Belgium destroys California "champagne"

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

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>> >>

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