The socialcommunist government of Spain is too busy hiding the people they murdered during this plague because of their gross mishandling of the situation, they have no time left to save any of the strategic sectors of the country.
If there's fury in Spain, certainly I'm not aware, first time hearing about this. I doubt they can get it right, even here in Spain most jamón sold is not ibérico de bellota but just ibérico, or not even that. You have the classification here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jam%C3%B3n_ib%C3%A9rico#Commer...
The difference with the real thing (black label) is night and day. This will possible be a passable "jamón ibérico" like the one you can buy here in the supermarket, this is, the pigs are from the ibérico race but they are not fed the traditional way. It's not bad but trust me, at least once get yourself a true black-label "100% ibérico de bellota", if it can be imported into the US.
US import regulations make it extremely difficult to import non-canned meat products from foreign countries. IIRC, the foreign producer has to allow USDA inspectors on site.
"Produced in the Valle de los Pedroches, a region in Southern Spain, the ham is from Iberico Breed pigs that are fed a vegetarian diet of acorn and grass and raised free-range..."
Also I would add that it's completely disingenuous to describe this operation as "US Plans" as though this were some sinister plot by the US Federal Government to destroy the market for this beloved Spanish meat product. This is a pair of ventures which have been undertaken by Spanish-American farmers. These farmers are completely within their rights to raise pigs this way. As long as they don't call it jamón ibérico de bellota, they should be fine.
Depends on whether the organization that approves the labeling has a trademark on it. If it's a trademarked phrase, you can't sell it with that label at all.
All I would say is that Texas raises some of the best beef in the world (Grass Fed Organic Beef Cattle). They also have a world renown Agricultural University (Texas A&M). There is plenty of experience in Animal husbandry and no shortage of resources including Acorns, there are probably millions of Oaks throughout Texas.
If they choose to they will be able to make black-label as good as any.
Texas is a huge state, of course there's a bit of everything. You can absolutely find some of the best beef in the world there. You can also find some so-so, or even bad beef. I don't think OP's statement is wrong, but also shouldn't be read as 'all beef from Texas is best'. Same with Brazil and Argentina, I'm sure.
Meanwhile I've never tasted Argentinian beef that doesn't taste like shoe leather. I had it in the Alsace and it was the worst steak I've ever had at a good restaurant. I should have known better and gotten the pork. Sampling bias is a thing.
My take in this is that a company that takes pride in their work and really has the ability to produce great products would develop their own flavor rather than calling it "Iberian ham". There is almost always something nefarious behind copying regional products.
To give an example, I've bought plenty of "feta style" cheese over the years and not a single one was as good as real Greek feta. I wouldn't mind buying "feta" by Arla if they produced the same quality, but they don't. There are also sometimes other things to consider, e.g. the Iberian porco preto is free-ranging, and I also prefer it because of that. (Note that many "porco preto" products only contain some percentage, you need to make sure it's 100% porco preto.)
Don't get me wrong, I agree that there should be no reason they couldn't produce great ham in Texas. But if they have a good product they don't need to copy something from Europe.
> I doubt they can get it right, even here in Spain most jamón sold is not ibérico de bellota but just ibérico, or not even that.
The best producers in Spain have very little to worry about as long as they continue to produce a high-quality product. It's the others that have to worry - selling a mediocre product internationally at a high price. These farmers in the US are certainly aiming at them and their profit margin.
Someday, they may be able to produce a product on par with the best of Spain. But then they will just join the club rather than push the Spanish producers out of business.
Every Tom, Dick, and Harry can already be selling "jamón ibérico" because the USA does not in general recognize protected origins (viz. the sawdust that gets sold as "parmesan" over there)---there's no integrity to protect. In places that recognize protected origin using the same pigs wouldn't allow you to sell under the name jamón ibérico anyway. So blame the feckless governments that think names should only be protected when it suits them.
Trademarks on food are fine. Trying to copyright an animal is... I really don't have the words.
From the article "must come from Iberian blackfoot pigs that spend the last months of their lives eating acorns on the dehesa, a traditional Spanish or Portuguese pasture shaded by mature oak trees"
It's all of those conditions required. I'm not making any judgements, just pointing out.
Unsolicited suggestion for those who have recently vested: California certainly has plenty of land suitable for operating a dehesa...
("Remember, it's only tear gas if it comes from the Gazeuse Region of France and bears the CS label. Otherwise you're only being treated to sparkling mass repression at the hands of the State.")
Pigs can eat acorns, lots of other mammals can't without pre-treatment. I know Texas and Georgia have a feral pig problem, which would indicate a biome that can support them...I don't recall CA having a similar pig issue; but maybe they haven't gotten there yet.
Can confirm, CA oak woodlands have a feral pig issue. They're quite destructive and tear up my property certain times of year, digging for grubs. Folks hunt them here (about an hour north of SF, west of Davis). The meat is pretty dry.
> He is furious with the failure of the Spanish government to protect jamón’s integrity and allow native blackfoot pigs to be exported to the United States.
