Salut/Hi James Silverton,

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

> 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
[snip]
> 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)

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.

>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?)

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.