>made with real fruit
When will pretentious hipsters stop pretending to like this gay shit? It's anti-American and honestly it probably doesn't even taste good.
Pic related, MUH NATURAL, everything is natural, I'm not eating this hippie shit. They should just go back to Iraq.
Bud light was formulated, and is brewed, in the US by Americans. Americans need not deny responsibility for its existence on the grounds that the parent corporation is now registered in a European country.
Reminder also that if you want to make retarded arguments about ownership, a publicly traded company is owned by its shareholders, and the single largest shareholder is still an American company.
>and the single largest shareholder is still an American company.
Sure, but are the majority of shareholders american?
The fact is its a beer sold and marketed by a european company, and most importantly it is not a good beer. Its consumption is very American, no surprise it is mostly only popular these days with the kind of people waving confederate flags celebrating how non-american they are
I'm a Texan first and foremost.
I'm independent from the USA.
Do you just not understand what process cheese is or are you just pretending?
Process cheese is literally cheese that has been processed. Sure some of the large brands use really cheap cheese, but its very possible to make process cheese with good cheese too. The problem is buying cheap shitty stuff like craft singles, not the fact that it is processed
sure, but I am talking about the marketing term as arbitrarily defined by the government. You could definitely make an argument that all cheese is processed in a certain sense, but thanks to lobbyists at the advent of what we now know of as process cheese, it has a specific definition
>The fact is its a beer designed sold and marketed by and to americans
Fixed for ya champ, enjoy your third world tinpot dictatorship
Depends on where in America you are. If you live in a place where your only food options are chain restaurants and Walmart any food better than commodity grade might seem elitist, especially of you're poor. But there are many places in this great nation of ours where people can choose to do better if they want. That's what freedom is really all about. If you're stuck in the middle of nowhere without much in the way of choices you're not really free. But you can kid yourself into thinking you're a REAL American if that brings you any solace.
Didn't think it was possible to pack so much faggotry into a single post, impressive.
I got some horseradish cheddar cheese the other day. It's pretty fucking godly. The initial flavor of cheddar is predominant and isn't lost in the addition of the horseradish, and once you're about ready to swallow your bite, THATS when the horseradish kicks in, and it's pretty potent too.
Love the stuff. I don't see a problem with cheeses like this.
It's processed with fermaldihy, which is why when Kraft first wanted it on the market the FDA wanted it to be labeled embalmed cheese. But who the fuck would buy that? So they agreed on processed cheese so people that didn't care would continue buying their cheap shit products
>the FDA wanted it to be labeled embalmed cheese. But who the fuck would buy that? So they agreed on processed cheese
You got this backwards. The old cheese industry wanted it to be called that to discourage people from buying it and to keep buying their product, the the government said "no thats even too misleading for us, lets tone it down a little bit, but you are paying us a lot of money so we will still pick something favorable to your industry"
>It's processed with fermaldihy
You sure about that?
Also, who cares what is used in the processing if it is not present in biologically significant concentrations in the final product
>Also, who cares what is used in the processing if it is not present in biologically significant concentrations in the final product
Agreed. Olives and hominy corn are both processed with lye. The issue is whether the processing is to improve the final product or to just make it cheaper to mass produce while degrading the product quality. All too often the processed food sold in supermarkets is produced from the cheapest possible ingredients in the cheapest possible manner, so it ends up being a pale reflection of what it actually claims to be. People who have never tasted a good example of that product take the degraded version as the baseline for what it's supposed to be, When they try something like cheese or beer with actual flavor it's jarring to them. So is the price, because producing food without cutting as many corners as possible costs much more.
>Do you think the cheap cheese given to poor people before the advent of process cheese was better?
Before industrialization cheese wasn't cheap. If you were poor and had cheese it's because you had a dairy animal and made it yourself, of had a neighbor who did so and was willing to trade for it. Casually buying cheese or ending a meal with it was a rich person thing. Poor people were not having raclette as an apres-ski meal at Swiss resorts.
Mass processing has made cheese cheap, but seriously lowered the quality of the stuff. And it's not just the poor who eat it. The standards have been lowered across the board. The good stuff is still very expensive, but I'd rather eat much less good cheese than a whole lot of poor quality stuff.
What's up with all the organic-loving soccer mom antivaxxers in this thread?
I looked it up because I wanted to know this, too. Smoked gouda has the word 'process', but not for the smoking - it's for the pasteurization. It doesn't have 'food' in its label at all. Here is one example, there were many others.
