French Food and Wine: A System of Luxury and Rules?

Cracking open a bottle of bubbly is something that most Americans have done at least once in their lifetime. Whether when bringing in the New Year, celebrating a birthday or wedding, or any other special occasion of choice, something about this particular beverage just screams merriment in our culture. While those who drink this type of wine may automatically assume that what they are consuming is “Champagne,” many are unaware that, contrary to popular belief, all sparkling wines are not created equal. In fact, strict rules are in place authorizing which wines may be called Champagne, a name that has been legally protected since 1891’s Treaty of Madrid. Surely, countless wines have been produced à la méthode champenoise, but in order for one to be legally dubbed Champagne it must come from the strictly defined Champagne region in France (see above), and subsequently pass a series of regulations set forth by the "Comité interprofessionnel du vin de Champagne." The overarching legalization process of these standards is the Appellation d’Origine Contrôlée (AOC), translating literally to mean “controlled term of origin.” The AOC, which makes it illegal to manufacture and sell a product under one of the AOC-controlled names if it does not comply with specific criteria, is overseen by the Institut National des Appellations d’Origines (INAO), a branch of the French Ministry of Agriculture that was created in 1935 to manage wine production and appellation in France. Although the French AOC is predominately known for its protection of wine designations, over the years the products it has come to include has extended to certain cheeses, butters, and other agricultural products of France. Many people would argue that systems such as the AOC might be more negative than positive, particularly wine enthusiasts who claim one of the major disadvantages to be the extent to which it stifles experimentation of wine varieties. To be sure, the AOC system in France is not perfect and it neither guarantees the quality of taste of geographically certified products nor does it mandate their automatic superiority. Rather, it “constitutes a guarantee of origin and tradition,” and in assuring that the item purchased actually comes from the region, village, or vineyard on the label, it is a system that protects both consumers and national tradition.

Many perceive the AOC as necessary in upholding the integrity and identity of products in France, though not everyone finds the system to work in their favor. One example, highlighted in an article by The New York Times, is the case of sparkling wine producers in the small Swiss village of Champagne. In 1998 an agreement was made between the European Union and Switzerland that would allow the (late) Swiss national airline, Swissair, to make stops in European cities, on the condition that the government of Switzerland would forbid the village (comprised of about 710 people) to employ the Champagne name when labeling their goods. This agreement forced the village’s wine producers to re-label their wine (see an illegal label below left), omitting the once used qualifier “du Champagne (from Champagne),” a factor thought to be responsible for the drop in village wine sales from 110,000 bottles in 2000 to just 32,000 in 2008. Undoubtedly the suffering of those in the village is terrible, but the law and its enforcement eliminate the possible exploitation of the “Champagne” name as a means to deceive consumers. Indeed, mentioned in the very same article was the example of a farmer who, following World War II, came to the Swiss village and produced a “sparkling wine which he sold as Champagne,” with a more recent example of “ a stranger from La Côte, along Lake Geneva” trying “the same trick.” By having the AOC in place, the system ultimately protects consumers by ensuring that such product trickery cannot take place, a notion reinforced by the fact that the main rationale behind the inception of the AOC law specifically for wines was to “suppress commercial frauds,” by defining strict rules and regulations pertaining to the “numerous criteria characteristic to each wine (soil, grape variety, cultivation, yield, wine making, and temperature).”

As a matter of fact, the AOC is viewed as an extremely efficient system, so much so that it has served as a model upon which many other countries have based their respective name control systems, with examples including Italy’s “Denominazione di Origine Controllata,” and South Africa’s “Wine of Origin” system. Clearly both the people and the governments of other nation-states have seen the French AOC as a success, a sentiment reiterated by the European Union’s very own laws created in 1992 to guard the quality of particular agricultural products of the EU-27 Member States. Although there are those who perceive the EU’s respective "quality schemes" as primarily economically motivated, it is hard to deny that the process, like the AOC, does not ensure that the consumer is buying the goods they believe to be renowned and region specific. After all, everyday people choose to spend extra money on products that they believe to be of higher quality due to the brand or regional recognition. With a certification mechanism in place, consumers are able to trust in the fact that, for example, the Burgundy wine and name they chose is indeed that legitimate, grape concoction from the Burgundy region in France. As the US Department of Commerce explains, certain agricultural products are “associated with their region of production because such products are generally a result of local climate, sunshine, and soil that are specific to a particular region." As many French goods have followed growing rituals for centuries, they have come to represent things of national tradition, and with globalization enabling consumers to purchase products from across the world with greater ease it is important that laws ensuring authenticity exist. Such protection in France as created by the AOC consistently ensures that products remain to be “closely linked” with each region’s “natural and human characteristics,” as well as their "historical and ancestral savoir-faire.” In defending its national products, France is not only protecting consumers but also ensuring that the cultural and traditional facets of French gastronomy will be maintained in the centuries to come.

