For the half-year to 31 December 2014, the IPKat's regular team is supplemented by contributions from guest bloggers Rebecca Gulbul, Lucas Michels and Marie-Andrée Weiss.

Regular round-ups of the previous week's blogposts are kindly compiled by Alberto Bellan.

Friday, 27 August 2004

MORE GI PROTECTION FOR SPANISH MEAT ...

There's another Commission Regulation on protected geographical indications. It's the cutely named Commission Regulation (EC) No 1483/2004 of 20 August 2004 supplementing the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 2400/96 on the entry of certain names in the Register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (‘Carne de la Sierra de Guadarrama’, ‘Ternera de Navarra’ or ‘Nafarroako Aratxea’, ‘Carne de Vacuno del País Vasco’ or ‘Euskal Okela’, ‘Ternera Asturiana’ and ‘Carne de Cantabria’).

The IPKat has all but given up complaining about the descriptive nature of protected GIs (Carne de Cantabria is the Spanish for "meat from Cantabria"), but he still wants to know: what do people call meat from Cantabria that doesn't fit the legal conditions for use of the GI?

Carne de la Sierra de Guadarrama here
Ternera de Navarra here
Nafarroako Aratxea here
Carne de Vacuno del País Vasco here
Carne de Cantabria here

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

Sorry have not set up an account, but...
This is nothing new. To take the most famous GI of them all, Champagne, in the Champagne region they produce still red wine, the most famous of which is Bouzy Rouge. You can't call it champagne though, of course, because that AC is reserved for sparkling wines made by the methode champenoise. Unfortunately, you look in vain for any sense in this system.
Darren

Ilanah said...

I disagree with you here. The whole point of geographical indications that that they're geographical and hence descriptive. If that was not the case, we may as well ditch GIs and use certification marks instead. Also, have you checked the specifications of the GIs in question to see whether or not it is hard for other producers in the area to meet them?

Anonymous said...

I am not sure whether you are disagreeing with Jeremy or me. In any case, surely the problem with GIs is that they attach to a descriptive term conditions which have nothing to do with the geographical origin, thus monopolising a descriptive term in a manner which does not relate (or at least only relates partially) to its descriptive meaning. Personally I am against the whole system. I guess that Jeremy is too.
Darren

Subscribe to the IPKat's posts by email here

Just pop your email address into the box and click 'Subscribe':