> I guess feta is a good example of the problem of defining these things by region not process. I feel pretty confident that "feta" shouldn't belong to any one country in the region with a tradition of making it; on the other hand differentiating it from cheap knock offs also makes sense to me.

The PDO for feta protects a cheese made in Greece that's traditionally called feta. Other countries around the Mediterrannean and in Eastern Europe make similar (but not identical) cheeses but they call it by different names, for example Sirene in Romania (which is made with cow's milk rather than sheep and goat's milk as in Greece).

I don't think it makes sense to mix up the protection for feta with protections for sirene, for example. Sirene should be protected by a PDO specific to its own make, ingredients and characteristics.

Just because lots of cheeses around the area look similar to feta, doesn't mean we can just lump them all together with feta. Otherwise, why not lump Roquefort together with Gorgonzola and Stilton? They're all blue cheeses made in Europe, after all.

My point is mainly that these are producer protections masquerading as consumer protections.

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.

> My point is mainly that these are producer protections masquerading as consumer protections.

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.

There are protections that aren't tied to regions, called Traditional speciality guaranteed (https://ec.europa.eu/info/food-farming-fisheries/food-safety...).

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.

What about consumers that want a guarantee on the production?

Can you see a world where consumers and producers are not in opposition, and actually have some alignment of interests?

In NL they sell feta and next to it a product called white cheese. It's not the same and much cheaper but in [more complex] meals where the cheese is not the dominant flavor you wont notice the difference. Say a salad made of large chunks of feta, 1/4 tomatoes, q-cumber, onion, oregano, salt, black pepper, vinegar and olive oil. I would use the traditional product. If the chunks are smaller and the salad has 10 more ingredients the white cheese will do just fine.

I need to be able to tell the difference tho. My interest seem to be aligned with the producers.