>america undergoing a veritable beer renaissance
>currently produces the widest variety and best beer of any country in the world
You're telling me enjoying this is somehow un-American?
>Before industrialization cheese wasn't cheap.
There was quite a long gap between industrialization and the advent of process cheese
Sounds like your problem is just with poor people having poor people things rather than having nothing at all
Bacon is meme food.
>get one of those Hillshire Farms gift boxes this year
>it's not smoked Gouda cheese anymore, it's smoked Gouda cheese blend
I BET THE JEWS DID THIS
how did it taste? Thats what matters
There are plenty of delicious processed cheeses
>Sounds like your problem is just with poor people having poor people things rather than having nothing at all
Not at all. My problem is with poor quality products dumbing down the standards so far in this country that you can't even find good stuff sometimes even when you are willing to pay substantially more for it.
>umbing down the standards so far in this country that you can't even find good stuff sometimes
When has this ever been an actual issue? Good stuff is fucking everywhere
>The freedom is illusory if the only thing available is poor quality garbage
But that isn't the case at all, we have a wider selection of great things available from both local and international sources than ever before
>When has this ever been an actual issue?
Have you been in a supermarket? The standards are so incredibly low it's appalling. We're talking food that wouldn't even be legal in much of the first world. Meat and cheese are just two examples, but even when you choose an imported product it's usually a poor quality version of that product compared to the standard in its country of origin. Good stuff is not everywhere in the supermarket. With a few exceptions most of what's for sale there is garbage.
Pretty sure the two of you are operating under different definitions of "good"
There are a lot of flyovers who will stamp their feet and insist until they're blue in the face that kraft brand "parmesan" is exactly the same as (and also better than because 'murrica fuck yea) parmigiano-reggiano DOP and anyone who disagrees hates science and is a protectionist
>made with real fruit
Fuck it I will take bait. If you are actually serious about this, why would you dislike this? Do you actually prefer shit that is fake cheese and Red 40 for your fruit taste?
>Have you been in a supermarket? The standards are so incredibly low it's appalling
This is literally in your head unless maybe you only go to walmart (maybe not though, I don;t go there frequently enough to know). I go to an average grocery stores and there are massive cheese selections
Having fifty gorillion kinds of wisconsin '''''cheese''''' isn't a sign of high standards
Protip: if '''''low calorie cheese''''' actually seems like a good thing to you, you might actually be from wisconsin
>There are a lot of flyovers who will stamp their feet and insist until they're blue in the face that kraft brand "parmesan" is exactly the same as (and also better than because 'murrica fuck yea) parmigiano-reggiano
This is called a strawman. A position no one actually brought up for you to attack instead of addressing the actual issue
But to the second half of your post, good and bad cheese can be made anywhere, the idea that you have to be in a specific politically defined region in order to produce something with a certain taste is straight up economic protectionism that would better fit in the mercantilist world of the 1700s than today
>I go to an average grocery stores and there are massive cheese selections
And all of it is industrially mass produced stuff wrapped in plastic, amirite? Real cheese is alive, and does not come wrapped in plastic.
I don't know where you live, but I live close to Wisconsin and there is a great variety of available cheese of both shit and top quality. Sounds like you just have shitty stores near you with that attitude
>can = is
Look buddy, I'm pretty sure Kim Jong Un could, if he wanted to, make world class cheese. But in practice, DPRK, like Wisconsin, are more focused on bigger issues, like propaganda
>plenty of great cheese is sold stored in plastic
Depends on how you define great. The better end of what's sold wrapped in plastic is OK, but really good cheese does not come that way.
Reminder that in wisconsin, noticeable texture, strong flavors, intense aromas, visible mold, and packaging made of anything other than a ziplock bag are considered dangerous and undesirable manufacturing defects
>straight up economic protectionism that would better fit in the mercantilist world of the 1700s than today
Well I guess we should ALL eat solidified petroleum based solvent-extracted soybean oil mixed with whey solids and emulsified with calcium citrate, and I guess we can all have our labor compete with shit-tier Chinese slaves too. God damn libertarians are infuriatingly stupid.
