NationStates Jolt Archive

Honored Ambassadors

The Logopian Government puts the following draft at your consideration. As always your valuable insight is greatly appreciated:

Protected Denomination of Origin
Category: The advancement of Industry (Tariffs)
Strength: Strong

The United Nations:

Recognizing that the properties and qualities of foodstuffs and other agricultural products are often influenced by the geographical location of their production,

Aware, that for this reason, the place of origin is often used as the name or part of the name of foodstuffs and agricultural products,

Acknowledging the cultural importance that traditional products have in many nations,

Aware that consumers often seek products produced in a particular geographical location; thanks not only to the product’s implicit qualities, but also to its reputation and status,

Recognizing the right of producers to capitalize on the recognition the place of origin of their products entails

1- DEFINES Denomination of Origin (DO) as the name of a geographical location used as part of the name or as the name of a particular foodstuff or agricultural product.

2- DECLARES that a DO may be protected so as only products related to the geographic location and which complies with specific requirements, may carry said denomination.

3- RESOLVES that for a product to be eligible for Protected Denomination of Origin (PDO) must be related to the geographical location by at least one of the following:
a- The product is manufactured at the specific geographic location indicated by the denomination, using techniques and processes traditional or exclusive to the producers of said location.
b- The product is prepared using raw materials that primarily come from the geographic location indicated by the DO, and said location confers the raw materials properties that distinctively impact the quality or characteristics of the product.

4-FURTHER RESOLVES that only foodstuffs and other agricultural products intended for human consumption may be eligible for PDO

5- RESOLVES that names of geographical locations that have become the generic name for a particular product cannot be registered as a PDO.

6-DECLARES that when DO becomes protected, any translated form of the denomination also becomes protected.

7-CREATES the United Nations Commission for the Denomination of Origin UNCDO and gives it exclusive authority to grant protection for DO’s within member states.

8-CHARGES the UNCDO with the following aditional responsibilities
a- Device and implement a fair procedure for the request, registration, and granting of PDO’s.
b- Keep all records and publicize all information relevant for nations and companies to comply with the rules on Protected Denomination of Origin.
c- Solve disputes arising from the granted or requested PDOs.

9-EMPHASIZES that no decision of the UNCDO shall contravene the dispositions stated in this resolution

10- DECLARES that the registration of a PDO before the UNCDO shall be done by agencies sanctioned by domestic governments for this purpose

11- REQUIRES registration of PDOs to include the minimum characteristics that a product must have in order to use said denomination

12- REQUIRES member nations to ensure that products granted PDO which are produced in their territory effectively comply with the requirements established in the registration.

13- MANDATES the UNCDO to seek bilateral and multilateral agreements with other international organization and non member states, so as to reach the worldwide recognition of PDOs.

----------------------------------------------------
Iris Fairchild
Logopian Ambassador to The U.N.

Rather a long way of saying, 'Oi, don't name your crappy food after mine and keep your mitts off my recipe' isn't it?

Personally I lost the will to read it after the third or so sentence, so i'd work on the presentation to draw the reader in. Or possibly that means it passes the Bahgum boredom test so is just what the UN is looking for.....

Rather a long way of saying, 'Oi, don't name your crappy food after mine and keep your mitts off my recipe' isn't it?

Indeed. Unfortunately moderate verbosity has never been one of my talents. This is as short as I could get the draft to be. Ill try to come up with ideas to be more succinct. In the meantime any suggestion are welcome.

----------------------------------------------------
Iris Fairchild
Logopian Ambassador to The U.N.

Are you aware that section 8 as subsections 'a,b, and d' but not 'c'?

Thank you for pointing that out. It's been fixed.

Then, that fixed, Tanular sees that, although this proposal seems to be mostly pointless, it helps keeps businesses honest and helps prevent defrauding consumers, a noble purpose. If it eventually makes its way to the floor, we will vote for it.

The people of Roseariea fully support the idea of this proposal but as other delegates have wisely mentioned, perhaps it could be tidied or shortened a bit.

