As a break from the usual tread-mill of Libertarian Principles, here is a story that best reflects the ‘quagmire’ Britain got itself into by having anything to do with the EU and the countries using its institutions to their advantage. Despite the ravenous inclusiveness of the European Union, the one thing there is no room left for is common sense.
The European Court of Justice in Luxembourg ruled that Italian Parma ham must be packed and sliced in Parma itself to be marketed with its name of origin. The Asda supermarket chain has lost its legal battle to carry on selling Italian Parma ham, because it is packed and sliced in Britain.
Asda’s Parma ham comes from Parma, but it is sliced and packaged near Chippenham in Wiltshire. Its delicatessen Parma ham also comes from Parma – but is sliced in its stores, in front of the customer. European judges have ruled that this is not enough under EU law to justify using the name.
Maintaining the quality and reputation of Parma ham justifies the rule that the product must be sliced and packaged in the region of production.
According to The Daily Telegraph Asda claimed the Italian law was not part of EU law and could not be applied in the UK, but ham from Parma was registered under a 1992 EU rule protecting the use of geographical names on some products. The battle went to London’s High Court, which passed the matter to the Luxembourg judges for a ruling on the EU’s Protected Designation of Origin (PDO) law.
The Parma ham producers’ association, which owns the trademark Prosciutto di Parma, has been seeking an injunction against Asda since 1997. Consorzio del Prosciutto di Parma won the battle despite judge’s recommendation to overturn the relevant European regulation and the advice the European Court of Justice received by one of its own members to invalidate the European Union rule.
As Asda representative said last year:
No one doubts that Scotch beef remains Scottish if sliced in Southampton; Jersey potatoes are still Jerseys when boiled in Blackpool; and cheddar cheese is still cheddar if grated in Gretna.
In most cases the court follows such advice, for example, the European court’s advocate general delivered a similar opinion in a case brought against a company that grates the hard Italian cheese Grana Padana in France.
Not this time though. When you next eat your Parma, you can rejoice in the knowledge that it has been subjected to the traditionally tough quality control by its Italian producer. I suppose there is a first for everything…
If you slice prosciutto and then transport it, it will dry out and taste horrible. That’s why they slice it in front of the customer. Fools.
Aaaah, but then it’s not Parma ham anymore….
Where does this leave Swiss Roll, Irish Stew, Madeira Cake, Welsh Rarebit, Eccles Cakes not to mention common sense.
The mind well and truly boggles!
Given this ruling against them, might Asda be sympathetic to publicly supporting anti-euro, anti-EU groups?
They may feel this looks unprofessional, and would probably demur, but I can’t imagine pro-EU campaigners would enjoy drawing attention to the ruling that made Asda take a position.
Anyone here feel like approaching Asda informally?
I vaguely remember a EU ruling on French cheese, saying it had to be refrigerated!? And another one on the straightness of bananas, or was it some other vegetable?
One assumes that the only possible outcome is sale of less ham that originates from Parma, no matter what you call it. Fools, indeed.
Why not sell it as Parmah ham or Palma ham?
Mark: that is a great idea! I don’t know their official policy on matters political but it certainly would be worth a try.
Also, there is this new anti-Euro state campaign led by Lord Saatchi, perhaps someone ought to suggest it to him…
Why is this on samizdata? What don’t understand is what parma ham has to do with overthrowing statist tyranny and bring the libertarian paradise closer to hand, unless perhaps we stalwart (but somewhat boring) crusaders for The Truth use parma hams, still on the bone, to hit statists over the head with, leading to the triumph of anarcho-capitalist values and randian raptures for everyone. yes, that must be it. Congrats on a cunning and subtle plan comrade!
Classic socialist protectionism. Obsessive Libertarian, this isn’t about ham, that’s only a symptom of the problem. It’s about the abrogation of rights by unelected international organizations like the EU or the UN. The EU is here telling the UK that businesses within that country do not have the right to call their products what they wish, and must conform to overly strict EU naming “rights” and rules. The UN, I believe, is considering taking up the same cause. Which would be foolish, but quite in line with their past history of foolishness.
Just think about it a bit. What if only very small regions were allowed under the law to call their products “cheddar cheese”, or “champagne”, or “burgundy wine”, or “parmesan cheese”, or “buffalo wings”, or “new york style cheesecake”. It gets ridiculous very quickly, and it becomes an unhealthy burden on businesses very quickly as well. Especially when you consider that products from all developed countries, so far as I know, contain very clear descriptions of where they were manufactures, prepared, bottled, etc. on their labels. Just imagine how much damage to the worldwide economy would be caused by McDonalds being forced to relabel their “hamburgers” because they weren’t made in Hamburg? Preposterious? Silly? Inane? Quite, but that is precisely the nature of these rulings and there’s little to suggest the trend will stop with Parmi ham.
Robin, I rather think Obsessive Libertarian was having a haha rather than making a sober point. Now be a good chap and pass the vodka.
French winemakers are very big on an idea called the terroir, which is that the characteristics of the exact place that the grapes were grown – soil, weather, drainage etc – are the key issue in determining the quality of the wine. The idea is that the very best wines can only be grown on certain, very small plots of land. One of the key pieces of information on a French wine label is the appellation which is essentially the location where the grapes were grown. As a general rule, the more specific the location, the better quality the wine. If a label specifies a village (eg Pauillac) , it is a better wine then if the label specifies a subregion (eg Medoc) and a better wine still than one that specifies the region (eg Bordeaux). (Obviously it also depends on which region, which subregion, and which village – some are better than others). France has been divided up into lots of legally defined winemaking regions in this way.