Government protecting certain well known terms for use only by producers in a specific area is undeniably anti-consumer, so you trying to strawman some consumer protection laws into the discussion is pretty funny
Regardless, things should be judged on how they taste and their nutritional value, not who made them or whether lobbysts for an industry in a certain region payed bureaucrats enough to protect a label for them
Goddamm libruls want to take away my freedom to buy melamine wrapped in plastic labeled as AOC Époisses de Bourgogne, individuals cannot be trusted to understand that this is every bit as good as (and also actually better than) the supposed "real" stuff (whatever that means)
In all seriousness, the hostility to honest labeling is pretty much just a proxy for the GMO labeling astrotuf campaign. Rational people believe it's good to know what's in your food. Brainwashed lunatics believe that somehow this is bad because the freedom to be fed poison trumps the freedom to make your own decisions.
>You are literally advocating for DOP labels which are straight up government produced propaganda.
It would seem that way to someone who doesn't have standards. But when I want a glass of Burgundy I'm sure as fuck making sure it comes from France, because the stuff labeled "Burgundy" from California bears no resemblance to real Burgundy at all. Same goes for Parmesan cheese, serrano ham and countless other products. When you allow bullshit versions of established things to share the same name as the good stuff you're just lowering the standards for everyone.
I'll grant you in some cases it's protectionism, but particularly when it comes to luxury foods like wine, cheese and charcuterie it isn't.
>Rational people believe it's good to know what's in your food
Rational people also know that simply labeling a product ad GMO or GMO free does not inform you in any meaningful way. Its even less meaningful than labeling something as 'natural'
>But when I want a glass of Burgundy I'm sure as fuck making sure it comes from France,
Why would you fucking care where it comes from if it tastes the same?
Product style names should be based on flavor and chemical qualities of the product. Stuff you can test for, not just a name you can buy if your lobbyists are good enough
>When you allow bullshit versions of established things to share the same name as the good stuff you're just lowering the standards for everyone.
quality standards =/= place designation
These things are completely unrelated and you can have one without the other
>Product style names should be based on flavor and chemical qualities of the product.
So you're proposing that instead of words, we just assign some kind of unique identifier that calls up a chemical analysis of the food on the internet? I'm fine with this, because it would actually show that the products you insist are the same, actually are not.
>Government protecting certain well known terms for use only by producers in a specific area is undeniably anti-consumer
>not allowing producers to blatantly lie about their product is anti-consumer
>do you realize even so-called experts can't tell the difference between wine?
First off I'm in the wine business. Second, your statement is untrue. It only applies to blind tastings, and no one drinks wine with their eyes shut - the color in the glass is part of the experience. Just because you can't tell the difference between a California "Burgundy" and a nice French example from a good vintage with some bottle age on it doesn't mean no one can.
I'll grant you people are very suggestible - tell them a mediocre wine is something special and most will believe it. Because having money to blow does not magically give people better taste. Not to mention some great wines aren't all that prestigious, so they're not at all expensive. (My daily drinkers retail around $12 a bottle).
But to say no one can tell good quality wine from poor quality because experts were unable to identify styles in blind tastings is absurd.
>th-they got the exact field and grape and age and producer of the wine right on accident! No one could possibly have a better sense of taste and intimate knowledge of food than me!!! REEEEE
Go drink your dr pepper
>an intentionally challenging situation designed by subject matter experts to demonstrate skill had different outcomes in different situations
>somehow he's surprised at this
Can you run a mile down to the millisecond every time?
Oh wait you can't run a mile because you'd have a heart attack.
This is why I taste a wine repeatedly before making a decision on it. Even the order of wines you taste at a tasting makes a difference. If your palate is shot near the end anything short of high Parker score bomb isn't going to taste like much.
>because it would actually show that the products you insist are the same
I am not insisting any particular products are the same. Simply pointing out the obvious fact that the government stating whether or not a product was made in a certain location does not signify quality, nor does lack of being made in a specific location suggest something is not good or even different
You keep bringing up how you don't want products that are shit to be called be the name of a quality product yet continuously ignore how this not at all related to where something is made
Saying producers who make a certain product in a region that did not pay off the proper politicians cannot call their product what it is, is anti-competitive and therefore anti-consumer
Lying about what your product is is a different issue, and should obviously not be allowed
>I am not insisting any particular products are the same
You've insisted multiple times that "california burgundy" is the same as wine from the burgundy region of france, even though this is demonstrably false
>Just because you can't tell the difference between a California "Burgundy" and a nice French example from a good vintage with some bottle age on it doesn't mean no one can.