We do have one issue with the proposal in its current state and that is with clause four:

"4-FURTHER RESOLVES that only foodstuffs and other agricultural products intended for human consumption may be eligible for PDO"

We humbly suggest that the wording "intended for human consumption" be eliminated as it unfairly limits protection to reputable food stuffs while ignoring certain varieties of animal feed, pet food, etc... which may originate in a specific place and be of a remarkable quality and thus be as desirable for purchase, and as open to counter fitting, as human foodstuffs.

If this small change is eventually made then this act will be given our full support as we feel it will be of benefit to the Roseariean economy and others like it whose chief exports could benefit greatly from its protection.

Gordon Tills, acting ambassador

I'm not convinced that this is worthy of international legislation, when each country is already free to impose regulations on domestic products and imports alike.

A few brief points on technicalities:


2- DECLARES that a DO may be protected so as only products related to the geographic location and which complies with specific requirements, may carry said denomination.


There's something very wrong with the phrasing here. You're mandating and suggesting at the same time. It has to be one or the other.

I think what you actually mean is this (corrections in bold):


2- DECLARES that a DO shall be protected so that only products related to the geographic location and which comply with specific requirements [remove comma here] may carry said denomination.


Another point of grammar (correction in bold):


3- RESOLVES that for a product to be eligible for Protected Denomination of Origin (PDO), it must be related to the geographical location by at least one of the following:


4-FURTHER RESOLVES that only foodstuffs and other agricultural products intended for human consumption may be eligible for PDO


Leaving aside that non-human sentient members are not going to be happy, "consumption" is extraordinarily vague. Depending on one's defenition, one could consider that purchase for any usage is consumption.

Despite these concerns, doubts and technicalities, I would like to thank the honourable delegate for the work she and her country have put into this proposal.


Christophe Boco (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Christophe_Boco),
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

We humbly suggest that the wording "intended for human consumption" be eliminated as it unfairly limits protection to reputable food stuffs while ignoring certain varieties of animal feed, pet food, etc... which may originate in a specific place and be of a remarkable quality and thus be as desirable for purchase, and as open to counter fitting, as human foodstuffs.

If this small change is eventually made then this act will be given our full support as we feel it will be of benefit to the Roseariean economy and others like it whose chief exports could benefit greatly from its protection.

Gordon Tills, acting ambassadorWe also had some concerns with the terms "intended for human consumption" but not on the same points as pointed out by Roseariera. Many of the member nations in NSUN are not human thus this would not cover products "intended for 'their' consumption".


Greneyes Monstoria,
Cavirian Minister of Alienationals

First, we'd like to commend Ambassador Fairchild for her fine work in drafting this proposal. Now for the other shoe....

We simply can't convince ourselves that this is a matter which is of sufficient import to merit the attention of the NSUN. We're not sure how many of our citizens really give a hoot about the place of origin of a product. We doubt, though, that enough of them do to warrant international legislation on the subject and the creation of a commission and a (possibly complex) mechanism for implementing it.

We'd like to suggest that Ambassador Fairchild turn her obvious talents to a matter of broader scope and greater significance. Perhaps a general "truth in labeling" proposal would be appropriate.

Travilia E. Thwerdock
Ambassador to the United Nations

This seams like a enormous waste of time for you, and the UN. This proposal does very, very little in big picture. This is the UN, what about real issues? I'm sorry, but properly labeling where food comes from, because some places make better food than others, this is basic truth in advertising. So why do you make a big long thing of it when you could just do a small proposal that all advertising should be truthful, its a bit broader topic than yours but its also more significant. We should try to put more into less, not the other way around. We should have short proposals that cover a lot, instead of long proposal that cover, very little, but hay, what do I know. Maybe this is what people want, I just think less for more would be a better allocation of the UN's time.

While we do in fact think this matter worthy of consideration of the UN, we are not at all certain we wish to see such legislation enacted. Then again, we are generally not in favour of over-generous protective devices of this nature.

As the resolution itself admits, names which are otherwise eligible for PDO status may be denied such due to having entered the language as a generic term. However merely attributing protected status to a name will not remove the possibility of it subsequently becoming a generic term, leading back to the irksome state that the admission we mentioned seeks to avoid. Seeking to legislate on the usage and development of language is an exercise in futility, and we cannot but see this proposal as a near kin of such an exercise.

