A brief reflection on the wine case of the week, the resignation of Bruno Paillard as president of the Commission Protection de l’Appellation of Champagne. Because Europe needs more integration, especially in the food sector
The news of the resignation of Bruno Paillard as president of the Protection Commission of the Champagne “Appellation” was the case of the week.
Even before the cameras around the world were turning to Paris to watch the Bleus celebrations in the World Cup in Russia, where the Italian Prosecco went very well, wine France was at the center of the news for this resignation.
The decision to leave the presidency of the CIVC is due to the fact that, in the United States, the Appellation Champagne is not recognized.
Consequently, Americans can also define the “champagne” products that have nothing to do with the Région Champagne. And place the label that defines wines produced in America as such.
The network reports that Paillard, who is also a producer of Champagne, has resigned after the Palmer cooperative and TRU Estates and Vineyards have agreed. The goal was to distribute TRU’s champagne for the cooperative in the United States.
The fact is that Palmer sells grapes to many producers, including Paillard himself, and is part of the CIVC. TRU Estates and Vineyards, on the other hand, belongs to the colossal Constellation, which produces just those American sparkling wines that are then sold as champagne. A serious conflict of interests.
In reading of the Paillard case, I was reminded of the case of the Florentine steak a few years ago. A case that I was able to deepen a few months ago during a lecture with Prof. Luigi Cerciello Renna at the University of Salerno.
It was a lesson on safety and anti-counterfeiting of the wine sector, which I was able to follow thanks to my interest in the world of wine and the CPU in Wine Business directed by Prof. Festa.
In that lesson, dated September 22, 2017, it was reflected how the American legislation constitutes a single body of laws that Europe has not yet been able to put in place. In practice, if in the USA the law for the protection of wine products is only one from Oregon to Florida and from Maine to California, in the EU each country has its own laws.
The Fiorentina Bistecca case
So as not to go too far into an article about wine, I will mention quickly the case of the Florentine Steak, remembering that just a few years ago our agri-food product was defined as “carcinogenic” in the USA.
This is because the United States, after September 11, 2001, defined food as one of the 17 critical infrastructures likely to be the target of terrorist attacks, and made two category interventions, FOOD SAFETY and FOOD SECURITY, to protect US citizens from risk of ingesting harmful food.
Since the Florentine meat was susceptible, as also denounced by the WHO, to generate carcinogens with cooking, the Americans called it such, causing great damage to the Italian market of the famous steak in the world.
Italy, a member of the EU with its own unregulated continental laws found itself alone to fight against a colossus, and had to legislate internally to establish limits of tolerability on certain substances that can be found in food and which may be cancerous only if taken in certain high quantities.
Today the case is repeated with France of wine and with the Paillard case.
Paillard, who is a champenois, knew how to defend himself, although the case is far from being concluded. And France seems to be ahead both on the subject of legislation, and on a political level in a Europe that either has French leadership or is a German leader.
Italy must therefore be ready for extreme situations: it is not news that in China we are already selling a Taurasi that with our province of Avellino has nothing to do. And a battle against giants that close their eyes too quickly when it comes to their interests, it is a question now that is likely to always be the order of the day.