Belgium destroys California "champagne"

Emery wrote on Sat, 12 Jan 2008 11:22:56 +0100:

ED> Belgian customs authorities destroyed over 3000 bottles of ED> "counterfeit champagne" from CA, labeled "California ED> Champagne." "Of course there is no such thing," explained ED> the customs official I saw interviewed.

ED> The wine from Gallo brand André was destroyed at the cost ED> and with agreement of the (un-named in the reportage) ED> owner.

Andre is not a "Champagne Process" wine (fermented in the bottle) but a cheaper Charmat process (tank fermented) wine. However, finding the pompous indignation of the French a bit irritating, I think I am going to continue to use and drink bottle-fermented "California Champagne", especially given the extension of the Champagne district boundaries (did they or did they not reach Algeria?)

James Silverton Potomac, Maryland

E-mail, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not

Hi James, this is a very political subject but here goes:

Oranges are Oranges. But year back there was and is today a Florida Citrus Commision. They decided to brand Oranges from Florida as Florida Oranges and Grapefruit Indian River Grapefruit...

You can buy Oranges anywhere from many locations but only Florida Oranges can be called Florida oranges even if they were sold in North Carolina or Maryland etc.

There were people that came out with Punch's and drinks that were Florida Orange Punch but all the orange juice was from Brazil so there was a law suit.

Meanwhile, the method to produce Champaigne can be done by anyone. The process does not hold a Patent. And anyone can state that this is a Champaigne Method.

Champaigne is a district in France however and similar to oranges the Florida Citrus comission is trying hard to enforce the Florida name only when fruit is from Florida.

Another such example from the states are the Maine Lobster. They are getting on the same bandwagon. Nova Scotia Lobster is often available at the Palm, Charlotte and it states so. But some serve Nova Scotia lobster passing it off as Maine Lobster and the Lobster industry in Maine is certifying that they are from Maine when it says so and has also filed court cases to adjudicate.

I don't think its as bad as we think if we do consider that Champaigne is a district and entitled to their naming rights.

I do get pissed when I want San Marsano Tomatoes and they are not from Italy in our stores but often from Canada. Why can't it state San Masanso Seed but Canadian grown?

Parma Ham from Canada...guess its cause Canadian Ham is not the same. Would they like the italians in Parma to make Canadian ham at 1/2 price and sell in Canada?

I think not.

This area is really strange that there cannot be some element of respect for geographical naming. Afterall, we know Maryland Crab Cakes are the best, don't we.

Richard wrote on Sat, 12 Jan 2008 09:10:37 -0500:

Emory, was this wine considered counterfeit because it was California or because it was simply a counterfeit product in general.

Belgian customs authorities destroyed over 3000 bottles of "counterfeit champagne" from CA, labeled "California Champagne." "Of course there is no such thing," explained the customs official I saw interviewed.

The wine from Gallo brand André was destroyed at the cost and with agreement of the (un-named in the reportage) owner.

-E

Not so.

I don't know to what extent the restictions have spread, but certainly in the EU the term "Champagne Method" is no longer allowed. People now use "Traditional Method", or a foreign language variant, instead.

I believe their point was the unauthorized use of the protected term "Champagne" on the label, not the question of whether a sparkling wine was produced, nor by whom. Very few houses in California use the term "Champagne" on the label, Andre and Korbel come immediately to mind. I don't think that any *good* producer in California uses the term on its label, although Schramsberg still uses the term "Method Champenoise."

pavane

No, they market and sell California sparkling wine. The objection is to the application of the name Champagne to wines made outside the protected region, not to the manufacture of sparkling wine.

pavane wrote on Sat, 12 Jan 2008 11:05:04 -0500:

??>> One might also note that they could have made their ??>> dubious point by choosing a higher grade of American ??>> "champagne" like Domaine Chandon for example....whoops, ??>> that would be a French Champagne company marketing and ??>> selling California champagne. ??>>

p> I believe their point was the unauthorized use of the p> protected term "Champagne" on the label, not the question of p> whether a sparkling wine was produced, nor by whom. Very p> few houses in California use the term "Champagne" on the p> label, Andre and Korbel come immediately to mind. I don't p> think that any *good* producer in California uses the term p> on its label, although Schramsberg still uses the term p> "Method Champenoise."

I would disagree with you about "good". I will admit that the best California Champagnes are made by French owned companies but Korbel is not bad at all!

James Silverton Potomac, Maryland

E-mail, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not

Food and Beverage labeling laws are very restrictive by country.

I produce and distribute some package Dry Bean Soups. My company has been around for about 80 years now. I am not the founder.

About 5 years ago, only selling in USA Supermarkets and Military bases worldwide we said, lets sell Canada.

So, upon embarking you have to have your package meet the laws of each province which is not the same and the packaging must by law be bi-lingual.

In the USA we have the NLEA LABEL LAWS. We had to buy new plates and get rid of all the old film we had when that was placed in effect about 10 years back. Needless to say, it was a $500000 USA cost to a small business.

Next, we then had the trans fat change in labeling. We had to change film for that. Another $180,000 cost...oh yeah, we have no transfats in our product anyway. But we had to state that in the manner they required.

Label>> >>

I don't get your point. The French weren't indignant at all, nor pompous beyond the usual point. They simply reported a story that happened in Belgium. Why don't you lash out at the pompous Belgians?

The Champagne appellation is being enlarged to include several similar terroirs that can historically show they grew grapes prior to the current classification. There's a penury of fruit in Champagne, that pushes the prices up for everyone. What's with the Algerian crack?

What you drink is your own get out. Belgian customs seized these goods because they are in violation of labelling laws. I happen to agree with these laws, but that's immaterial. By European law (not French, BTW) the stuff is counterfeit.