Further, protected status can in fact be detremental to the economic well-being of products under some circumstances; we can think of at least one instance of a well-known viticultural product which is gradually becoming eclipsed by a rival, a fact that would have been much less noticable and quite possibly much less true had the originators not insisted (and secured through international agreements) on the protection of their specific denomination.

I would like to thank all who have taken the time to give their insight to this matter. Be it for or against, your comments will no doubt help improve this draft. Now I'll try to reply to some of your comments.

----

2- DECLARES that a DO may be protected so as only products related to the geographic location and which complies with specific requirements, may carry said denomination.

There's something very wrong with the phrasing here. You're mandating and suggesting at the same time. It has to be one or the other.


The intention is not no mandate that products are labeled with their place of origin. It is to establish a mechanism so that only products related to a particular place (as established in clause 3) can use that place as or in the product's name. If a DO is to be protected or not would depend in regional producers having an interest in protection, and on their products being eligible for PDO.

That said, I must admit that I am not entirely comfortable with the wording of clause 2. My command of the English language is not as good as I'd like, so any help here would be greatly appreciated.

----
I shall definitely give serious thought to the issue of limiting protection to products intended for human/sapient consumption. I mus admit I thought only producers of these products would be interested in PDO. It seems I might be mistaken.

----
I'll definitely fix the issue about the human/sapient terminology and to the vagueness of "consumption". (If the clause actually stays)

----
We simply can't convince ourselves that this is a matter which is of sufficient import to merit the attention of the NSUN. We're not sure how many of our citizens really give a hoot about the place of origin of a product...

I'm not convinced that this is worthy of international legislation, when each country is already free to impose regulations on domestic products and imports alike

Producers from a particular place, who have through the years built a solid reputation for their product, definitely have a legitimate interest in getting exclusive use of the name of said place. To this producers, the name itself is an added value. On the other hand, customers have the right to be acurately informed if a product is in fact from that place. The benefits of this proposal would be twofold. Now, trade is an international endeavor, producers have domestic and foreign competitors in all the diferent countires where their products are marketed. Therefore In order to get said right effectively, international cooperation is required. This is a case where specific industries need UN intervention.

-----
We'd like to suggest that Ambassador Fairchild turn her obvious talents to a matter of broader scope and greater significance. Perhaps a general "truth in labeling" proposal would be appropriate.

I thank the kind comment. Yet I am not personally responsable for the subject matter of our proposal, only for its writing. In this particular case, many Logopian producers have an interest in PDO, so my government has charged me with getting international support for this legislation.

------
This seams like a enormous waste of time for you, and the UN. This proposal does very, very little in big picture.

You are more than welcome to write and submit a proposal addressing issues you find more important. But please don't try to tell me or the Logopian nation what our interests in the UN should or should not be.

I'm sorry, but properly labeling where food comes from, because some places make better food than others, this is basic truth in advertising. So why do you make a big long thing of it when you could just do a small proposal that all advertising should be truthful, its a bit broader topic than yours but its also more significant.

This proposal is not about truth in advertising or labeling. It is about using the name of a place in or as the name of a product. Producers in Logopia can produce some particular type of wine and call it "Champagne Bubbly Wine", they can label and market is as "Made in Logopia", and still they would be unfairly taking advantage of the reputation of the name "Champagne". This issue is related to truth in labeling and advertising, and also to trademarks. It is not equivalent to those concepts.

We should try to put more into less, not the other way around. We should have short proposals that cover a lot, instead of long proposal that cover, very little, but hay, what do I know

We acknowledge that this proposal is longer than is comfortable. We will write our proposals as short as the topic requires. The topic of PDOs is in fact a complex one, therefore a certain lenght, I fear, will be unavoidable.
----

Your highness, it is a pleasure to debae with you once more.

However merely attributing protected status to a name will not remove the possibility of it subsequently becoming a generic term,leading back to the irksome state that the admission we mentioned seeks to avoid.