In Australia, however, winemaking does not work this way. Australia’s winemakers do realise that some vineyards are better than others, but are more concerned with the quality of the crop in a particular year at a particular place, and a wine with the same label may have grapes from different places in different years. Plus, Australian winemakers frequently make wine with grapes from different places in the same wine if this allows them to get the wine to have the characteristics they want. It is quite common for grapes to be trucked in from hundreds of miles away and a wine made from a blend of local and trucked in grapes.
I am not saying that one of these ways is better than the other. Both Australia and France make some very fine wines. Both ways of going about it have their merits. However, a few years ago, Australia was forced to sign a wine treaty with the EU. In order to be able to sell their wine in the EU, Australia had to adopt certain rules, which were essentially rules insisted on by the French. These largely applied to labeling, so Australia just gave in.
One issue was that Australian wines could no longer be named after European geographical locations, so no more “champagne”, no more “port”, no more “burgundy”, no more “chablis”, no more “hermitage”. (I think “Tokay” may be okay, but when Hungary joins the EU that may be the end for that too). I sort of see the point here, but this is kind of a shame, because Australian winemakers have been using these names for in some cases 200 years, and the intention is certainly not to confuse consumers. Australian winemakers adopted names of European wines they thought were similar to what they were making, but the conditions are so different and the wines evolved over the years to such an extent that the Australian wines often bore little resemblance to the European wines they were named after. The European names became part of the heritage of the Australian wine industry, and although we use the same names, they often mean completely different things. I think it is sad to see the names go. The new rule applied even if the wines were sold in Australia or anywhere else in the world, not just in Europe.
That was one thing, but an even odder aspect of the wine treaty was that the French insisted that labels carry “geographical indications”. That is, Australia had to be drawn up into legally defined winemaking regions, these regions had to be drawn up into subregions, and these subregions into towns or villages. This list of regions had to be given to the EU authorities, and in order to be imported into the EU, wine has to have the name of one of these “geographical indications” on the label. Essentially, Australian labels were required to have a French style appellation on the label, presumably so that the label would make sense to European consumers, or because the French couldn’t imagine a wine industry organised a different way from theirs, or something. Even though the French way of labeling made little sense in the context of Australian wines, the French way of doing things still had to be adopted because obviously the French understand these things best.
Australia agreed to do this because it didn’t matter much in the end. What they did was define a wine region called “South Eastern Australia”, which is about the size of France, Italy, and Spain put together. This “region” contains all of Australia’s important winemaking regions, with the exception of the small (although excellent) Margaret River region in Western Australia. The vast majority of Australia’s wines – including the very best – carry this description. While there are many much more specific regions defined under the new French style labelling laws, they are generally not used. (There are one or two regions with strong local character for which they are important, however).
I think the Australian wine industry would prefer not to have to ever deal with the French bureacracy. That is the joy of the EU. It ensures that a large number of people throughout the world who would rather not deal with the French bureacracy none the less have to do so.
(Hmm. I might blog this piece as well).
protected destination of origin law?
are we americans the only ones that still laugh out loud at some of these crazy and purposeless laws?
(much giggling here)
I knew somebody would wheel out the wine analogy, Michael. 🙂 I don’t have a problem with AC standards on wine and such things, I can sort of see the point since winemaking process can be as important as the crop itself. However, with slicing Parma ham in the region of origin? Give me a break.
But ultimately, Parma will taste as sweet by any other name…
While on the face of it this sounds ridiculous – there is an important trademark point here. If you sell a product which carries with it a certain expectation in the market of quality and consistency based on the name, then you don’t want anybody to use that name.
Champagne and Sparkling Wine are a good case in point. It is a simple fact that not all Sparkling Wines are Champagnes, no matter how you dress it up.
I can’t talk for parma hams or other things, but there must be a mechanism for the protection of manufacturers and consumers alike from inferior imitation.
are we americans the only ones that still laugh out loud at some of these crazy and purposeless laws?
So all those supermarket signs about “idaho” potatoes and “wisconsin” cheese were pointless? Or were the manufacturers trading on a perceived quality issue of the origin of the produce?
Gabriel: I have no real problem with the removal of European place names from Australian wines, especially if they are to be sold in Europe and other places where European wines are also sold and there may be some confusion. I particularly have no problem in cases where the Australian wine is (in terms of style) a direct copy of a European wine – the most important example of this is champagne. I think it is a shame to lose the names for obscure wines that are mainly not exported, because they are not intended to confuse anyone, and the names have a certain charm. (The Australian wine industry has accepted this change with relatively little complaint. It is the price you pay for increased exports, and in return Australia gets better protections of its own increasingly valuable trademarks in the rest of the world).
One day I’ll give you a bottle of Australian “sparkling Burgundy”. (This is a dark red sparkling wine made from Syrah grapes. I guarantee you have never tried anything like it before)
What I find ridiculous, however, is the French insistence that Australia must adopt an AC system of its own in order that Australian wines be classified as “quality wine” under EU law. Australia traditionally has little regulation of its wine industry other than “label integrity” laws that ensure that wine labels tell the truth. This works fine for us. I find the French insistence that French style wine laws be imposed on us (even if they are then going to be ignored) to be ridiculous.