> Martínez rejects the argument that, as a variety, the blackfoot pig can’t be protected by a denomination the way champagne and parmesan cheese are, pointing out that the Japanese wagyu enjoys just this sort of protection.
They are trying to set limits on where the pig is allowed to be brought. Not "the pigs must be from so-and-so region to be Iberian blackfoot pigs", but "Iberian blackfoot pigs must not be allowed to be exported [from Iberia I suppose?]". I'd say that copyright and software licenses are an apt metaphor for what they're trying to do.
No the best metaphor is trademark. When you buy an Apple product, you don't expect some cheap Chinese rip off inside of a package with an Apple logo. Same here, except that the trademark doesn't belong to a corporation.
Quoting myself: Trademarks on food are fine. That matches onto parmesan, champagne, etc. I'm all for it. That has nothing to do with restricting the export of the pigs. Protect the name, sure. Don't let them call it jamón ibérico armericano [sic]. But let them have the pigs and see what they can do with it.
But then again, they (spanish) have no problem buying around 90% of the portuguese production of purebred black iberian pigs, undercutting local producers and then calling it their own.
I couldn't find figures, but remember from talks from producers that around 30-40% of Spanish Iberian Ham is actually from portuguese pigs raised in alentejo (the 90% figure above can be found in export reports, the 30-40% is hearsay from talking and negotiating with the producers a few years ago)
Hey, no problem. I might even be wrong in those values, but were the ones I found.
4-5 years ago I was working with a lot of breeders here, and they all complained that the 'low' development work was done by them, but the 'high' product as the smoked/dried hams were from spanish producers.
Portugal always had this issue where we can 'produce' the lower chain stuff, but getting into the higher chain marketplace has been an issue. It is a shame really.
But having said that, I lived in the south of Spain (andalucia) for a while, and I love you guys. Even if you pretend you don't understand us :P, it was some of the most fun and happy times I had.
I did say "in general". Champagne is a recent thing. Parmesan still isn't (Parmiggiano-Reggiano is, but come on that's like saying Köln is different from Cologne). In Napa Valley we bought a case of "port". It was good stuff and I'd buy it again, but it's not port anymore than a Pixel is an iPhone.
The US does recognize certain protected origin products, just like the EU does. The lists of items aren't the same though. "Parmesan" cheese is not protected in the US but "Parmigiano-Reggiano" is.
Parmesan didn't used to be protected over here either - only Parmigiano-Reggiano was. The trouble is that most people didn't actually care about whether the parmesan they tossed in their cooking was the expensive, geographically-controlled stuff or some cheaper local imitation. So cheese producers went on a legal battle to leverage their control over the Parmigiano-Reggiano name into a monopoly on parmesan itself, one which they succeeded in with the help of some political favours from the European Commission, and now there's no legally-usable generic name for this style of cheese in the EU. This whole thing was, of course, intensely political.
If you are vegetarian due to moral concerns you may consider whitelisting jamon iberico de bellota. They live much better than we do.
The production of jamon iberico de bellota is strictly regulated, among other things each pig has to have at least 12500 m^2 of their natural habitat (dehesa) to roam freely and eat from the oak trees. That's what gives the meat the intense taste and infiltrated fat, the pigs grow freely roaming vast areas of their natural habitat and eat what they love most.
I'm not so much against killing animals than about letting a pig have a decent pig's life[0] and not allowing it to suffer when it's killed. It is a slippery slope though, and there are other ethical considerations such as the great inefficiency of producing animals for food when so many elsewhere can't get enough to eat. So perhaps and perhaps not. I guess for the latter reason I'll have to say no, but thanks for a constructive and helpful answer.
[0] Other animals and their lifestyles are available..
They are great inefficiencies for industrially produced meat, but all cow or pig that are let free to feed are more efficient as most of the land they are feeding on cannot be used to grow something useful.
“Spanish businessmen suspect that the Chinese Government might have copied their «jamón» production methods during an inspection made in 2008 by a group of oriental technicians in some of their factories. The objective of that visit was to check the manufacturing conditions of that product to authorize its export to the asian country. But at the beginning of 2010, the first Chinese hams arrived in the market.”
https://www.abc.es/tecnologia/abci-jamon-china-201111280000_...
In the USA they typically do something different: put the name in whatever product that barely resembles the original, like they did with their “manchego” cheese, a label put in all kinds of cheese-like products.
As for the Chinese ham, their propaganda reached even German TV where a supposed documentary (Galileo) claimed that Spanish «jamón» was brought from China by Marco Polo. Never mind that the Romans already knew it and there was a 2000 y.o. ham found in Conesa, Catalonia: https://www.incarlopsa.es/mundo-jamon/historia-jamon
I’m sure they can produce excellent meat products in Texas; they just shouldn’t call it “ibérico” as it isn’t, just call it “texan ham” or even “jamón tejano” which actually sounds quite good!