Indeed, no amount of legislation could regulate use of language. However I still mantain that PDOs would be a valuable tool to protect the interests of producers and to better inform consumers. Certainly they can't gurantee ahta a name won't become generic, but we maintain that in many cases they will succeed at doing it, or at least slow the process down enough so as to be beneficial for producers. Furthermore, even if the name was to become generic, a PDO would still help customer who look for the "original" product to be better informed. We admit that you point out a weakness in the proposed legislation, yet we don't belive that weakness is enough to stop .

Further, protected status can in fact be detremental to the economic well-being of products under some circumstances; we can think of at least one instance of a well-known viticultural product...

I must admit I am not aware of the case you mention. I kindly request you to elaborate in this point. That example will surely provide interesting issues we will have to consider in this proposal.

I think this resolution would be better served by being less specific,. It's all well and good saying that Fine Yeldan Cheeses need to be from Yelda, but I'd say it's equally important that unscrupulous Gobbanniumese typewriter manufacturers don't stick "Made in Cobdenia" on their products

As the topic in question is clearly an aspect of international trade, rather than a purely local matter, I think that my government will be quite willing to support this proposal... especially if the reference to 'humans' is going to be replaced by one to 'sapient beings'.

I do, however, have two questions to ask:

Firstly, what rules would apply if two areas had the same name -- either in the same language or in translation -- and people from those two areas produced rival products of the same general type?
I presume that the PDOs assigned to pre-existing products in such cases would be expanded (by the addition of provincial, national or even supernational geographical names) sufficiently to let potential customers distinguish between them, but would people living in one of those areas also be allowed to start producing goods with such a label when they had not previously done so? And would re-naming locations by giving them the names of places whose distinctive products the locals wished to copy be legal?

Secondly, whilst I realise that this body certainly can not force its legislation on non-member nations, there is some legal precedent for encouraging voluntary compliance on their part. Therefore, as this particular proposal would obviously work more effectively if its rules were followed more widely, and at the request of the governments of St Edmund itself and of Godwinnia, I wonder whether you could include a clause along the lines of this one_
DECLARES that if any nation that is not a member of the UN voluntarily passes and enforces legislation complying with this resolution then producers of suitable commodities who are based within those nations may also apply for PDO status for their products;

I think this resolution would be better served by being less specific,. It's all well and good saying that Fine Yeldan Cheeses need to be from Yelda, but I'd say it's equally important that unscrupulous Gobbanniumese typewriter manufacturers don't stick "Made in Cobdenia" on their products

We would certainly agree that truth in attribution is important (and should anyone be aware of any Gobbannaen typewriter manufacturers commiting such an offense we would be only too glad to prosecute them), but it is in some measure a different subject to the one Ambassador Fairchild has raised.

As to the example of degraded status we mentioned in passing, we confess that it is as yet but at an infant stage. None the less, it is the case that an inability to label their product as 'champagne' has raised the profile of 'cava' and similar effervescent wines produced by the same methods, and that the products of the Champaign region are gradually losing their pre-eminent market share.

Thanks once more for your valuable feedback.

It has been noted a few times in this discussion that a broader proposal, addressing truth in labeling and advertisement in a wider fashion, would be more significant and more desirable. We definitely agree with the former and certainly do not discount the later. However, we believe that a broader proposal wouldn't be able to address the issue of PDOs in an effective manner.

I wonder whether you could include a clause along the lines of this one_

DECLARES that if any nation that is not a member of the UN voluntarily passes and enforces legislation complying with this resolution then producers of suitable commodities who are based within those nations may also apply for PDO status for their products;

Indeed you make an excellent point, we will be more than happy to include the clause you mention.

As to the example of degraded status we mentioned in passing, we confess that it is as yet but at an infant stage. None the less, it is the case that an inability to label their product as 'champagne' has raised the profile of 'cava' and similar effervescent wines produced by the same methods, and that the products of the Champaign region are gradually losing their pre-eminent market share.

