American food to feed to a British friend?

[Aedilred]

Whisky is absolutely huge business. If I remember rightly it's Scotland's second-biggest export by turnover, after oil. Scotland trades internationally on its reputation for whisky, and thousands of jobs rely on it.

Especially at the upper end, single malt whisky is a luxury product and reputation is if anything even more important than quality. A lot of the whisky sold is sold simply because it's Scotch. In short, it's a brand like any other, one that Scotland has fought hard to establish and maintain.


I'm pretty sure that in all instances of PDO/PGI at least in Europe there are also regulations concerning what does and what doesn't count, and products traded under the name have to meet certain criteria as well as being made within a certain region or country. Champagne, for instance, has to be made according to the champagne method as well as within the boundaries of the Champagne region if it wants to use the name.

Trading law in Europe considers that this is something worthy of recognition and protection like any other trademark. Once you get your head around the idea of industries operating as regional or national blocs rather than as individual corporations, it makes just as much sense as any trademark law.

As Amidus Drexel says, this is something about which it's possible to argue endlessly, but I think if you accept the basic principle that things can be trademarked, it all pretty much makes sense.

Besides, as we've seen in this thread, people can get very protective and even emotional about such things. British peanut butter is nothing like American peanut butter! You can only get proper Chicago pizza in Chicago! All those foods we Brits think we have? We totally don't have them like Americans do! And vice versa, of course. This is an internet forum so it doesn't matter, but when billions of pounds/dollars/whatever are on the line, it's a rather different kettle of fish, and drawing lines around such things to confirm some kind of common standard as a basis for comparison if nothing else is entirely in keeping with what I consider to be the spirit of this thread.

Personally, I'd rather we break the trade agreements. Honestly if I could have my way it would go all the way in the other direction and all scotch would be required to be labeled as scotch regardless or origin, and the same would go for champagne, and other alcohols, and cheeses, and buffalo wings, and philly cheesesteaks; you'd be required by law to include the word "Philly"

The thing is, "Scotch" is Scotch. i.e. from Scotland. The generic term is "whisk(e)y." Insisting that all whisky be labelled Scotch even when it's produced outside Scotland is not only insane, it's also an insult to other international whisk(e)y producers, in Ireland, Japan, Canada, the US, England and so on, who have their own traditions and methods distinct from Scotch, of which in many cases they're equally proud.

The only people calling whisky Scotch when it's not from Scotland are people who don't know any better and people trying to con the consumer.

You might say you neither know nor care about the difference, but I'd counter that having such decisions made by people who don't know or care about the difference is a stupid way to make decisions and a great way to have stupid decisions made.