It's a specific cheese, but I think it's the one that the original commenter is seeing - it tastes much more "normal" to Americans than Spanish manchego, and I've never seen the label on anything other than the two kinds.
A very specific variety of the most genericized melting cheese in the entire country which isn’t even kind of close to queso manchego in Spain, but the previous commenter already mentioned it was “a specific kind” of cheese anyways.
I have never been to Texas but in Lockdown March I had some meat delivered from there to California as I was avoiding the supermarket, and wow, it was really great.
I would totally buy “Jamon Tejano” at Whole Paycheck.
Agreed! Also I am genuinely interested in finding out: what is the difference between “finishing” the pigs with peanuts and sunflower vs. acorns. That difference could be highlighted as an “American” take in the process. Variety is good!
Well to me it would mean Ibérico ham not produced in Spain but in Texas using a very similar method, what about it doesn't make sense? It's also not really different from what's mentioned in the article where they say: "It will be marketed as jamón ibérico armericano or Ibericus meat."
Non-Ibérico ham is usually called "jamón serrano".
So logically, ham made in Texas from Black Iberian pigs could be called Texan Iberico. But I like the ring of "jamón tejano" -- I would certainly buy that! (Texas has a positive halo effect when it comes to meat products)
>In the USA they typically do something different: put the name in whatever product that barely resembles the original, like they did with their “manchego” cheese, a label put in all kinds of cheese-like products.
For many cheeses they don't have much off a choice. Since (young) raw milk cheeses can't be sold in the states they try to get as close as they can, but usually only succeed in looks, rarely in taste.
> You cannot help it, Signor Sarsi, that it was granted to me alone to discover all the new phenomena in the sky and nothing to anybody else! This is the truth which neither malice nor envy can suppress!
There were plenty of people working in the field (most well-known Harriot, Marius, Fabricius, Scheiner), but Galileo does not seem to have thought much of them.
Grassi published a work on comets in 1618, and Galileo read it. We still have Galileo's copy, which in the margins has the following notes: “piece of asininity”, “elephantine”, “buffoon”, “evil poltroon”, “ungrateful villain”. He was not a fan. (Grassi was more correct on this topic.)
For all of Galileo's intelligence, he was a somewhat of an ass, and alienated a lot of people. His Il Saggiatore (The Assayer) was an attack of Grassi's view; Grassi responded with Assagiatore (Winetaster—insinuating that Galileo was drunk when you wrote his book).
Academics (and politics) was a blood sport back then.
Galileo did a lot of good work, but at the end of the day, I'm not sure we needed him for progress to have been made. The word "revolutionary" being used towards Copernicus' heliocentrism is probably warranted. Tycho Brahe's hard work in making observations were key in the effort, and it was Johannes Kepler's idea of breaking free of circular orbits (that everyone else was using) over to elliptical ones that was a real innovation in modelling.
(Galileo preferred the Copernican system, while Grassi preferred Tychonic. Kepler, with elliptical orbits, ended up being correct.)
I’m the one that mentioned China, and I see what you mean.
I did it to put it in context, as from my perspective (I’m Spanish although I live in Germany) this conflict is part of a wider phenomenon of appropriating the fame of products from my homeland.
The USA and China are those I can point fingers at, since the other big market, the European Union, protects those “designations of origin”:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geographical_indications_and_t...
I really dislike that the US took the name 'Cheddar' and applied it to basically mean generic cheese with no other characteristics. Traditional Cheddar is a great cheese with its own merits.
Something like the sharper Cabot cheddars aren't bad for a day-to-day cheese. But it certainly is a completely different cheese than artisanal long-aged cheddars whether from the UK or the US.
Swiss cheese is produced in the US and hamburgers are not always from Hamburg. I don't really see the problem. If consumers want to know where it's from then the country of origin can be included on the package.
Sure! Then let me then sell my own kind of iPhone. For Apple it's enough to write on the package that is made in California to make the consumers aware /s
In American English when you name a food you are referencing the source of the cuisine, not the literal source of the ingredients themselves. If I saw Iberian Ham at the store, I would assume it tastes like the Spanish product, not that it is from Spain. I would assume “jamón tejano” was some sort of Texas BBQ.
China buys a large amount of our pork-based products, to boot, if they were the source they wouldn't want our ham so bad.
There are rumors that we are selling them most of the best stuff and then we get lower quality leftovers for local consumption, even, but I have seen no formal evidence for this yet. Although it might explain why it's so much lower quality lately.
That Guardian article helped me understand why I’ve heard Americans say ‘French Champagne’ - I thought it could only be called Champagne when from that region but apparently not in the US.
it's more of a classification than a product, and the location is part of the definition. similarly, whiskey cannot be sold as "bourbon" if it is not from US or "scotch" unless it is actually from scotland.
the problem (EDIT: usually) is that they do not market it as "californian champagne", just "champagne", i.e. they mislead the consumer into thinking they are buying something when they are buying something else.
The California producers do have to label it as "California champagne" by law. And only those already producing "champagne" before the treaty can use the label.