Indeed, no matter how much PDO is granted a product can still loose status and market share. We would attribute this to market forces at play, and not necessarily to the PDO itself. If a competitor can create a product of equal or superior quality to the one with the PDO, it is only natural that the later will begin to lose market share. Let’s assume for a moment that producers of sparkling wine were all allowed to use the name ‘champagne’. Would that have actually prevented the loss of market suffered by producers of the Champagne region?

A recognized name and the reputation it entails are a marketing advantage, they might even guarantee a preeminent place in some niche markets; but they are not sufficient to compete. A PDO creates a distinction; and just as a brand, it adds value to a product. It is the producers’ responsibility to care for this value.

Category: The advancement of Industry (Tariffs)
Strength: StrongI really couldn't care less about this, but has anyone bothered pointing out that Advancement of Industry doesn't have a strength level? That, and it seems a bit excessive to set up a commission just to deal with this. Can the work possibly be tasked to the UNFTC or something?

The Kennyite representative raises two valid points. I was not aware about the strenght issue. As to the second point, certainly leaving this to the UNFTC would be more efficient.

Is it entirely appropriate to be tasking the UN's Free Trade commission with restricting trade? Possibly so, but it amuses us no end.

Is it entirely appropriate to be tasking the UN's Free Trade commission with restricting trade? Possibly so, but it amuses us no end.
Actually, under GFDA, NERA and UNRC the United Nations Free Trade Commission is granted the authority to arbitrate trade disputes. That could include restricting trade in some circumstances. Also, GFDA specifically gives it the authority to "pass rulings on exceptions claimed under Article 3". Article 3 says: "Exception will be made for protectionist mechanisms which are based upon legitimate Religious, Cultural, Medical, or Ecological concerns". So there is precedent for UNFTC passing rulings or issuing binding arbitration which could have the effect of restricting trade.

Aüþgæþ Spøtyiú
Ambassador

Quote:
DECLARES that if any nation that is not a member of the UN voluntarily passes and enforces legislation complying with this resolution then producers of suitable commodities who are based within those nations may also apply for PDO status for their products;


Just wondering, would this be legal? (since UN proposals can't affect non-UN nations)

Just wondering, would this be legal? (since UN proposals can't affect non-UN nations)
This would be the relevant clause from the rules:
MetaGaming violation is one that breaks "the fourth wall", or attempts to force events outside of the UN itself. Proposals dealing with Regions, with other nations, Moderators, and requiring activities on the Forums are examples. This also includes Proposals that try to affect non-UN nations.
The key here is "force". We can't pass a resolution that attempts to tax non-members, nor force our opinions of Human Rights or Social Justice on them. We can pass Prisoner of War Conventions that affect all members whether they sign or not, but there's no rule that says non-members can't observe or even sign such a Convention.

UN proposals can certainly passively affect non-members. If UN nations band together to build an asteroid guard missile system, and it succeeds in preventing a giant asteroid from hitting NS World, wouldn't that affect non-UN nations? Or would all the chunks of the destroyed asteroid magically miss the UN nations, shielded by their membership cards, no doubt, and obliterate non-members? No, such an act would '"affect" non members.

I'd say that voluntary adherence to a standard is every nation's prerogative, regardless of UN membership. If the UN wants to add them to its internal registry, or even charge a fee for the privilege, it's the non-member's own choice to pay the fee to be listed. We're not forcing them to do "share the effect".

Honored Ambassadors

We hereby present the new version of the PDO proposal.

Protected Denomination of Origin
Category: The advancement of Industry (Tariffs)

The United Nations:

Recognizing that the properties and qualities of foodstuffs and other agricultural products are often influenced by the geographical location of their production,

Aware that for this reason, the place of origin is often used as the name or part of the name of foodstuffs and agricultural products,

Aware that consumers often seek products produced in a particular geographical location; thanks not only to the product’s implicit qualities, but also to its reputation and status,

Recognizing the right of producers to capitalize on the recognition the place of origin of their products entails

1- DEFINES Denomination of Origin (DO) as the name of a geographical location used as part of the name or as the name of a particular foodstuff or agricultural product.

2- DECLARES that a DO may be protected so as only products related to the geographic location and that comply with specific requirements, may use said denomination.