I love the implication that you are comparing a shitty California wine to the best French wine, rather than a typical example of each or the best of each
there is more than one people here. I was talking about cheese
I don't doubt you can make an equally good burgundy, but I have no knowledge of the typical difference between wines marketed as Burgundy from France vs those from California
If they taste like a different style, I agree they should be labeled as such, but this is independent of where they produced
Not the guy you're arguing with, but we were arguing about
Since you seem open to the idea that wine is not all the same, please pay attention to the fact that california "burgundy" is, by definition, cheap industrial wine (pic related).
You can find california wines that could pass for burgundian wines but they do not say "burgundy" on the label. They have the appellation, the grape, and some other words.
When it comes to food pro-consumer usually means cheap, poor quality garbage, like most of what you find in a supermarket. Dumb things down to make them cheap.
No thanks. I'm not so poor that I have to eat that stuff. I'll stick with the anti-consumer foods, thankyouverymuch.
> I'll stick with the anti-consumer foods, thankyouverymuch.
>that california "burgundy" is, by definition, cheap industrial wine
I don't doubt that it typically is, but are you saying that no California producer could possibly create good burgundy?
Also, are there no people in France making shitty Burgundy, surely it is not all of equal quality?
Same goes for cheese though. It's not as consistent as with wine, but in general higher quality cheeses in the libertarian wet dream known as america are catering to people who appreciate the individuality of good cheese. So they tend not to want to lose their identity by smacking on a sticker that says "swiss" or "french style brie" or whatever. Sometimes in their descriptions they might say "it's similar to brie" but the actual product name would be the cheese maker's kid's name, or some town near the farm, or whatever.
The lower end shit is always just "parmesan" or "brie" because they need someone else's reputation in order to get anyone to actually buy the product.
>but are you saying that no California producer could possibly create good burgundy?
I literally just told you that California producers are making good quality wines in the style of burgundy, exactly what did you not get?
>Also, are there no people in France making shitty Burgundy, surely it is not all of equal quality?
Of course it isn't, but there are regulations, so you can at least make some rough assumptions about what's in the bottle, and what isn't. For example, it is absolutely guaranteed you are not getting any zinfandel juice, unless someone is intentionally committing fraud. No, I am not saying there is anything wrong with zinfandel. Only that "burgundy" actually has certain specific implications, not just a subjective claim to quality.
>but the actual product name would be the cheese maker's kid's name, or some town near the farm, or whatever.
Usually the farm will name itself as such, but often they will make many types of cheese and use traditional names that everyone understands to describe the style
Often, yes, but the higher up the quality scale you go, the less common this is. Whereas at the bottom end, pretty much any mass manufacturer will slap a european name on their cheese even if it doesn't taste remotely similar.
>you are comparing a shitty California wine to the best French wine
Putting the same name on the label invites that comparison.
A good winemaker growing Chardonnay or Pinot Noir can certainly make wines that have the same character as good Burgundy. But style does vary by region. A Chablis is going to be very steely, mineral and the fruit will be restrained. You don't see that often in a California Chardonnay. Not that they can't do it, but that's generally not what they do. An Oregon Pinot Noir will generally lean toward being lush and plummy, whereas a Burgundy will have restrained cherry, and tend to be lighter.
It's less a matter of regional protectionism than it is style. When a style is associated with a specific region people who like that style buy wine from that region. It doesn't mean it can't be done elsewhere, but generally style does vary by region because shit like climate and soil have an effect, in addition to whatever the local tastes happen to be.
Lts forget this whole France/US dichotomy and imagine some guy in fucking India or something makes a wine that perfectly fits in the flavor profile typical of burgundy, do you think the government should disallow him telling consumers that that is what his wine is and he should come up with some new name in order to sell it?
>Putting the same name on the label invites that comparison.
If wine is shit, it doesn't matter where it is from. No one is saying you should allow bad wines to be called burgundy, simply that all wines fitting the flavor profile of burgundy should be allowed to market themselves as such. If a wine is too shitty to be burgundy that is entirely unrelated to where it is produced
>It's less a matter of regional protectionism than it is style. When a style is associated with a specific region people who like that style buy wine from that region. It doesn't mean it can't be done elsewhere, but generally style does vary by region because shit like climate and soil have an effect, in addition to whatever the local tastes happen to be.
