I understand that the opposition arises from
a) the fact that, traditionally, champagne has rarely communicated about terroir, but rather about blending of one sort of another and that it is blending that has guaranteed consistent taste and quality for the consumer. There’s no denying that this has been a successful strategy in the past.
b) which is a consequence of a), the notion of terroir has no real importance in Champagne, unlike in Burgundy for example.
Understandably, many small producers are up in arms about this and the next few weeks of debate and deliberation are likely to be critical to the outcome.
What do you think?
Is the INAO position just a sensible measure to protect the image of champagne for the benefit of all concerned, or it is a failure to move with the times and an unnecessary and unfair restriction on the small guys?
Is this another example of French wine’s poor record in marketing that will have the Australians, Spanish and Italians, amongst others, rubbing their hands together with glee?
Is it merely a measure to prevent any possible threat to the bigger brands and is that such a bad thing anyway, since they account for 80% of sales and without them champagne would be just another sparkling wine?
Is there another view entirely, in which case, please share it.