Bicycle Sharing Systems: Paris and the Vélib'

In recent years the perils of climate change have caused many to push governments to take vital steps to dramatically reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and one innovation that has been extremely popular, particularly in European countries, is the bike-share system. Countries across the globe have jumped on this environmentally friendly bandwagon, hoping to offer free or affordable public bikes to citizens and tourists alike as an eventual way to diminish traffic congestion, improve parking, and reduce pollution in large cities. While certainly the place that most often comes to mind when thinking of such a program is Amsterdam, famous for its “white bike program,” the notion has spread to many other cities across Europe, including Stockholm, Vienna, Barcelona, Brussels, Zurich, and Copenhagen. Inspired in part by these places and as an attempt to make his own city greener and more bike-friendly, Socialist Mayor Bertrand Delanoë conceived a bike-hire system for Paris, which made its official début on July 15, 2007. The service was dubbed Vélib’, a portmanteau combining the French words “vélo” (bike) and “liberté” (freedom). Accordingly, Vélib’s are available twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week, and with numerous pick up and drop off stations scattered across Paris (see right) they provide a manner to navigate the city of lights in which users can remain above ground and get exercise, all while reducing their carbon footprint. While initially a credit card is required to access the Vélib’s so as to allow the system to charge an automatic €150 penalty if the bike is not returned within twenty-four hours, the first half an hour is completely free, with minimal tariffs for each thirty-minute increment that follows the original departure.

Thus far the program has had enormous success, and according to an article featured in The New York Times, in the first year since its inception “there have been 27.5 million trips in this city of roughly 2.1 million people, many of them for daily commutes,” with an average of 120,000 trips a day. With so much use, it is understandable that the bikes would need regular maintenance, a task that keeps JCDecaux, the company that won the ten-year contract to run the Vélib’ program, quite busy. But following recent stories from BBC and Le Monde highlighting the mounting costs to both the city of Paris and JCDecaux to maintain “the more than 10% of bikes” which have been vandalized, destroyed, or “lost,” the question is being raised as to whether or not the Vélib’ scheme is one that can be sustained financially. This has become somewhat of a hot topic in the blogosphere, attracting input from various sectors of society. One blogger, Henry Samuel, a correspondent for the Telegraph and whose blog I came across during my exploration of the Bernard Kouchner controversy, wrote a post on the subject entitled “Paris theft-plagued Vélib’ bike scheme: a civilizing force?” in which he explores how the free bikes have affected Paris in both negative and positive ways. Another post I discovered, "Reports of Vélib's Demise Greatly Exaggerated" was written by Ben Fried for Streetsblog, a facet of the Livable Streets movement, and investigates a possible motivation for the bad press that surrounds the Vélib’ program, taking a more optimistic stance on the future of this particular bike-share system. Below are the comments I made at each of the blogs, which can also be found by following the links above.


