Champagne wines are wines of the Champagne region, not wines that bear a resemblance but are made elsewhere. This is one of many examples of protected designations of origin preserved in EU law, and which is recognised by most serious wine-producing countries outside the EU as well. Several, including Australia, Chile, and South Africa, have signed bilateral agreements recognizing these protected designations.
Here in Australia we make some excellent sparkling wines, often from the same grape varieties (Chardonnay and Pinot Noir) and using the same methods as Champagne, but they are NOT Champagne - in the same way that a full-bodied & tannic Cabernet Sauvignon from Margaret River or Coonawarra is NOT Bordeaux and a light, floral Pinot Noir from Tasmania or the Yarra Valley is NOT Burgundy.
The terroir, or land where Champagne comes from (Champagne, France) has special attributes in the way that it is traditionally made, the soil has a distinct makeup, and the sun hits the land at certain angles and distances.
Upholding the GI does not give Champagne, France a monopoly. People in other places can and should refer to similar products as sparkling wine to indicate a bubbly. But it is deceptive to see Champagne on a bottle when it is made elsewhere.
Only wines that come from the Champagne region of France should be allowed to be advertised as Champagne. Otherwise, a sparkling white wine should simply be referred to as such. It is difficult to choose from the many wines available on the market today, so labeling needs to be more consistent and accurate.
I feel that the wine is called "Champagne" because it originated in, and is technically only produced in, the Champagne region of France. It is only a true product, if it is produced in this region. I consider any other product labeled "Champagne", and produced elsewhere, to be a counterfeit product.
This should be a given; honestly, "champagne" means it came from Champagne, France. The Italian proseccos should be called sparkling wines since they're not crafted there. People should realize there is a difference; it'd be like calling a Trappist beer something made by a non-Trappist monk. There's a reason these things exist, and calling champagne "champagne" should be because it came from Champagne, France.
Many companies in different countries have the special right to produce Champagne. So anybody who wants to produce Champagne can produce it.
If Champagne wine production was opened to different regions, then everything that makes Champagne special would disappear. Because it is rare, it is special. The wine would lose some of its specialty if any Tom, Dick or Harry could make it. There are Champagne copycats, but there is something really unique with authentic Champagne.
The type of wine known as Champagne originally comes from a the region of Champagne in France, and that's how it got the name. Similar types of wine can be called "sparkling wine" and might be essentially the same thing, but because there are so many types of wine, and wine connoisseurs are very particular about the differences that distinguish the types of wine, it's better that the word Champagne be used only for one specific wine.
Champagne from the French region of Champagne should be the only Champagne labeled that way because the process, creation, and identity of Champagne are associated with that region. Other wines or types of champagne that are not manufactured in the same manner are copies of the original from the region. Champagne is part of the French national identity and should be protected as such and not allowed to be altered or made substandard while still labeled the same way.
Much like "bikini" or "band-aid" the word champagne has been used so much as a general term that it has lost the significance of the original meaning of wine from the Champagne region. While wine from that region does deserve some term to stand out from the rest of the similar products, champagne itself has become too much of a generic term.
Would you reserve the production of electrical power or gasoline to one corporation? No? Why? Because it would create a monopoly. The same is true of limiting the production of champagne wines to Champagne, France. By limiting it to one region, you naturally limit the number of suppliers, which gives them too much control over the product's price. Per supply and demand, if demand exceeds the supply for a given product, the price will naturally increase. Further, just imagine what would happen if a bad frost were to hit Champagne, France one year and wipe out the grape crop.
Champagne wine should not be limited to the French region of Champagne. Much like other products that are popular, champagne has become to consumers a bubbly drink, rather than an exclusive wine specific to a region in France. Other products that have gone through similar evolutions are Jello, Frisbees and Velcro, where the products, and similar products, are known by the brand name.
Champagne wine was called this because it was first produced in the French regions of Champagne. The name should have nothing to do with where it can and can not be produced. Anyone who knows how to produce Champagne should have the right to produce it, regardless of where they are at.
There is no reason that "Champagne" wine production should be reserved solely to the French region of Champagne. It is ridiculous to reserve production of a product to a specific region, solely because that region shares the name of a product. There is no practical or economic reason to do this for any product, including Champagne wine production in the French region of Champagne.
France would be dominating the market on champagne, and therefore dictating the price on it. Market domination is a bad idea. Plus, it's a free world, and people should be able to produce it if they want to.
Champagne may have originated in Champage, France, but the creating of it is a process which can occur anywhere. That area can only produce so much of the wine and production should be expanded. This doesn't mean that I'm against standards for Champagne, but that can be regulated/controlled anywhere in the world.
If other parts of France or other countries can produce "Champagne", they should be able to do it. As long as bottles are marked, that should be satisfactory. Then consumers can order "Champagne" or just Champagne. And "Champagne" wine production could still be number one because it is the best. Or someone else may do the job better.
The title "Champagne" should be not be reserved solely for the French region of Champagne. If a company had trademarked ?Champagne? then I would have a different opinion but Champagne is considered the same as ?cabernet? and ?chardonnay? and gives the buying customer an idea of what they are purchasing and not a violation of trade name or an implication of the region. A similar type case to this is ?gorgonzola? cheese that is blue cheese made in a special region. While the taste is somewhat different than a normal blue cheese, you could also say that all blues are somewhat different and Gorgonzola has gone out of the way to differentiate the region from the type of cheese. Champagne has not been differentiated like this.
If others can make champagne, then they should be allowed to produce that product. There is not a product around that is localized to a single location anymore. It's called free enterprise, and we should be able to produce anywhere, if a company can make it. French fries are not made solely in France, so champagne shouldn't be either.
I disagree with this statement, because champagne wine is consumed worldwide and, therefore, it should be made worldwide. It would be interesting to try the different variations of champagne, based on whom is making it. Yes, champagne did start out in France, but it should not be limited to France.