It is done here [1] because the winery used "Champagne" long, long before the 2005 US-EU agreement about origin names as trademarks. Generally it isn't done.
The geography is essential for the taste flavour and aroma.
This is not a synthetic crop, it is defined by the land it grows on and the tradition of the local makers.
Something that amuses me is that we have this modern dispute over a product named for its region, when the region Champagne is itself named after another farming region, Campania in Italy. (Campania roughly means "happy/fertile countryside".)
Actually it's not stupid, it's about what's locally produced and the characteristics the product gets from the region (weather/soil/seasons/etc).
Something made elsewhere can be similar? Yes it can, it's a whine. Will it be the same? I doubt it.
The region is known to produced it since roman times, adopted by french royalty for more than 1000 years... but because it's a region shouldn't be entitled to it?
If Champagne is a whine, why not call it Californian Foamy White Whine?
Seems like this could all be resolved if you just called it "Champagne-style". Makes it clear that you're trying to reproduce the same qualities and also that it's not an official expert of the region.
Even better, stop referring to it exclusively by the location, as if Champagne, France is not capable of producing other wines. Then you can have "Champagne sparkling white wine" and "California sparkling white wine" (or even "Champagne-style California sparkling white wine"). Of course, colloquially people will still refer to it as champagne, but I'm talking about what's printed on the bottle / marketed.
>Seems like this could all be resolved if you just called it "Champagne-style". Makes it clear that you're trying to reproduce the same qualities and also that it's not an official expert of the region.
Well some cultures have different words specifically for that.
>Even better, stop referring to it exclusively by the location, as if Champagne, France is not capable of producing other wines.
I don't understand this part, because I see no where implicit that Champagne doesn't have the capacity of producing other wines, just by calling Champagne to Champagne.
For example, where I'm from - Portugal - we make the distinction between Champagne and "sparkling wine" (I couldn't find a better translation, the word is Espumante) - even if the outcome is an attempt to make it similar to Champagne, it's not champagne. It's two different words that define different things.
You go to a restaurant you ask for Champagne, you get Champagne. You ask for Sparkling Wine, you get Sparkling Whine.
Because when you buy Champagne you want wine with particular properties that are particular from the region. If you don't like Champagne, you don't want wine with those qualities and you ask for something else that is not Champagne, but yet can still be a white wine with foam.
Plus you talk about this like this is a gimmick.
It's not something "new", it's been like this for centuries, it's in our dictionary. Not mandated by law, or trademarks, - it wasn't a marketer that woke up one day and decided to make that "growth hack" - it's cultural.
To us it's like calling two distinct fishes the same name just because they are blueish and have spots.
Same for example, to Porto. Porto Wine is done Porto region, has a particular taste. You have other liquors, but Porto is Porto.
The issue isn't so much that there are / are not geographic monopolies, but
that you have 2 different IP/economic/governance models expecting to be speaking
the same language -
Appellations are connected to producers associations which ultimately have their roots in feudalism/guilds/etc. Generally, it's not the region that promotes an appellation, it's the producers association of that product/region.
Producers associations are essentially a "cartel" in modern economic terms which would be illegal under modern IP/economic regulatory regimes. Where appellations are used, this is not the case, and the associations are allowed certain legal space, some of which include creating appellations, which to some extent provide a way to 'brand' and so add value to otherwise commodity products.
So, to allow for appellations, you create some provision in the legal system to recognize them. However, since allowing appellations ultimately means granting some political legitimacy to organically occurring cartel-like organizations rooted in feudalism, this can be problematic if using a post-feudal legal framework. The US comes down more radically anti-feudal and pro capitalist in it's legal code than other western countries, and so you have more resistance to appellations.
In this model, 'champagne' itself is the brand and the trademark. Nothing else is champagne. Unfortunately, no specific entity 'owns' this brand, because the 'brand' was developed according to an informal patchwork of local organizations, customs and traditions, and so you have some systems (e.g. USA) denying the legitimacy of the claims to the 'brand'/'trademark' since it isn't 'owned' by 'someone'.
Apparently Champagne is more than just a geographic monopoly, it's basically a state-sanctioned supply fixing cartel which is how the prices are kept so high: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-53726987
It's already nearly impossible to find jamón ibérico, much less de bellota, in even the expensive U.S. grocery stores. This will hurt Spanish sales much more in the developing markets where it's more in demand. America will just keep eating its crappy knockoff products like it always has, and you'll still be able to special order the real thing for a small fortune.
A bit ironic to see Spaniards afraid their natural resource are stolen from them and be made available on the South American market. I mean, it's not like they did the same with Avocado, tomato and so on and so forth. Not to mention all the gold from South America.
That being said, today's Spanish farmers are not responsible for their ancestors deeds. However, true "Pata Negra" ham is actually so expensive, I don't think people who used to buy the real thing will buy the cheap American alternative instead as it doesn't have the Omega-9, taste and status. Only people who randomly bought super expensive Pata Negra and now decide to get the cheap alternative could affect their revenue, no idea how much this would make up.