My whole point is that style designations should be protected based on quality, not location, because while often correlating with certain characteristics location does not guarantee these traits, nor does the lack of the location prohibit them
Btw op is a huge contrarian faglord tbhfam
> do you think the government should disallow him telling consumers that that is what his wine is
It's a dishonest argument because this isn't actually something that happens. What really happens is some guy in fucking India makes some garbage wine out of cane sugar and red food coloring, and calls it "burgundy" and local Indians have no idea what burgundy actually is other than that it's a famous wine, so they buy it, and then there end up being a lot of very confused Indians who think burgundy is something that it isn't.
>all wines fitting the flavor profile of burgundy should be allowed to market themselves as such.
How so? Burgundy is a region - the place where the grapes are grown and the wine is made. It's be like me opening a winery in upstate New York and putting Sonoma County on the label. It's a lie.
Because the term entered the english language as a style moreso than the region
This is pretty common, especially with cheese, where the english language adopted a place name where a product is popular to describe the style. Also, specific to america it happened a lot with immigrants where people would name products after the immigrants who most often ate them (regardless of how that product existed or was named in the place those immigrants originated)
>My whole point is that style designations should be protected based on quality, not location,
That's kind of the purpose of allowing producers to make a limited amount of wine with the better appellations - it acts as a form of quality control. But saying a wine is from Burgundy or Bordeaux when it's isn't is a flat out lie. Because these aren't just styles of wine; they're actual places where the wine comes from.
There's plenty of wine from Chile and California that clearly states it's a blend of Cab and Merlot. Anyone who knows wine knows that's the classic Bordeaux blend, so they can guess what those wines are shooting for. But putting Bordeaux on the label would be a lie, because that's not where the wine is actually from.
Yeah except that half the shit that is supposedly an immigrant import from the old country actually is just some recipe that a random schmuck needed a cute sounding back story for and since travel was difficult in those days they got away with it because no one was able to call them out.
>But saying a wine is from Burgundy or Bordeaux when it's isn't is a flat out lie
Do you not recognize that there is a difference between saying something is made in Burgundy and describing something as "Burgundy". Pretty sure all product labels already include the country of origin so this shouldn't really be confusing to anyone
>There's plenty of wine from Chile and California that clearly states it's a blend of Cab and Merlot. Anyone who knows wine knows that's the classic Bordeaux blend, so they can guess what those wines are shooting for. But putting Bordeaux on the label would be a lie, because that's not where the wine is actually from.
You shouldn't have to read fucking textbooks on the subject before going to the store
>Because the term entered the english language as a style moreso than the region
That's a tough argument to make. The style was developed in that region, and people sought out that specific regional product because they liked the way people there made (wine, cheese, whatever). You can imply the style without lying about place of origin. You could say a Pinot Noir in the classic Old World style, and it's pretty obvious what you mean. But calling it Burgundy when it's grown in California is bullshit.
But consumer ignorance is exactly why fraudulent labeling shouldn't be allowed.
If you don't even know what a bordeaux blend is, how the fuck are you going to know that "bordeaux" is actually a place, and wines from there have certain actual characteristics? If consumers can't be omniscient at all times, how can you defend false labeling?
>You can imply the style without lying about place of origin.
This is just a ridiculous way to frame the situation. The labels all clearly state the country of origin, usually the city too with american products
>But consumer ignorance is exactly why fraudulent labeling shouldn't be allowed.
Calling things of a style by a different name breeds ignorance. Products need simple style guidelines to combat ignorance, not regulations that create a confusing jumble of terms for the same product
>Calling things of a style by a different name breeds ignorance.
Calling different things by the same name is much worse.
>Products need simple style guidelines to combat ignorance
That's pretty much what AOC laws are
> not regulations that create a confusing jumble of terms for the same product
It's not the same product
>Cuban sandwiches were invented in the United States by Cuban immigrants
Thats exactly what I meant
A lot of terms have entered the english language after which immigrant groups in america created or popularized them to English speakers
>They are almost unheard of in the Republic of Cuba.
Why would you not just say 'Cuba'?
>You shouldn't have to read fucking textbooks on the subject before going to the store
When it comes to luxury products not being informed is just wasting your money. Ever heard of vintages? Some years the wine from a specific region is better than others. Some years it's more suitable for aging than drinking young. If you don't want to concern yourself with such things stick to the Yellowtail.
>Calling different things by the same name is much worse.
Ok, but no one here is advocating for such a practice
>That's pretty much what AOC laws are
No, they are based on location at the expense of or at best in addition to style, which is the very problem we are discussing.