Paris theft-plagued Vélib' bike scheme: a civilising force? (comment)

While there have surely been regrettable incidents of vandalism of vélib’s in Paris (see below left for an example), it is difficult to completely ignore the success the program has had in the city. In a May 2008 study featured on the Vélib website, it was concluded that 94% of users are more or less satisfied with the system, suggesting that while there may be those who violate the principle of the bikes to create YouTube videos, the general population of Paris has taken advantage of the vélib’s in the manner in which they were intended to be used- to facilitate movement around the urban center. What I found to be most interesting about what you wrote is the effect the system is having on popular culture in France, particularly the “internet single” by Florent Nouvel, “The Vélib’eration of Paris.” Certainly if people are spending the time and energy to create complex songs and “clips” to mock the vélib’s and what they have come to represent (e.g. dating locales), the bikes have profoundly infiltrated the public domain and are likely to remain an integral part of Parisian culture. That being said, I find it rather disconcerting that people are doubting the sustainability of this bike-share system, deeming it a “socialist” maneuver when as Steven clearly points out above the program is run by a corporation which, at the end of the day and regardless of resources spent repairing or tracking down bikes in Romania, makes a profit. In fact, in another blog I encountered it was argued that JCDecaux is “ ‘using media sensationalism in order to obtain more money from the city of Paris.’ ” As someone who appears to have great professional insight into the matter, do you consider this to be a likely possibility? I too am “a staunch supporter” of Vélib’, and while the question of it as a civilizing force remains to be answered, I can only hope that the program will continue to exist and inspire.


Reports of Vélib’s Demise Greatly Exaggerated (comment)

Your post in response to the recent BBC article which cast doubt on the sustainability of Paris’s Vélib’ system was very enlightening, and I enjoyed the more positive tone you took in regards to the future of the bike-sharing scheme. As someone who spent considerable time in Paris last year, I had the opportunity to witness firsthand how popular and convenient vélib’s are for both inhabitants and visitors, and reading about the program’s possible downfall was very disheartening. While certainly, as you mention, the bicycle abuse undeniably “exacts a real toll” in terms of financial costs, you present an extremely compelling counter-argument by bringing up the potential “negotiating ploy on the part of JCDecaux.” In presenting concrete information about the agreement the company has with the city of Paris, specifically the financial statistics, you offer a very strong case defending the Vélib’ system while also delineating key reasons as to why JCDecaux would want to emphasize some of the more negative facets of the program. It upsets me that a corporation would exploit the less desirable aspects of such a system as a means to gain an upper hand in contract bargaining, especially taking into consideration the overall success of Vélib’ and the environmental benefits that such bike-share programs could create for major cities across the world. As the BBC article itself touched upon, many cities are taking the example of Paris’s system across the pond, with San Francisco among those interested in setting up similar initiatives. One person who commented on your blog mentioned New York City as an additional place where community bikes have the potential to be extremely useful; do you personally believe that this kind of system could be successful in the United States? Certainly New York already has a public transportation system comparable to the metro system in Paris, but are Americans truly ready to embrace the bike as so many Europeans have done?

The Pécresse Reforms: A Suitable Case for Strikes?

Whereas in France the month of January was memorable for public strikes in reaction to the current economic decline and corresponding governmental policies, February appears to have been the moment for protests by various facets of society on behalf of the education sector. Responding to reforms proposed by the French Minister of Higher Education and Research, Valérie Pécresse, students and teachers specifically have united across the nation in exceptional solidarity to display their general discontent with the government, producing monumental uprisings throughout February in major cities which include Paris, Nantes, Strasbourg, Marseilles, and Bordeaux. According to French newspaper Le Monde, on the 10th of February between 15,000 and 30,000 people took to the streets in Paris (see right), and on the evening of February 19th an additional 200 students staged a sit-in in an amphitheater of the Sorbonne. At this particular juncture, the youth involved took the opportunity to demand the abrogation of the reforms, and called upon the general population to occupy strategic locales and to block major business roads in protest.

Why, many may ask, is there such public outrage occuring over Pécresse’s plans? Although the issue is certainly complex, the predominant rationale for controversy is that she is calling for the modification of key aspects of the education system’s functionality, specifically altering the realm of the academic research community, the enseignants-checheurs, by pushing to allow university presidents to decide how the academic staff divides their time between research and teaching. There are undoubtedly those who view what the minister is proposing as both a positive and a necessary step in ameliorating the current structure, especially as some of the declared goals of the reforms are to cut costs and grant universities more authority. However, members of the academic community from both ends of the political spectrum fear that the measures included in what has come to be known as the “Pécresse reforms” will defy common principles of collegiality and accord unprecedented power to university presidents. They have therefore taken it upon themselves to raise public awareness of the issue in employing the age-old French tradition of strikes. As a recent BBC discussion board proves, the opinions of French citizens on whether or not strikes are an effective method to achieve political goals have become increasingly divided over the years. Some believe that there is “nothing constructive” about strikes and that they tend to “destroy a little more" each time they occur, but the opposing viewpoint maintains that “the strike, if well organized, will make its point” in a democratic society where the united voice of the people "should count." Perhaps those on each side of the argument would agree that France’s infamous tradition of striking is not always a valid or appropriate means of bringing about necessary change. Nonetheless, in the case of the education reforms proposed by Pécresse, the protests are not only warranted but are also proving to be a most influential medium of democracy.

