can only be produced in St. Louis, not in Budweis Czech Republic. It just becomes a game of who can trademark names fast enough. I can't wait to hear what Vidalia onions not grown in Vidalia Georgia will be called.
Just about every food name has a connection to a geographical location how far do we want to take this? Should "potatoes" only come from the South American natives who originated that word? If they're grown elsewhere we can call them "white tubers" or something. How do we really know if a beer is a "pilsner" if it doesn't come from Pilsen Czech Republic? What about "cheddar cheese" not produced in Cheddar England? We'll have to call it just "yellow cheese."
I'd like to see American businesses start trademarking everything as "Parisan ...." or "French ...." until the only place "French" products can be made is New Jersey.
|