Brexit name game
Champagne, parmesan, prosecco and feta could soon be at the centre of Brexit negotiations, report Enrico Bonadio, senior lecturer in law at the University of London, and Marc Mimler, lecturer in law at Bournemouth University.
AS the Brexit deadline approaches, one issue that remains unresolved is the way food and beverage names will be protected in Britain and the EU. From parmesan and feta to Cornish pasties and Bavarian beer, the EU is fiercely protective over protected designations of origin or protected geographical indications. Pressure on Britain by the United States to drop the protections only makes the situation more complicated.
AS Brexit day creeps closer, one issue that remains unresolved is the way food names will be protected in Britain and the EU. From parmesan and feta to Cornish pasties and Bavarian beer, the EU is fiercely protective over protected designations of origin (PDOs) or protected geographical indications (PGIs).
Some highly popular products are protected under this legal framework that dictates certain products can only be produced in certain regions. So champagne must be produced in the Champagne region of France and prosecco in a small pocket of northeastern Italy.
These are products with big market shares in the UK, with consumer loyalty being built up and consolidated through the use of these reputable geographical names.
The issue is also important to the UK. Many British products are also protected under the EU regime. It helps protect both their quality and value.
But when the UK leaves the EU, it will no longer be under the laws that govern the protective status of these products. The Government’s recently launched white paper, which outlined the UK’s plans for Brexit, declares Britain will set up its own protection of geographical names to provide for continuous protection of UK products within the UK. But it does not mention any continuation of the EU’s protection scheme.
Some in Brussels have expressed fear that British producers will start exploiting previously protected European names. Yet, rather ironically, British products would not lose their status in the EU (and could still seek new EU registrations in the future), since the EU allows for the protection of geographical names from nonEU countries. It is an imbalance which seems to please British negotiators.
The European Commission fears that after Brexit the high level of protection European products at present enjoy in the UK under EU law may evaporate. The white paper proposal rather contrasts with the commission’s proposal, which suggests the UK continue protecting geographical indications, as it does under the EU.
US interference
But the EU’s desire that postBrexit Britain keep its protection of geographical indications is bound to collide with US strategic interests. The US position is an important factor to take into account in the Brexit negotiations. If the UK signs a trade deal with the US, it is likely to clash with a lot of EU regulations — including provisions governing the use of geographical names for food and beverages.
The US plays by different rules when it comes to the protection of these names. There are numerous US food companies that freely use European geographical expressions (including parmesan and feta for cheese) to identify products that have not been produced in the relevant European locations.
In the US, these are considered to be generic names that describe the products and cannot be monopolised by anyone, not even by the producers coming from the relevant European geographical area.
That is why the US is lobbying the UK to abandon the EU’s protection of geographical indications, namely to allow US food and beverage companies to enter the British market by freely using European names. A USUK trade deal would probably be contingent on the UK dropping the EUlevel protection of geographical indications. But this, in turn, would scupper the prospects of a trade deal with the EU — an even bigger trading partner for the UK.
Sticking point
The EU has continuously placed great emphasis on the protection of its geographical names during trade negotiations. It proved to be a big sticking point in the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) negotiations. France and Greece, for example, threatened to veto a deal with the US unless it upheld their geographical indications. More recently, Italy’s minister for agriculture noted that Italy may not ratify the EU’s trade deal with Canada because, in his view, it does not adequately protect Italian geographical names.
It is, therefore, not a stretch to say that the entire Brexit deal could hinge on the issue of geographical indications. There is no doubt that providing a level of protection in the UK which is comparable to the current EU scheme — for example, via a mutual EU/UK recognition scheme — would help achieve an agreement not only on the specific issue of geographical names, but also of the entire Brexit deal.
This would, however, make favourable trade agreements between the UK and the US less likely. The battle over geographical indications will surely go on. — theconversation.com