>Thats exactly what I meant
I thought you were saying that people should be allowed to label pink jugs of sweet zinfandel as "chablis" because the guy selling it is a 5th generation Italian and he feels in his heart that it's high quality wine just like chablis AOC, the fact that they don't taste, look, or smell the same notwithstanding.
>Why would you not just say 'Cuba'?
Why does specificity bother you so much?
>So you think it's cool to confuse things by putting two different places of origin on the label, only one of them correct?
Do you confuse the part of a label where it describes the style with the part where it says "made in X" or "product of X company in Y city, CA, USA"?
It is effectively shorthand for "Burgundy style." It doesn't confuse anybody at all. I think even autistic people are able to grasp it. They're smarter than pedantic people who try too hard to look smart.
I am just saying many english terms for styles of all sorts of foods include place names without regard to the actual place that individual brand is made. Buying a Cuban Sandwich at a restaurant does not imply that the sandwich is literally being made in Cuba nor that the ingredients come from there, analogous to how describing your wine as Burgundy does not imply it must have come from there, or that your cheddar is from Cheddar England
>It doesn't confuse anybody at all.
Not in America where this kind of bullshit is commonplace, and there's practically no overlap between the people drinking California "Burgundy" from a box and those shelling out the dough for the real stuff. To the rest of the world is looks like a bait and switch. Using place names to describe something that came from an entirely different place is absurd. All it really does is dumb shit down, allowing shitty products to pretend they're something better than they are.
We already have entirely too much of that in America.
>the english term burgundy refers to a style when used to describe wine
No. It refers to a place. Much like Napa Valley or Antarctica. And no, Hamburg doesn't refer to a sandwich made of ground beef either.
Only among a certain demographic in exactly one country who have grown accustomed to drinking a certain piss-poor grade of box wine that tastes nothing like the wine made in the region with the name of Burgundy. That's not what "generic" means.
Considering America is the largest nation of native english speakers, I'm gonna go with the native usage over what a foreign government based in a different language altogether decrees
> Casually buying cheese or ending a meal with it was a rich person thing.
The docuseries Victorian Bakers tells otherwise. Cheese was not an uncommon foodstuff for the poor. Download (or stream) and watch it now. It's part reality TV (which sucks) and part documentary (which is good) and makes for surprisingly decent watching.
Anyway, as its name implies, the show focuses on the history of baking in the Victorian era since the poor at the time took in some ridiculously huge percentage of their daily calories from bread. I can't recall the exact number, but I'm pretty sure it was 75% or so. Watch the show and see for yourself.
According to the nutritional historians on the programme, simple bread and cheese was a typical evening meal for the working poor. The poorest of the poor ate baked scrapings, literally the grain scraped up from feeding livestock mixed with yeast sponge, formed and baked.
Like most things, now even as then, foodstuff of higher quality is costlier than those of lower quality. The poor likely ate low-grade cheeses while the rich ate better ones.
I recall reading that the mayor during the Fire of London sped into his burning house to fetch a wheel of parmesan. Not his wife or children. Cheese.
I was never even talking about Burgundy, I personally couldn't care less about this specific style, you kept trying to bring the conversation back there
My entire argument was that styles are and should be based on the physical characteristics of a product, and should never be defined by political considerations such as where it is made
Then you turned on to this whole calling ti burgundy is lying suggesting people actually thought the style designation was kin to the place of origin
Even the government where the region on question is located? That's absurd.
And I bet you'd feel different if cheap wine from China started showing up on shelves labeled "Napa Valley".
>I was never even talking about Burgundy
Except those dozens of posts you made about Burgundy
Burgundy isn't a political designation in modern times, it's geographical and agricultural
>Then you turned on to this whole calling ti burgundy is lying suggesting people actually thought the style designation was kin to the place of origin
Yes, I do not think this sort of lying is necessary or acceptable. It's a shady practice done by companies whose products couldn't otherwise sell on their own.
But I suppose this conversation isn't happening, so....
No, I am really more concerned with cheese than wine, I don't know why you are so obsessed with moving the conversation to wine
What about lambic? Do you think americans should be disallowed from making Lambic?
>Burgundy isn't a political designation in modern times, it's geographical and agricultural
If the government defines a region in which it must be made it becomes political, as these boundaries are not organically derived and based on the whims of politicians either current or long ago. The fact that the boundaries of the region do not correspond to any specific thing related to the product is what matters
>What's your take on Chinese wine labeled "Napa Valley"?