> A bit ironic to see Spaniards afraid their natural resource are stolen from them and be made available on the South American market. I mean, it's not like they did the same with Avocado, tomato and so on and so forth. Not to mention all the gold from South America.
This is not twitter, leave your 500 years old hatchet by the door.
Your comparison has nothing to do with the subject at hand. The problem is a country allowing the counterfeit production of an inferior product that will both impact sales and undermine the brand, very much like shitty “Parmesan” does to Italian Parmigiano. Ironically the USA has a hard on for intellectual property protection but seems to be very casual about this type of IP crime.
I don't know if I'd call it "IP crime": (1) copyright protection does not apply to methods of food production; (2) the methods existed long before patents were invented; and (3) the American producers don't intend to use the term "jamon iberico de bellota" so there's no trademark violation (to the extent trademark protection might even apply here).
I know what you mean though; there's still something skeezy about it because it exploits consumer confusion. Hooray American capitalism.
Eh I don't mind it too much. Once everyone writes jambon iberico on it you will have a minefield of quality. In the end people who want to avoid this problem will get their stuff from controlled origins.
Although I do enjoy the hypocrisy of the US considering brand name and image is everything there. Companies and government are especially keen on being punitive against trademark abuse. Yet many people there try to piggy-back on other products' success (e.g. Parmesan and Champagne)
All “Jamón ibérico” should be sold trough an authorised spanish website owned by the Jamon consortium and they should keep 15 to 30 % of all sales. It has been done before with fruit.
I bet you could write a compelling screen play with significant social commentary about an accidental billionaire with a very simple, straight forward outlook on society and how he chooses to deploy his resources.
It’s always the same. Information and packaging. If you don’t know which labels and exactly which denominations to look for you may be eating something that’s not exactly what you expect. And that’s sad because it affects the reputation of great products with a long history and dedication. But that happens also even in the country of origin. There are various types of Ham in Spain, some people have only tried the ‘worst’ (compared to the best) and don’t know which is the denomination of the best (100% iberian, black tag). Maybe you’ve tasted the lowest category one and you don’t like it but you can love the higher-end ones, the difference is quite big. Also, there’s olive oil sold as Italian, that comes from Spain. But it seems like Italians are the only ones that produce it.
There are articles about edulterated parmesan being sold in USA where they even found wood, there’s a whole mafia about that. All that while there’s great products being made by centuries old farms and hard working farmers. It’s OK if the US wants to produce ham but they should make it clear it’s not the same and avoid confusion.
PS: I think ‘5 jotas’ is the most international brand of iberian products, try their ham or other iberian derived products, they are one of the best available.
Yes, if some US famers want to do some Iberico-style ham, they should be able to, but they cannot call it Iberico.
They should build their brand, and not confuse consumers with a geographically based label that is clearly not accurate.
They should compete on their own merit and quality, and not rely on a brand that took centuries to build. I would be fine if they label it as "Iberico-style ham" or "prepared the Iberico way", just not call it Iberico. Actually, if they plan to deviate from the original recipe (i.e. using different nuts) because they think it is better then Iberico, then they should differentiate themselves from Iberico. Unless using different nuts is a way to cut cost, and they still want to label it Iberico ?
I think protectionism of food culture / products needs to be eradicated.
I don't see why we can't make Pizza Nappoletana in Delhi, Camembert Cheese in Valdosta, Wagyu cows in Cape Town without pissing off people who have even passed laws to prevent others from copying the style.
Like there was a restaurant owner that trademarked "Taco Tuesday" and tried to sue the US Navy for their misuse in Aircraft carrier canteens. That didn't go well.
For example, some years ago the Indian government sued and won a case against a Texas company (owned by the Prince of Liechtenstein) that got a patent on Basmati rice:
What prevents the controlled origin authority from registering a trademark? Why can't the Spanish government or the relevant consortium trademark jamón ibérico?
Yeahhh I care enough about this to tell you all that I don't care about this
The article was pretty spot on:
> However, the US has tended to be cavalier about such things.
My real thoughts are that many European cuisine customs are arbitrary and ignorable. Okay, a tradition of end of life pigs eating acorns and drying their meats for 36 months, and then later you found out that there was a certain omega fat created from this process? Yeah, get outta here. To me, this is right up there with Sardinia poisonous maggot cheese.
There is also a possibility that people might like this offbrand version more, taste wise. We are about to fortune cookie Spanish cuisine. (Fortune cookies origins have competing claims from multiple Americans, Japan and China in the same time period and at this point it doesn't matter. Its an American-Chinese-American novelty, yay globalization!)
Well, I woudn't call a true Texan BBQ one made from a MCDonalds's or Burger King franchise in Spain. Or by a local Castillian farm passing the meat as a Texan one, even if both have a similar meat culture historically because of the Castillian influence in the Southern US.
havent there already been countryhams raised on acorns in the usa? why so much clamor about the spanish ones? if I recall, people have been doing this on the east coast since the colonial era
If Texas has acorn, grass and a low humidity climate year around where the hams can be dried in optimal conditions, I can't see why they wouldn't succeed.