3- RESOLVES that for a product to be eligible for Protected Denomination of Origin (PDO) it must be related to the geographical location by at least one of the following:
a- The product is manufactured at the specific geographic location indicated by the denomination, using techniques and processes traditional or exclusive to the producers of said location.
b- The product is prepared using raw materials that primarily come from the geographic location indicated by the DO, and said location confers the raw materials properties that distinctively impact the quality or characteristics of the product.

4-FURTHER RESOLVES that only foodstuffs, beverages, and agricultural products are eligible for PDO

5-DECLARES that names of geographical locations that have become the generic name for a particular product cannot be used as a PDO.

6-DECLARES that when DO becomes protected, any translated form of the denomination also becomes protected.

7-CHARGES the United Nations Free Trade Commission (UNFTC) with the responsibility of granting protection for DO’s within member states; and endows it with exclusive authority to this effect.

8-ASSIGNS the following additional duties to the UNFTC
a- Device and implement a fair procedure for the request, registration, and granting of PDO’s.
b- Keep all records and publicize all information relevant for nations and companies to comply with the rules on Protected Denomination of Origin.
c- Solve disputes arising from the granted or requested PDOs.

9- REQUIRES registration of PDOs to include the minimum characteristics that a product must have in order to use said denomination

10- REQUIRES member nations to ensure that products granted PDO which are produced in their territory effectively comply with the requirements established in the registration.

11- MANDATES the UNCDO to seek bilateral and multilateral agreements with other international organization and non member states, so as to reach the universal recognition of PDOs.

12- RESOLVES that if non member nation voluntarily passes and enforces legislation complying with this resolution, then suitable products from that nation may also be granted PDO.

Hopefully, we will be ready to submit by the end of this week.

----------------------------------------------------
Iris Fairchild
Logopian Ambassador to The U.N.

First of all I want to acknowledge your effort into this resolution so far. I have a number of problems with it, but even as it stands the resolution has some merrit.

I am concerned that clause 5 is a spanner in the works, everything is more or less defined through the UNFTC (which is probably not the proper body for this issue as it really is more of a trade mark / service mark issue) but the notion of "generic name" is not. Obviously if there is a need to codify the regional name some other region is going to assert that it is already generic.

First we need to distinguish between location and technique. While it would be improper for a nation to claim somehting from their own land is a "Blue Booted Bobby" it should be possible for a nation to claim a product is based on the "Method of the Blue Booted Bobby."

Second we need a way to properly register DOs in the first place, then one can imply that all products that qualify for a PDO be granted PDO status under the registration of the DO, as opposed to each individual product seeking to register their PDO. In this great land I'm sure there must exist many areas with the same name or DO. It would not do to have Example cheese come from NationA while Example smoke cured hams come from NationB as it would still be a point of much confusion. The registration needs to be on the DO not the PDO and multiple DOs need to be qualified as to be unique.

I would say generic names be damned, or if you should insist on it, one should prefix it with the actual word "Generic" so that "Generic Blue Booted Bobby" is the general product that was known before the resolution was adopted and that "Blue Booted Bobby" be the name that indicates the proper DO of the product.

First of all I want to acknowledge your effort into this resolution so far. I have a number of problems with it, but even as it stands the resolution has some merrit.

We thank your recognition. The Logopian UN mission always tries it's best to produce quality proposals. Ill try to address some of your concerns.

I am concerned that clause 5 is a spanner in the works, everything is more or less defined through the UNFTC (which is probably not the proper body for this issue as it really is more of a trade mark / service mark issue) but the notion of "generic name" is not.

We could have created a specialized commission, and in fact we did in our first draft. However after considering arguments made by other colleagues, we have decided that the UNFTC would be a more efficient choice. As previously noted, there is enough precedent to legally do this, plus it avoids creating a new committee (something many UN nations heartily dislike).

Obviously if there is a need to codify the regional name some other region is going to assert that it is already generic,

Indeed, that would be the main argument from those opposing the granting of a particular PDO. Someone has to decide if the name is in fact generic or not. This would be one of the most difficult issues in the implementation of this proposal. We believe it is well beyond the scope of this proposal to determine even the broader guidelines to make these decisions. Instead we have chosen to leave this task to the ever trustworthy UN gnomes, which one must remember, are among the foremost experts in their fields.

