And my point is that this is not true; that they are both, and it's important. So I guess we are disagreeing after all :)
I think a non-region tied version of this would be great, but "anything goes" is probably worse than current state.
Of course any sensible discussion about the producer protection side has to look at duties and quotas too, which makes things more complicated.
The "problem" is that typically when there is a strong food brand, it also has a strong geographic association, and so TSG is available only for lesser brands.
Can you see a world where consumers and producers are not in opposition, and actually have some alignment of interests?
I need to be able to tell the difference tho. My interest seem to be aligned with the producers.
I would have no problem with a definition of "feta" that focused on things like the ingredients, process or qualities of the resulting cheese. Those are the sorts of things that a law intended to protect consumers would focus on. Instead, the EU defines "feta" by region (with some ingredient and process requirements as well), which is simply an attempt to benefit producers. I just want a bit of honesty about what these sorts of laws are intended to achieve.
In my opinion, the "feta" geographical indication is a particularly absurd case, since "feta" is just the modern Greek name for a type of cheese that's been produced throughout the Balkans and in Turkey since time immemorial. Greek cheese-makers are lucky that their name for the cheese became international (as opposed, say, to the Serbo-Croat name for the cheese), and now they're cashing in on it.