As Australia and the European Union return to the negotiating table in pursuit of a free-trade agreement, the issue of product naming rights—particularly over terms like “feta” and “prosecco”—has emerged as a surprisingly pivotal sticking point.
While seemingly technical, this dispute cuts to the heart of cultural identity, economic strategy, and international fairness.
The EU’s position is firm: names like “feta” and “prosecco” are protected geographical indications, reserved for products that originate in specific regions of Europe under strict conditions. Granting Australia the right to use these names would, from Brussels’ perspective, amount to diluting their cultural and economic value.
Australia, however, offers a compelling counterargument. As Trade Minister Don Farrell noted, large waves of European migrants brought their food traditions with them to Australia after World War II. Over time, products like feta cheese and prosecco-style wine have become embedded in Australia’s agricultural identity. To many local producers, using these names is not imitation—it is continuity.
At the same time, the Albanese government is under pressure to secure a deal that benefits Australian farmers, especially amid global uncertainty and increasing protectionism, particularly from the United States. Access to European markets could offer crucial opportunities for Australian exports, and negotiators are understandably reluctant to let the naming dispute derail broader economic gains.
Still, the government has drawn a line. As Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has stated, Australia will not sign any agreement that does not serve the national interest. While the EU may view the naming issue as a matter of legal principle, Australia sees it as a matter of practical fairness—and historical legitimacy.
There may be a middle ground. Some have proposed solutions such as dual labelling or qualifiers (e.g., “Australian-style feta”) that acknowledge the EU’s concerns while preserving the value of Australian producers’ long-standing branding. Such compromise would reflect a pragmatic approach to global trade—one that respects cultural origins without penalizing decades of honest production.
Ultimately, this issue is not just about cheese or sparkling wine. It’s about how nations with shared values navigate the tension between heritage and progress. A successful deal would not only enhance trade but also set a precedent for how to balance cultural legacy with economic innovation in a globalised world.