This is just about salting the right ham type and letting it dry at the right conditions. Not exactly rocket science.
Reminds me of this story, where "Basmati" rice, sold with pictures of Taj Mahal on the packaging, is actually grown in Texas. "Basmati" is an Indian name for a variety of rice.
136 comments
[ 3.3 ms ] story [ 184 ms ] threadThe difference with the real thing (black label) is night and day. This will possible be a passable "jamón ibérico" like the one you can buy here in the supermarket, this is, the pigs are from the ibérico race but they are not fed the traditional way. It's not bad but trust me, at least once get yourself a true black-label "100% ibérico de bellota", if it can be imported into the US.
I think it is only in recent years that it was allowed for import though.
"Produced in the Valle de los Pedroches, a region in Southern Spain, the ham is from Iberico Breed pigs that are fed a vegetarian diet of acorn and grass and raised free-range..."
Also I would add that it's completely disingenuous to describe this operation as "US Plans" as though this were some sinister plot by the US Federal Government to destroy the market for this beloved Spanish meat product. This is a pair of ventures which have been undertaken by Spanish-American farmers. These farmers are completely within their rights to raise pigs this way. As long as they don't call it jamón ibérico de bellota, they should be fine.
Why? In the USA that should be allowed, I believe. They just wouldn’t be able to export with that labeling.
If they choose to they will be able to make black-label as good as any.
That's too bad. Where are you shopping?
An example of 1 of 1000's of small ranches scattered through out the state.
Even the Grocery stores carry local grass fed beef that is incredibly affordable and absolutely delicious.
https://zbarcattle.com/
The breed of cattle
https://zbarcattle.com/pages/our-cattle
I tried to order their prime ribeye, but it's sold out. Can you recommend some other places where I can purchase and get it shipped?
To give an example, I've bought plenty of "feta style" cheese over the years and not a single one was as good as real Greek feta. I wouldn't mind buying "feta" by Arla if they produced the same quality, but they don't. There are also sometimes other things to consider, e.g. the Iberian porco preto is free-ranging, and I also prefer it because of that. (Note that many "porco preto" products only contain some percentage, you need to make sure it's 100% porco preto.)
Don't get me wrong, I agree that there should be no reason they couldn't produce great ham in Texas. But if they have a good product they don't need to copy something from Europe.
The best producers in Spain have very little to worry about as long as they continue to produce a high-quality product. It's the others that have to worry - selling a mediocre product internationally at a high price. These farmers in the US are certainly aiming at them and their profit margin.
Someday, they may be able to produce a product on par with the best of Spain. But then they will just join the club rather than push the Spanish producers out of business.
Trademarks on food are fine. Trying to copyright an animal is... I really don't have the words.
They're not.
From the article "must come from Iberian blackfoot pigs that spend the last months of their lives eating acorns on the dehesa, a traditional Spanish or Portuguese pasture shaded by mature oak trees"
It's all of those conditions required. I'm not making any judgements, just pointing out.
("Remember, it's only tear gas if it comes from the Gazeuse Region of France and bears the CS label. Otherwise you're only being treated to sparkling mass repression at the hands of the State.")
Help help, I'm being repressed.
> Martínez rejects the argument that, as a variety, the blackfoot pig can’t be protected by a denomination the way champagne and parmesan cheese are, pointing out that the Japanese wagyu enjoys just this sort of protection.
They are trying to set limits on where the pig is allowed to be brought. Not "the pigs must be from so-and-so region to be Iberian blackfoot pigs", but "Iberian blackfoot pigs must not be allowed to be exported [from Iberia I suppose?]". I'd say that copyright and software licenses are an apt metaphor for what they're trying to do.
I couldn't find figures, but remember from talks from producers that around 30-40% of Spanish Iberian Ham is actually from portuguese pigs raised in alentejo (the 90% figure above can be found in export reports, the 30-40% is hearsay from talking and negotiating with the producers a few years ago)
4-5 years ago I was working with a lot of breeders here, and they all complained that the 'low' development work was done by them, but the 'high' product as the smoked/dried hams were from spanish producers.
Portugal always had this issue where we can 'produce' the lower chain stuff, but getting into the higher chain marketplace has been an issue. It is a shame really.
But having said that, I lived in the south of Spain (andalucia) for a while, and I love you guys. Even if you pretend you don't understand us :P, it was some of the most fun and happy times I had.
The production of jamon iberico de bellota is strictly regulated, among other things each pig has to have at least 12500 m^2 of their natural habitat (dehesa) to roam freely and eat from the oak trees. That's what gives the meat the intense taste and infiltrated fat, the pigs grow freely roaming vast areas of their natural habitat and eat what they love most.
[0] Other animals and their lifestyles are available..
In this case, one could almost think of the product as supporting a nature reserve.
