A common sense consortium

The Consortium for Common Food Names is a new alliance that represents the interests of consumers, farmers, food producers and retailers based in the US. Its executive director, Jaime Castaneda of the US Dairy Export Council, speaks about the need to protect common food names

In my 13 years with the US Dairy Export Council (USDEC), I have seen what a positive force trade can be – not just for the US dairy industry, but for dairy producers around the globe. I have also witnessed how the actions of the European Commission (EC) in trying to restrict the use of common names like ‘parmesan’ and ‘feta’ has been problematic for cheese producers in many countries.
USDEC has members that operate both domestically and multi-nationally, and several of these members asked USDEC to help establish the Consortium for Common Food Names (CCFN) as a collaborative way to clarify logical guidelines for geographical indications (GIs).
The consortium provides a way for a variety of groups and interests around the world to come together to propose a roadmap for how to positively address this issue in a way that preserves both the rights of GI holders and users of common names and terms.

Impact
The vast majority of the EU’s protected GIs pose no current or potential conflicts with the use of common names, and so have had relatively little impact on commerce outside the EU. Challenges have arisen only in the few dozen cases where EU actions or court precedents put common names at risk. In fact, the concept of protecting a speciality product from a particular region is one that can work in any region of the world. We think this is an acceptable form of protection and can be potentially helpful to food producers within a specific region.
Unfortunately, however, the manner in which the EC has been expanding its interpretation of protections under the protected designation of origin (PDO) is extremely harmful to food producers both within and outside the EU. It is one thing to say that “Parmigiano Reggiano” is a protected term, and quite another to try to extend that protection to the common term “parmesan,” especially when an enormous amount of parmesan cheese is produced in many countries around the world.
It’s difficult to quantify the negative impact of such restrictions. For example, because of the EU’s aggressive efforts in its free trade agreement with South Korea, world suppliers — including those from developing countries, will no longer be able to sell asiago, feta, fontina or gorgonzola in Korea — at least not under those names. Such an action might protect a few food producers, but it will do more harm than good to growth in the marketplace. And it provides more harm than benefit to consumers.
Similarly, dairy producers in Central America have for decades used generic names to describe various types of cheese such as edam, cheddar, gouda, emmenthal and parmesan, among others. Many of them support the work of the CCFN, because they are concerned about the limitations that they’re already facing in using these names, and in how they might be even more limited in the future.

EU clarification
One of the biggest problems we’re facing is just how arbitrary the EC’s actions have been in this area. So to have the EC state plainly that the common names “mozzarella,” “brie”, “gouda”, “edam” and “cheddar” are indeed generic, and will not be confiscated solely for the use by certain European producers, is a welcome first step.
However, such clarification is only a small first step that highlights the enormous inherent flaws in the current system. Why is “gouda” declared safe, but not “feta” or “provolone”?
What about generic names like “havarti”, “parmesan”, “prosciutto” and “salami”? And commonly used adjectives such as “fine” and “vintage” on wine labels?
Today, unless the system explicitly designates a term as generic, we have to assume the scope of protection is extremely broad. It would be much more helpful and logical to develop a clear and reasonable scope of protection for GIs, something we believe the CCFN, the EU and others can all work on together. Our goal is to work with leaders worldwide in agriculture, trade and intellectual property rights, and to foster adoption of high-standard and model GI guidelines throughout the world.

Worldwide spread
We believe officials should always consider whether a name is in common usage before granting it protected status. Some factors to use in considering a term’s generic-ness might include:

• Whether the product associated with the term is produced or traded in significant quantities outside the proposed protected region;
• Whether the product in question is imported in significant quantities from outside the proposed protected region;
• Whether granting protection for the name to the proposed protected region would impair the value of market access concessions granted to other WTO members;
• Whether the Codex Alimentarius has adopted a standard of identity for the product;
• …and other similar considerations of a term’s common usage (these are listed more fully on www.CommonFoodNames.com).

For us, it is a particularly alarming development that the EU this year is attempting to provide GI protection to two cheese names common in large parts of the world (danbo and havarti) that have long had standards that were developed by the Codex Alimentarius, one of the international standards-setting bodies.

EU model
The EU is working with a number of countries around the world to strongly encourage development of GI systems that model the approach the EU has taken in this area. In its negotiations, the EU has adopted a standard approach to try to both develop GI systems and restrict the use of certain common food names. It concluded free-trade agreement (FTA) talks with South Korea, Colombia, Peru and Central America in the past few years and is currently negotiating with India, Brazil, Singapore, Malaysia and more than 30 other countries. It is likely to begin negotiations with Japan in the near future. It is also pressing some of the nearly 30 countries with which it already has trade agreements in place to accept new GI protections – a list that includes important economies such as Mexico, South Africa and Turkey.
Specifically, the EU is working with China to encourage development of a GI system that aligns with EU views. China already agreed to a “10 for 10” deal under which the two nations would swap and honor 10 of each of their GIs. The EU is also working to influence Japan’s consideration of a GI system through exploratory FTA discussions and separately with the country’s agricultural ministry to encourage the adoption of an EU-style GI system. It is also working to include such provisions in its FTA with Canada.
The issue of what comprises a protected term versus what is a common name, is very much alive and spreading around the world – and calls even more urgently for discussion and better guidelines concerning GIs.
In our short existence, we have been extremely successful in raising the issue in many countries. In fact, the consortium has already been invited to present about this topic in Asia and in Latin America. We look forward to doing considerably more outreach as the consortium moves forward.
The CCFN will continue to work to inform consumer groups, farmer associations, manufacturers, and agricultural, trade and intellectual property officials of the damage that will be caused in their own countries if efforts to restrict the use of common food names go unchecked.
I believe the timing is right for the CCFN, the EU and others to work together in an appropriate way on developing a clear and reasonable scope of protection for GIs. Together we have a real opportunity to foster the adoption of high-standard and model GI guidelines throughout the world.
We are in a window of time when we can still establish a collaborative effort with positive outcomes for both GI holders and users of generic names.

For further information please visit www.CommonFoodNames.com