I posted the story simply because I thought it funny to call low-end juice like André "counterfeit champagne." I don't intend to start a flame fest, but your response seems unnecessarily provocative. If you were being tongue in cheek please accept my apology, I didn't get it.

-E

Champagne on labels in the US was used much more in the past and included just about any sparkling wine, even brands in the NE that used native American grapes. This sort of thing has been done for many other wines. At one time there was a lot of cheap wine from California labeled Port, Tokay, Sauterne, Sherry, etc. Other countries also sometimes used these names not native to their country. Agreements between countries have put an end to much of this, but not all. If you go back to the 1880s, there was even much more liberty taken in naming wines. There was briefly a Yquem from California in the late 1800s, but that went a bit too far, even for that time, and the name was soon not allowed. Yquem, if anything, was even more famous in the 1800s than now. I have not heard of a California Romanee-Conti from that era, but it would not surprise me if someone found a California label from the 1800s with that name.

cwdjrxyz wrote on Sat, 12 Jan 2008 09:52:45 -0800 (PST):

c> On Jan 12, 4:22 am, Emery Davis wrote: ??>> Thought some might be amused by this story, which I ??>> witnessed with much fanfare on the French news yesterday. ??>>

??>> Belgian customs authorities destroyed over 3000 bottles of ??>> "counterfeit champagne" from CA, labeled "California ??>> Champagne." "Of course there is no such thing," explained ??>> the customs official I saw interviewed. ??>>

??>> The wine from Gallo brand André was destroyed at the cost ??>> and with agreement of the (un-named in the reportage) ??>> owner.

IMHO, Andre is not champagne in that it is a Charmat (bulk process) sparkling wine, tho' Charmat was French I believe! However, I admire the ingenuity of companies who get "champagne" or the like on the label by saying "champagne type" or "Méthode Champenoise" and I regret any US or other legal attempts to interfere with this since neither those terms nor the so-called "traditional method" define the provenance of the grapes, an area that has increased greatly recently for the convenience of French makers! What this world needs is another "Judgment of Paris" for sparkling wines! I'd be tempted to throw in a ringer bulk-processed wine but I've never had one that I want to drink twice.

James Silverton Potomac, Maryland

E-mail, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not

Salut/Hi James Silverton,

le/on Sat, 12 Jan 2008 13:50:43 GMT, tu disais/you said:-

That's not the point. The point is that the name "Champagne" on a bottle label in Europe is reserved for wines produced according to specified methods in a designated region. So a wine calling itself Champagne NOT produced there, is considered to be a fake. Same rules apply for a wine with the name of Port - Australian fortified reds cannot be sold in Europe under the "Port" name. Same rules (at last) apply to Tokay, so fortified Muscadelle wines from Australia - delicious though they be - cannot be sold under the name of Tokay in Europe, neither can Alsace Pinot Gris wines be called Tokay either for that matter. These rules apply to the whole of Europe, not just France and French producers are sometimes constrained to change names to conform.

Whether you - personally - like the way in which Europe seeks to protect the consumer against passing off by unscrupulous counterfeiters, is of supreme indifference to the European Union. Although - in the case of the Gallo product - very few people would be likely to consider the wines to be comparable, there's an enormous amount of counterfeiting carried out, and it is the consumer who very often who gets duped. To give one example. If you asked 100 Australian wine drinkers what Tokay was, I'd be surprised if one single person knew that it was Hungarian. I don't think ANY real Tokaji Aszu is sold there, and the Australian consumer is the poorer for it. A good product should sell under its own identity, and shouldn't need to borrow a name from somewhere else. And that should apply, in my view to cheeses (cheddar and feta for example), to coffee (Blue Mountain is more than simply a colour and a geographical description) and to a great many other products.

However, I would have a great deal MORE sympathy with the position of Champagne manufacturers, were most of their wine to be half way decent. It isn't, any more than is most sparkling wine in California or Spain or anywhere else. Sturgeon's law applies to as much to wine as it does to most other things, in my view. The fact that a wine IS legally Champagne or IS legally Port, doesn't guarantee that it be good, merely that it comes from where it purports to come from.

What WILL be interesting will be what happens with the increases in mean summertime temperatures in the UK. The chalk supsoil in some parts of the Downs, in Southern England are part of the same geological system as the chalk subsoil in Champagne. And champagne makers are looking very hard at the possibility of investing there.... For that matter, I've had some sparking English wine that was really very good. Far better than some of the "own brand" champagne sold in cheap supermarkets.

Ian wrote on Sat, 12 Jan 2008 19:31:54 +0100:

IH> Whether you - personally - like the way in which Europe IH> seeks to protect the consumer against passing off by IH> unscrupulous counterfeiters,

I wonder if "unscrupulous counterfeiters" includes the makers of poor "real champagne"? :-)

I don't suppose there is any hope of a "Judgement of Paris" for sparkling wine.

James Silverton Potomac, Maryland

E-mail, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not

"Ian Hoare" wrote ........

I know it is not quite the same, but European (French) wineries themselves indulge in some "marketing subterfuge".

I refer to the marketing (in the UK) of some pretty ordinary French wine as "Kiwi Cuvee".

st.helier

However, did you know that lentils grown in Alberta are exported to France where, hey presto, they get re-packaged as Puy Lentils? Graham

I believe that a few months back there was a change in the US law regarding the term Champagne. In general, the law sates that any new brand of sparkling wine produced after the law was passed cannot be called Champagne. Those that used the term before the new law may still call their sparkling wine Champagne. I believe the most if not all of the better quality California sparkling wines do not use the term Champagne. Most also say Traditional Method or Method Traditional.

I've seen "fermented in the bottle" and "fermented in =this= bottle". Is the former somewhere between the charmant method and the champagne method?

Jose