In the USA they typically do something different: put the name in whatever product that barely resembles the original, like they did with their “manchego” cheese, a label put in all kinds of cheese-like products.
As for the Chinese ham, their propaganda reached even German TV where a supposed documentary (Galileo) claimed that Spanish «jamón» was brought from China by Marco Polo. Never mind that the Romans already knew it and there was a 2000 y.o. ham found in Conesa, Catalonia: https://www.incarlopsa.es/mundo-jamon/historia-jamon
I’m sure they can produce excellent meat products in Texas; they just shouldn’t call it “ibérico” as it isn’t, just call it “texan ham” or even “jamón tejano” which actually sounds quite good!
I would totally buy “Jamon Tejano” at Whole Paycheck.
Loads of garbage PUFA.
Plus the original suggestion does make it clear what it's supposed to be similar to: normal texan ham would be called "ham".
That is not from the Iberian peninsula. This is like having a sticker "intel" on a computer when there is no intel inside, but an equivalent AMD chip.
For people whose geography / chip knowledge is low, the difference may seem superficial. Doesn't mean the advertising is correct though.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jam%C3%B3n
Non-Ibérico ham is usually called "jamón serrano".
So logically, ham made in Texas from Black Iberian pigs could be called Texan Iberico. But I like the ring of "jamón tejano" -- I would certainly buy that! (Texas has a positive halo effect when it comes to meat products)
For many cheeses they don't have much off a choice. Since (young) raw milk cheeses can't be sold in the states they try to get as close as they can, but usually only succeed in looks, rarely in taste.
For non-Germans, Galileo has a reputation for bullshit and lies.
> You cannot help it, Signor Sarsi, that it was granted to me alone to discover all the new phenomena in the sky and nothing to anybody else! This is the truth which neither malice nor envy can suppress!
There were plenty of people working in the field (most well-known Harriot, Marius, Fabricius, Scheiner), but Galileo does not seem to have thought much of them.
Grassi published a work on comets in 1618, and Galileo read it. We still have Galileo's copy, which in the margins has the following notes: “piece of asininity”, “elephantine”, “buffoon”, “evil poltroon”, “ungrateful villain”. He was not a fan. (Grassi was more correct on this topic.)
For all of Galileo's intelligence, he was a somewhat of an ass, and alienated a lot of people. His Il Saggiatore (The Assayer) was an attack of Grassi's view; Grassi responded with Assagiatore (Winetaster—insinuating that Galileo was drunk when you wrote his book).
Academics (and politics) was a blood sport back then.
Galileo did a lot of good work, but at the end of the day, I'm not sure we needed him for progress to have been made. The word "revolutionary" being used towards Copernicus' heliocentrism is probably warranted. Tycho Brahe's hard work in making observations were key in the effort, and it was Johannes Kepler's idea of breaking free of circular orbits (that everyone else was using) over to elliptical ones that was a real innovation in modelling.
(Galileo preferred the Copernican system, while Grassi preferred Tychonic. Kepler, with elliptical orbits, ended up being correct.)
Or with cheddar cheese! How awful is that substance they mark with the word cheddar and sell in stores in the states! Argh!
https://miltoncreamery.com/prairie-breeze/
A cheese expert told me most of the Parmesan sold in the US is actually Asiago.
As a Texan I am all for calling this pork product jamon tejano or just Texas ham. Hell, let’s go all Texas and feed them pecans instead of acorns.
That is by no means a hard and fast rule. Consider:
- Alaskan salmon
- Napa Valley Cabernet
- Michigan Cherries
- Georgia Peaches
All of these refer to the places they are produced.
And of course there are examples where the place name has fossilized into the product itself:
- Monterey Jack cheese
- Arkansas gold apples
If you name your product Champagne, in my mind it's totally fine for someone to start making Californian champagne.
[1] https://www.korbel.com/FamilyOfChampagnes.aspx
These are products which are literally defined by their geographic origin.
Champagne is a sparkling wine from the Champagne region, that’s what it means.
Your logic means that there is nothing wrong with a “Californian Champagne” made in Texas.
Something made elsewhere can be similar? Yes it can, it's a whine. Will it be the same? I doubt it.
The region is known to produced it since roman times, adopted by french royalty for more than 1000 years... but because it's a region shouldn't be entitled to it?
If Champagne is a whine, why not call it Californian Foamy White Whine?
Even better, stop referring to it exclusively by the location, as if Champagne, France is not capable of producing other wines. Then you can have "Champagne sparkling white wine" and "California sparkling white wine" (or even "Champagne-style California sparkling white wine"). Of course, colloquially people will still refer to it as champagne, but I'm talking about what's printed on the bottle / marketed.
Well some cultures have different words specifically for that.
>Even better, stop referring to it exclusively by the location, as if Champagne, France is not capable of producing other wines.
I don't understand this part, because I see no where implicit that Champagne doesn't have the capacity of producing other wines, just by calling Champagne to Champagne.