First we need to distinguish between location and technique. While it would be improper for a nation to claim something from their own land is a "Blue Booted Bobby" it should be possible for a nation to claim a product is based on the "Method of the Blue Booted Bobby."

Agree, and nothing in the proposal would prevent producers from making such a claim. It is only the name of the product itself that would be protected. The accuracy of these claims would be handled by advertising and labeling regulations, not by this proposal.

Second we need a way to properly register DOs in the first place, then one can imply that all products that qualify for a PDO be granted PDO status under the registration of the DO, as opposed to each individual product seeking to register their PDO. In this great land I'm sure there must exist many areas with the same name or DO.

I really can't see the advantage of the scheme you propose. I would much appreciate if you'd elaborate on that.

It would not do to have Example cheese come from NationA while Example smoke cured hams come from NationB as it would still be a point of much confusion. The registration needs to be on the DO not the PDO and multiple DOs need to be qualified as to be unique.

An excelent point. Do you believe that requiring PDOs to be unique (maybe including the nation name when duplication is possible) would solve the problem?

I would say generic names be damned, or if you should insist on it, one should prefix it with the actual word "Generic" so that "Generic Blue Booted Bobby" is the general product that was known before the resolution was adopted and that "Blue Booted Bobby" be the name that indicates the proper DO of the product.

We have to disagree with this last point. The idea of this proposal is to protect the intrinsic value a DO acquires when it associated with a certain status or qualities in a particular product. If a DO has become generic, it now refers to the product itself. It has now effectively no value. If we allow generic names to be protected, we are giving the name an artificial value, and therefore giving an unfair advantage to producers of that region.

I think I might be confused my neuances of the wording, it seems that the PDO is more tied to the product level where the registration should be on the region level. The process should be centered on registering the demonination (this is anohter nit I'm picking I'd rather see a registration than a protection) and then from there the unique products of the demoniation can be assigned to the registered region. In other words, it's not the heavenly hamhocks of the Happy Hillside of NationA but the Happy Hillside of NationA that needs to be registered and the havenly hamhocks can then be assigned to that RDO.

We also have mild reservations considering generic names, but in our case the reservations concern the asymmetry of the situation. A product whose geographically-derived name is presently the generic name may not apply for protected status; the ambassador has argued in favour of this, and we do not deny that there is logic in her statements. A product that subsequently becomes the generic name after becoming a PDO, however, has all those arguments applied against it but does not lose protected status. This seems inconsistent to us.

We also have mild reservations considering generic names, but in our case the reservations concern the asymmetry of the situation. A product whose geographically-derived name is presently the generic name may not apply for protected status; the ambassador has argued in favour of this, and we do not deny that there is logic in her statements. A product that subsequently becomes the generic name after becoming a PDO, however, has all those arguments applied against it but does not lose protected status. This seems inconsistent to us.

Once its been a registered PDO, it cannot become a generic name...that is the purpose of this bill. If I get this correctly, let me use a RL example:

It is possible to buy Parmesean and Romano (to use the Anglicized names) cheeses, even though they have nothing to do with the places whose names they are derived from. In this case, Parmesean and Romano refer to the type of cheese and are generic names. However, one does not call a wine a Bordeaux unless it comes from that region of France. Bordeaux would be a PDO, while Parmesean is a generic. Correct me if I am wrong.

We've mulled this issue over a good bit and, unfortunately, we're still unable to support this proposal. We're still doubtful that the issue of place of origin of a product is of sufficient import to most consumers to merit NSUN legislation on the subject. We will admit, though, that we may be wrong about that. Some may wish to purchase food from a specific place in expectation of quality. (We think that's pretty stupid consumer behavior, but that's neither here nor there.) Others might, because of political or moral beliefs, wish to avoid purchasing goods from a specific area. So, for the sake of discussion, we'll allow that providing consumers with information about the place of origin of a product is worthwhile.