Is napa valley a style?
I don't think it is, but I don't buy that much wine. If it is a legitimate style than I don't give a fuck. If they are saying its literally made there that is a completely different issue
>Is napa valley a style?
Do you think the most prestigious wine region in the US wouldn't be associated with a specific style of winemaking? And even if it didn't, wouldn't it seem wrong that cheap shit wine from someplace else put the regional name on the bottle in an obvious attempt to ride the coattails of the prestigious name?
You're just playing dumb because you don't like the tide of this exchange turning against American exceptionalism.
From what I understand saying Napa Valley wine would be like saying French wine. It doesn't mean a specific kind
>And even if it didn't
How do you still not get this? If the name does not mean a style it is a completely different scenario, then it would appear as though it is trying to mislead (it would be quite a strange scenario here, it doesn't seem like it would plausibly happen). This can easily be contrasted with the earlier subject of Burgundy where the name has become a generic term for the style in the english language, its a very different situation than the scenario you present
>If the name does not mean a style it is a completely different scenario
In modern speaking the regional name does not specifically represent a style. You can reference the well documented disagreement between Parker and Robinson over a 2003 Ch. Pavie. Parker seems to have won out over Robinson, suggesting that a modern sensibility rates wine solely on it's merit, and has nothing to do with whether the wine itself lives up to the style expectations associated with a specific region.
Personally I side with Robinson, but anyone wishing to build an argument based around a modern read of whether or not region defines style has to take Parker (one of the most important figures in American wine) into account. And his rating system suggests that style expectations based around region are not very relevant to anyone but a traditionalist.
I don't know anything about this shit. Rarely drink wine, never tasted American wine, don't know who Parker and Robinson are. I have however seen enough of the world to know that anybody in a shithole like /ck/ arguing stuff intricately enough to quote a debate that is over ten years old is a mental midget in places where such knowledge counts.
I just want to give you my most sincere hope that your life improves, anon.
I know of no such people, but in less prestigious regions like Loire great work is being done.
>I don't know anything about this shit. Rarely drink wine, never tasted American wine, don't know who Parker and Robinson are.
Then why offer an opinion? Just so you can pass judgement on something you're completely ignorant about? Not exactly the way to make your ignorant ass seem clever, is it?
>Then why offer an opinion?
No one fucking knows who those people are. This discussion was always beyond the scope of just burgundy. Its about how the EU is trying to appropriate generic english terms so only producers in regions that spend the most money lobbying can use them, fucking over companies making good stuff in the rest of the EU and America while also screwing consumers
>Its about how the EU is trying to appropriate generic english terms so only producers in regions that spend the most money lobbying can use them, fucking over companies making good stuff in the rest of the EU and America while also screwing consumers
lol no. For the most part the EU is trying to protect regions that have become de facto brands over the last 500 - 1000 years or longer.
>fucking over companies making good stuff in the rest of the EU and America while also screwing consumers
Like what? American Chablis? German Feta? Not buying it.
Hardly. More like the side that supports quality and the side that believes shit-tier food has every right to steal the names of good food just because muh free market and also all food is exactly the same anyone who disagrees with me hates the free market.
again, no matter how many times you repeat it, no one is against quality standards, simply against place name designations which in fact have the opposite effect of straight quality standards as they discourage competition which in all cases leads to quality problems
Stoop conflating generic terms with actual designations of origin.
Maine lobster can logically only be fished off the shores of Maine, meanwhile words like feta describe a style that could logically be produced anywhere
Stop pretending you personally get to decide what's "generic" and what isn't
You've already admitted multiple times you have no idea what you're talking about
You're just arguing to be a contrarian troll at this point, no sane person supports the idea of calling Australian sandalwood Mysore sandalwood because muh feelings ron paul 2008 redpill redpill
>I have clearly been advocating laws in favor of consumer protection
Correct labeling is consumer protection. Being able to slap whatever bullshit lies will sell more product is supporting corporate malpractice
Stop pretending you're on the side of the consumer, because you are not. You are practicing congress-tier doublespeak.
No shit. Importing from less industrial countries is super expensive, especially when the sea route isn't even direct.
Then again, Victorian age consisted of people moving away from production.
Countries that industrialized in the 1910s to the 1950s had large rural population, and the art of cheese making was lost over night as society changed.