For example, where I'm from - Portugal - we make the distinction between Champagne and "sparkling wine" (I couldn't find a better translation, the word is Espumante) - even if the outcome is an attempt to make it similar to Champagne, it's not champagne. It's two different words that define different things.
You go to a restaurant you ask for Champagne, you get Champagne. You ask for Sparkling Wine, you get Sparkling Whine.
Because when you buy Champagne you want wine with particular properties that are particular from the region. If you don't like Champagne, you don't want wine with those qualities and you ask for something else that is not Champagne, but yet can still be a white wine with foam.
Plus you talk about this like this is a gimmick.
It's not something "new", it's been like this for centuries, it's in our dictionary. Not mandated by law, or trademarks, - it wasn't a marketer that woke up one day and decided to make that "growth hack" - it's cultural.
To us it's like calling two distinct fishes the same name just because they are blueish and have spots.
Same for example, to Porto. Porto Wine is done Porto region, has a particular taste. You have other liquors, but Porto is Porto.
The issue isn't so much that there are / are not geographic monopolies, but that you have 2 different IP/economic/governance models expecting to be speaking the same language -
Appellations are connected to producers associations which ultimately have their roots in feudalism/guilds/etc. Generally, it's not the region that promotes an appellation, it's the producers association of that product/region.
Producers associations are essentially a "cartel" in modern economic terms which would be illegal under modern IP/economic regulatory regimes. Where appellations are used, this is not the case, and the associations are allowed certain legal space, some of which include creating appellations, which to some extent provide a way to 'brand' and so add value to otherwise commodity products.
So, to allow for appellations, you create some provision in the legal system to recognize them. However, since allowing appellations ultimately means granting some political legitimacy to organically occurring cartel-like organizations rooted in feudalism, this can be problematic if using a post-feudal legal framework. The US comes down more radically anti-feudal and pro capitalist in it's legal code than other western countries, and so you have more resistance to appellations.
In this model, 'champagne' itself is the brand and the trademark. Nothing else is champagne. Unfortunately, no specific entity 'owns' this brand, because the 'brand' was developed according to an informal patchwork of local organizations, customs and traditions, and so you have some systems (e.g. USA) denying the legitimacy of the claims to the 'brand'/'trademark' since it isn't 'owned' by 'someone'.
That being said, today's Spanish farmers are not responsible for their ancestors deeds. However, true "Pata Negra" ham is actually so expensive, I don't think people who used to buy the real thing will buy the cheap American alternative instead as it doesn't have the Omega-9, taste and status. Only people who randomly bought super expensive Pata Negra and now decide to get the cheap alternative could affect their revenue, no idea how much this would make up.
This is not twitter, leave your 500 years old hatchet by the door.
That's exactly what I did if you read up to my second paragraph, still ironic though. Let me paste it again for you:
> That being said, today's Spanish farmers are not responsible for their ancestors deeds.
There there.
I know what you mean though; there's still something skeezy about it because it exploits consumer confusion. Hooray American capitalism.
Although I do enjoy the hypocrisy of the US considering brand name and image is everything there. Companies and government are especially keen on being punitive against trademark abuse. Yet many people there try to piggy-back on other products' success (e.g. Parmesan and Champagne)
(And just in case, no, not apples, Apple)
PS: I think ‘5 jotas’ is the most international brand of iberian products, try their ham or other iberian derived products, they are one of the best available.
I don't see why we can't make Pizza Nappoletana in Delhi, Camembert Cheese in Valdosta, Wagyu cows in Cape Town without pissing off people who have even passed laws to prevent others from copying the style.
Like there was a restaurant owner that trademarked "Taco Tuesday" and tried to sue the US Navy for their misuse in Aircraft carrier canteens. That didn't go well.
This is extreme. I’m fine with the present state. The EU regulates, and that’s fine. The U.S. doesn’t, and that’s fine too. Best of both worlds.
https://www.inta.org/fact-sheets/international-trademark-rig...
But also lawsuits.
For example, some years ago the Indian government sued and won a case against a Texas company (owned by the Prince of Liechtenstein) that got a patent on Basmati rice:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/RiceTec
After the patent was revoked, they renamed it "Texmati". Maybe we'll see a "Texjamon" in the future.
The article was pretty spot on:
> However, the US has tended to be cavalier about such things.
My real thoughts are that many European cuisine customs are arbitrary and ignorable. Okay, a tradition of end of life pigs eating acorns and drying their meats for 36 months, and then later you found out that there was a certain omega fat created from this process? Yeah, get outta here. To me, this is right up there with Sardinia poisonous maggot cheese.
There is also a possibility that people might like this offbrand version more, taste wise. We are about to fortune cookie Spanish cuisine. (Fortune cookies origins have competing claims from multiple Americans, Japan and China in the same time period and at this point it doesn't matter. Its an American-Chinese-American novelty, yay globalization!)
If I was a Texan I would understand it.
This the same case with the Iberian Ham.
This is just about salting the right ham type and letting it dry at the right conditions. Not exactly rocket science.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB891803406922118000