<table border=0 cellpadding=2 cellspacing="0"><tr><td>
<pre><< A provocative statement! Nothing like a good stir. I'll rise to the
bait! >>

Brian,

I was kinda hoping this would be the case. <g>

<< Why should growers pay some of their meagre profits to fund
advertisements to retain what is already theirs. >>

And what, precisely, is theirs? The makers of the other products aren't, to
the best of my knowledge, claiming that their product is pure olive oil, let
alone pure EVOO. If they DID, then there are already "truth in advertising"
laws that WILL protect the olive farmer. And I agree with this, by the way.

<< Farmers and growers have already had the words "farm" "home" and "fresh"
stolen from them by the large corporations and corrupted into superfluous
verbiage that is used to fill vacant spaces on the label. >>

Again, where is it said that anyone has preemptive rights on these words?
And who in their right mind mistakes a can of beans for the fresh produce of
the farmer's market, for example? I'll be the first to admit that your
average person is fairly dense and couldn't think their way out of a paper
bag...but you can't legislate that away. And what I didn't say, but should
have, was that if you want the government to come down to a micromanagement
level that protects each and every word YOU want protected....then don't be
surprised if they are into your lives in ways you DON'T want, eh? This
isn't just a one way street. And of course, all these laws require more
legislators, more litigators, and those "meager profits" which you mentioned
(and which I agree can certainly be the case) are going to go down the tubes
even more in higher taxes as the government seeks to legislate your life to
the Nth degree.

<< If growers used the name Coca Cola for their concoction of sugar and
water and colouring and fizz they would be descended on by a ton of lawyers
from a great height but realistically they cannot do the same in
reverse and are dependent on government help and protection. >>

The difference being that Coca Cola is an artificial concoction. It's a
recipe, not a naturally occuring product. Further, a better analogy would
be if someone with different oils in their product used not only Pure EVOO
on their label, but the name of your particular farm. Again, you're already
protected by that. As well you should be. I hope you can tell that I'm not
advocating anarchy here. But just as there are already a good many gun laws
on our books that should be strictly enforced before adding new ones that
don't accomplish anything... so should we enforce existing laws on fair
marketing, truth in advertising, etc., instead of having lawmakers regulate
the very way we breathe.

And by the way, educating the consumer can be as simple as a blurb on your
label. The wines do it many times, as do other products. On the back side
of your bottling, put something distinctive about your product. Let the
consumer feel your passion for producing the healthiest, more delicious
product out there. Let them know you have the best. They may be sheep, but
they CAN be led down the right path as easily as the wrong one, eh?

<< I don't mind if it is permanent either. >>

<grin> Perhaps that's an American thang...<shrug>. Our country was founded
because we got sick and tired of being ridden roughshod by a government.
We're not really than anxious to have a new one (relatively speaking) do it,
either. Being Mavericks has it's up side...and it's down.

Best regards,

Antony Chessor
</pre>
</td></tr></table>

<table border=0 cellpadding=2 cellspacing="0"><tr><td>
<pre>Anthony

A provocative statement! Nothing like a good stir. I'll rise to the
bait!

Why should growers pay some of their meagre profits to fund
advertisements to retain what is already theirs. If governments cannot
protect the weak from theft they are failing in their responsibilities
to their citizens. Farmers and growers have already had the words "farm"
"home" and "fresh" stolen from them by the large corporations and
corrupted into superfluous verbiage that is used to fill vacant spaces
on the label. They should be actively seeking government help in
protecting some of the names left to them - like olive oil - from
similar corruption.
If growers used the name Coca Cola for their concoction of sugar and
water and colouring and fizz they would be descended on by a ton of
lawyers from a great height but realistically they cannot do the same in
reverse and are dependent on government help and protection. I don't
mind if it is permanent either.

Cheers Brian Chatterton.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
</pre>
</td></tr></table>