Now, why do we need a convoluted sytem and an increased bureaucracy to do it? (Even assigning the responsibility to the UNFTC will not avoid increasing their workload and, logically, staffing.) Why not just require that food products traded internationally must bear a clear statement of their place of origin? Consumers who are concerned about the place of origin can check the statement on the label. No increased UN bureaucracy. And, if a consumer who cares about the place of origin is so stupid as to be misled by the product name and not read the statement on the label, that's his/her problem, not the UN's.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

In other words, it's not the heavenly hamhocks of the Happy Hillside of NationA but the Happy Hillside of NationA that needs to be registered and the havenly hamhocks can then be assigned to that RDO.

I think I can understand your meaning, but I still can't see the advantage this would have over protecting the DO for each product. Would the registration/protection process be more efficient? Would it help prevent duplication? It seems my skull got a little thicker today. I hope this doesn't discourage you from further explaining.

Once its been a registered PDO, it cannot become a generic name...that is the purpose of this bill. If I get this correctly, let me use a RL example

Unfortunately it can become generic. We maintain that our proposal would prevent it to a very significant degree, but we cannot say that it will do so in absolutely every case. No amount of legislation will be able to determine language usage, at least not in the long run. Anyway we do not believe Gobbannium is entirely mistaken in their arguments, we simply believe that this problem is not of sufficient magnitude to make this proposal undesirable or ineffective.

We're still doubtful that the issue of place of origin of a product is of sufficient import to most consumers to merit NSUN legislation on the subject

There are many instances in which the place of origin is in fact not important for the quality of a product. There are however many others in which it is an important factor. Wines are the perfect example. It is wildly recognized by enologists that the place of origin of the grapes have a very important impact in the product’s characteristics. This has to do with the type of soil, weather, and other factors inherent to the geographical location. There is also the matter of status and reputation. It is entirely reasonable for customers to take those in account when choosing a product. This however, does not make it any less legitimate.

Why not just require that food products traded internationally must bear a clear statement of their place of origin? Consumers who are concerned about the place of origin can check the statement on the label. No increased UN bureaucracy. And, if a consumer who cares about the place of origin is so stupid as to be misled by the product name and not read the statement on the label, that's his/her problem, not the UN's.

In this case, the name could be an important marketing advantage. Furthermore, allowing a product to be called, lets say Ausserland Beer, while it is in fact produced in Logopia doesn’t seem like an honest thing to do, even if said beer was labeled as made in Logopia. The only reason I can think would could have for doing something like this is to mislead customers and take advantage of the good name of the original product. It is reasonable to expect responsibility and a certain degree of common sense from consumers; however it is also fair to demand honesty from marketers. I would answer those two questions with a definitive Yes.

I grant that the system I am proposing is a complicated one. Unfortunately we have not found a satisfactory way to simplify it


----------------------------------------------------
Iris Fairchild
Logopian Ambassador to The U.N.

Bordeaux would be a PDO, while Parmesean is a generic. Correct me if I am wrong.According to the EU, you would. As I understand it, they're following the PDO idea hardcore. Much to the chagrin of Wisconsin.

Luckily the EU doesn't exist in NS...and Wisconsin doesn't give a damn about the EU's opinion (Kraft and everyone else still sell parmesean cheese). As parmesean is the name for a type of product and no longer a regional indicator, its become generic, whether or not the EU likes it.

(Kraft and everyone else still sell parmesean cheese).Actually, they were more pissed about Cheddar; what with the EU wanting to say that the only thing marked as Cheddar can come from... well... Cheddar, despite Wisconsin Cheddar having been around for quite some time (this has since been resolved, apparently).

Anyway, all that aside, while the EU doesn't exist in NS, it's helpful to look at their method of PDOs in relation to this Proposal. Could help avoid similar pitfalls.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Wisconsin Cheddar is recognisably Cheddar, in the same way that Cava is recognisably the same stuff as Champaigne, just made somewhere else. The EU aren't big believers in generic names, it would seem.

Protected Denomination of Origin has been submitted for delegate approval. Due to space constraints, the title had to be changed to Denomination of Origin