Switzerland must defend Gruyère cheese in trade agreements
Switzerland must defend Gruyère cheese in trade agreements
Switzerland must do more to defend Gruyère cheese and other products that have a protected status in Switzerland.
Switzerland must do more to defend Gruyère cheese and other products that have a protected status in Switzerland, according to the Swiss House of Representatives.
The recent decision by a US court to allow the continued production and marketing of Gruyère cheese in the United States is a slap in the face for all those involved in the AOP (Protected Designation of Origin) Gruyère sector, said Jacques Nicolet, a member of the right-wing Swiss People’s Party (SVP), in parliament.
In March, a US court of appeals confirmed that the term gruyère is a common label for cheese and can’t be reserved for a type from a specific region, namely in Switzerland or France, on the US market.
This decision followed a legal battle that has been going on for several years between the consortium of Swiss and French cheesemakers from the region around the town of Gruyères in western Switzerland and an American organization active in the production and marketing of dairy products.
On Thursday, a majority (115 to 58) in the Swiss House of Representatives supported a motion from the SVP to push back on the ruling on Gruyère cheese. According to the motion, the Federal Council should demand that the recognition of Swiss AOP (protected designation of origin) be applied and respected in all future trade agreements.
Switzerland does not have a preferential trade agreement with the United States, nor is it in the process of negotiating one. Whether an AOP is considered worthy of protection or a generic label in the US is a matter for the US courts based on the principle of territoriality.
Switzerland is already striving to protect its AOP label in trade agreement negotiations. But the outcome of negotiations always depends on the ambitions of all parties, according to economics minister Guy Parmelin.
The motion now be taken up in the Swiss Senate.
They also sell Kobe beef in the US that isn't from Kobe region let alone Japan. Sounds like a tough fight to defend this.
All the Kobe beef I've ever seen sold in the US and Canada has been labeled as wagyu, which I Believe is the generic term for it.
But my experience with American beef is very limited, and rules vary a lot given there 50 different states that all get to decide whatever they want.
Wagyu just means "Japanese cow". That meat usually comes from Australia.
Kobe would be more similar to "Gruyere" as it's the name of a town/region for a specific product. The amount of Kobe that can be produced is tiny compared to what is sold.
So I'm typically on the side of anyone fighting against a big corporation but the whole "you can only call this product x if it's from the x region" is just dumb. Where the product is from has no bearing on what it is. Is it only a hamburger if it's from Hamburg? Is it only new england clam chowder if it's from new england? Can you only call your breakfast a full english if it's actually from england? Where it's made doesn't change what it actually is. If this company is making the same type of cheese then it's the same type of cheese.
It's a brand, you can perfectly call your product Gruyère like in France and nobody will buy the product because they know it won't probably taste like the real stuff.
Don't know why people have such a hard time understanding why the original creators of a brand want to keep a monopoly on it.
You are right it does not make sense to region lock hamburgers. It's a bit different from cheese.
Because the unique bacteria composition for different regions the cheese from x is different from the cheese of y even if the production is identical.That's why most swiss cheeses are named after the region the milk comes from.
In germany the solution to sell "gruyere" that did not come from the gruyere region as "gruyere style" cheese. In my opinion thats a sound solution for everyone.
It's only milk if it's from an animal?