France is world-renowned for its long history of maintaining a strong commitment to the advancement of national education. The French public university system in particular reiterates the government’s dedication to promote the advancement of all its citizens in an egalitarian fashion, and those who desire to go to university in France are easily able to do so once having passed the notorious end of high-school exam, the baccalauréat (or the “bac” as it is known colloquially). But the Pécresse reforms threaten to destroy this inherent equitable structure so as to improve the international competitiveness of French universities, transforming their core to more closely reflect the Anglo-Saxon paradigm. Already the reforms are projected to increase the selectivity of those accepted to universities and to raise tuition costs, revolutionary challenges to this notion of democratic public education. As writer Geneviève Dupont of the website, In Defense of Marxism, proclaims, a major point of contention which will likely have everlasting negative effects is the attempt to change the highly esteemed teacher-training program, “Certificat d’Aptitude au Professorat de l’Enseignement du Second degré” (CAPES). CAPES was created with the purpose of recruiting school teachers and training them for both the private and public sectors of education, and in addition to greatly reducing the funding for this program, the Pécresse reforms will also shorten the two year program to one year, remove the stipulation for one year’s paid work experience, and force CAPES students to share lectures with masters students of their discipline in order to reduce teaching time. Some project that the change to this particular training mechanism will bring an estimated 900 job losses to the higher education sector, and Dupont upholds the conviction that, “the reforms will turn this carefully controlled system into a free market, with some teachers worse qualified than others and therefore more vulnerable to attacks on their job status by the state.” Certainly this is one of the more radical takes on the situation, but its anxious undertones resonate with many of the French who have accordingly called for action to contest Pécresse’s program.

It is important to note that since February 2nd, many universities have declared themselves to be in an indefinite strike against the government reforms, protesting like Dupont that they will “brutally” end the system that has “always enjoyed independence, liberty, and recognition” for a more financially motivated framework. The widespread displeasure among the nation's academic community, touched upon by a recent article in Le Monde, shows compelling evidence that even the presidents and/or vice-presidents of nine universities (Paris-III Censier, Paris-IV Sorbonne, Paris-VIII Saint-Denis, Paris-X Nanterre, Paris-XIII Villetaneuse, Montpellier-III, Besançon, Rouen et Grenoble-III) are against the reforms. Of the 90 public universities in France the majority have not yet openly encouraged the strikes, but the general lack of negative reaction to the situation strongly suggests that even players in the highest echelon of the university system, who, in terms of power, would have the most to gain from Pécresse's initiatives, support the use of protests to apply the necessary political pressure to prevent these changes from becoming a reality. To be sure, those who are protesting are not doing so solely to make their voices heard; they are campaigning to gain the leverage necessary to ensure an eventual victory and force the reversal of the governmental decree.

An issue that has surpassed political cleavages and united those on all sides, the movement has fostered support from a wide variety of political parties which show a steadfast commitment to maintaining the demonstrations to “save research” (see protestors left on Februrary 5th in Toulouse). While the outcome of this situation is not yet definite, what can be seen thus far is the influence the public can have on governmental policy, particularly when the issue has immense backing and the people effectively use the right to strike to relay their message of social unrest to those in charge. Indeed, President Sarkozy has already responded to the issue, calling for a "rapid exploration of alternative approaches to the university reforms" to appease those combating them. Although it is still unclear whether or not the protests will be successful in completely obliterating the Pécresse reforms, for two reasons I hope that those now agitating do triumph: not only would the citizens of France halt the proposed changes, but they would also validate the national tradition of striking.