That's a interesting example – I totally agree with you in the general case, but I'd actually always thought of 'Greek yoghurt' the same way I thought of 'French fries'!

What would be an example of food that conforms to the "general case"?

Champagne. Parma ham. Balsamic vinegar from Modena. Cornish Yarg.

I'm not sure exactly why I've never thought of Greek yoghurt in the same way!

> To me, Greek Yoghurt has to come from greece, that's what I expect as a customer.

Why do you expect that? It can't be based on the name, since virtually all foods with an origin name were not actually made there. I'm pretty sure you don't expect Cheddar cheese to have come from Cheddar? Would you accept ordinary yoghurt that was imported from Greece being sold as "Greek Yoghurt"?

If I imported Camembert cheese from Cheddar, it would still be Camembert. If I imported Cheddar cheese from Hong Kong, it would be Cheddar. French toast sold at a Denny's in New Mexico was made in New Mexico, not France. Peking duck is duck prepared in a style characteristic of Peking, not any duck prepared in whatever style but sold in Peking. And Greek yoghurt is yoghurt prepared in a style characteristic of a Greek company that decided to sell thickened, sweetened yoghurt.

in many, many cases quality of original vs copy is really not the same, cheeses which require very long and specific processes to mature are a good example (ie I've yet to taste Gruyere that would be equal to original Swiss one with AOC stamp, French copies are pretty bland in comparison and not cheaper either). Same can go for virtually any type of food. And yes I would prefer original cheddar compared to some done by some john doe in next town 'following original recipes' and I would vote with my wallet for it.

it might be a strange concept for non-europeans, but for us, this is one of the best things that came from EU integration. if I buy a copy, I want to know it's a copy and not original. simple as that.

And if I buy "Napa Valley wine", it can come from Chile, right?

You can expect that because EU regulation requires it to be that way.

If that's the reason you expect it, the regulation is the sole justification for its own existence. I feel quite comfortable calling that "stupid".

It isn't a case of there being regulation for the sake of it, but rather that the regulation has come into existence off the back of decades of what customers have expected from their produce.

This is not about protectionism for producers, rather the protection of consumers. Noone is telling the consumers what to buy, merely telling them what they can expect when they buy.

To take the example of wine, consumers of Bordeaux wines have accepted that since the classification of growths in 1855 there is a formalised structure and hierarchy of producers. One can know that wine from a First growth will be superior in quality to a lesser growth. From looking at the wine label, a customer immediately can tell that the wine will be of a certain quality without having to take a gamble. Codifying this into EU law allows no other winemaker within the EU to produce a wine with a label that claims the wine is a First Growth Bordeaux. This is great for consumers.

The EU is not protecting producers in that anyone can make wine to compete with these Bordeaux wines but cannot 'piggyback' off of the 'brand' (for want of a better word) that Bordeaux has built for its producers.

Now matter how much you may want to get an authentic product, you can't expect to get it without regulation. As the article shows very well. Therefore the reason for the regulation can't be the expectation itself.

The reason for that regulation is a combination of protectionism on one side and a desire to be well informed about the products you're eating.