Prosecco is a wine of undeniable success, one of the most prolific and profitable
ones made in Italy, without a shadow of a doubt, one of the greatest Italian
wines known in the world. A successful wine, in fact, and as often happens, the
success has usually a price to pay. Prosecco is also a restless wine, not
because of the exuberance of its bubbles, indeed for the facts that have always
characterized its fame, both in its own country and in others. A huge planetary
success, which has heavily influenced the concept of sparkling wines in general,
especially in that of wine service, where – too often – any sparkling or
slightly sparkling wine is generically called prosecco, not to mention
the horrifying and deplorable diminutive definition, at least for me, which takes
the annoying definition of prosecchino (literally, little
Prosecco). This too is clearly a consequence of success, although – in this
case – it certainly is not be considered in a positive way, indeed a rough
fad not to be proud of, nevertheless useful to understand the terrible and very
scarce enological and professional competence of the unfortunate wine pourer by
chance.
Producers have tried to safeguard their wine, also and in order to avoid any
possible consequence related to the use of the name Prosecco, the homonymous
district of Trieste, therefore in Friuli Venezia-Giulia region. The name of this
district, as it is well known, has given in the past the name to both the grape
and the famous sparkling wine and which, in turn, comes from its Slovenian name
Prosek. In 2009, with the aim of safeguarding the Prosecco DOC (therefore the
wine), a new disciplinary has been issued which provided for the obligation to
call the grape used for making Prosecco as Glera. A preventive measure of
protection also adopted as a consequence of what happened in the unfortunate and
well-known story between the Hungarian Tokaji and the Tocai Friulano grape. The
name Prosecco, referring to the wine, is undeniably evocative and equivocal,
suggesting a clear reference to the quantity of sugar contained in the wine, that
is in favor of dryness or basically dry, therefore suggesting a certain
level of sweetness. And it is right because of this misunderstanding that
countless and evident attempts at imitation have been perpetrated, based whole or
in part both on the prefix pro and the word secco, the latter undeniably
being a technical wine making term (literally, dry), used to refer to the
sweetness of a wine.
It is a well known fact, success is something arousing the interest of those who
have less, often trying to exploit it in a subtle way and, last but not the
least, even resorting to plagiarism in an evident way. In this sense, Prosecco,
and more generally, the products of the Italian agricultural and food industry,
have always been subjected to blatant attempts of plagiarism and
imitation. From cheeses to wines, passing through any successful Italian
food product in the world, the list is very long. Prosecco – the famous
sparkling wine that evidently needs no further introduction – is certainly among
the Italian products to be more plagiarized, very often with wines, not
necessarily sparkling wines, sold with names which unequivocally recall the
famous wine from Treviso. The most typical expedient is to play with the term
secco which, as already mentioned, is also a term used in the enological
world to refer to the level of sweetness, therefore the sugar content in a wine.
Regardless of its legitimate and unequivocal use, very often the attempt at
plagiarism against Prosecco is all too evident.
In the recent past weeks, the consortia for the safeguarding of Prosecco – of
all the denominations – along with the trade associations and the Italian
institutions, have opposed within the European Community against the request for
the recognition of protection for a Croatian wine, an issue that seemed to be
dormant since 2013. Croatia, in fact, has submitted a request for
protection – also published in the Gazette of the Agriculture Commission of the
European Union – of the traditional term Prošek. It is a wine from
Southern Croatia, which – in fact – has no enological analogy with the Italian
Prosecco, as it is a sweet wine – made with dried grapes – in the white and
red styles. Therefore, in this case, it is not about emulating the style,
indeed – so they claim from Italy – about getting recognition for a blatant
case of Italian sounding, that is to evoke an Italian product with a
similar name, therefore equivocal.
If it is true that the countless protests raised in the past to protect Prosecco
were lawful and legitimate, I believe, however, this attitude cannot be always
supported and in any case. Let me be clear: the safeguarding of Italy's agro-food
production is unquestionable and indisputable: in case the attempt at plagiarism
is clearly proved, we must resolutely and unequivocally adopt proper measures,
both for the safeguarding of Italian production and for the protection of the
economic profits. It seems equally evident that when you copy or plagiarize
something, you do it only with successful products, such as Prosecco wine. The
case of the Croatian Prošek, in my opinion, should be considered differently.
It is a sweet wine, produced with dried grapes, in the white styles – obtained
from the native varieties Bogdanuša, Maraština, and Vugava – and red,
the latter product adding to the grapes used for the white style, the Plavac Mali
variety. All too evident, the name – Prošek – unequivocally recalls the
famous sparkling wine produced in Veneto and Friuli Venezia-Giulia.
Croatia, in rejecting the accusations made by Italy, argues that their Prošek
is a traditional wine and is being produced since a long time, having a history
of about three hundred years, some even say two millennia. The Croatians, in
fact, according to the declaration of their Minister of Agriculture, argue that
Prošek is a traditional sweet wine of the country, mentioned for the first
time in 1774, currently produced in the areas of protected denomination of origin
in northern, central and southern Dalmatia, Dalmatian Zagora and Dingac. In the
same statement, it was also underlined there currently are only thirty producers
involved in the production of this wine, for a total of 20 hectoliters per year
– as a matter of fact, a little over 2600 bottles – which would be for the most
part, they say, entirely marketed for the domestic consumption. Numbers that,
compared to those of Prosecco – five hundred million bottles in 2020 – make
it hard to believe any possible market threat. It would be as if little David
had to face – with his bare hands and without even counting on his mighty
slingshot – millions of copious armies of fierce and fully armed Goliaths.
It could be argued it is also a question of principle: after all, it is the
registration of the name Prošek, considered a threat to the identity of
Italian Prosecco, to be objected. As already mentioned, there have been and are
many attempts to plagiarize the name of this famous Italian wine, therefore
Prošek would represent just another attempt. I believe – and it is my very
personal opinion – that if it is true Prošek is a traditional wine from
Croatia, with a documented and proved history, it is not right to deny the
affirmation of this identity, part of the enological history of Croatia,
therefore of the world of wine in general, in the same way Prosecco is for Italy,
only because there is an evident similarity of the two names. As it is right and
indisputable for Italy to affirm and safeguard its agro-food production, the same
right is equally just and inalienable for any other country. I would rather worry
in case a consumer were to buy Croatian Prošek convinced that, in reality, it
is Italian Prosecco. Not just a bad consumer, but definitely a very ignorant
wine drinker. Someone who, personally speaking – for the love, passion and
respect I have for wine – is way better to keep at a distance, as they wouldn't
even be a worthy ambassador of Prošek nor of Prosecco. Not to mention,
of wine.
Antonello Biancalana
|