Pisco: Chile vs Peru

The Chilean Association of Producers of Pisco has heatedly reacted after a commercial banner located in a main area in Santiago de Chile remarking ‘#PISCOISPERUVIAN’.

Mr Hernandez, the Chilean Association Producers of Pisco’s president, said that this action is “an open campaign of provocation from the neighbouring country". The banner infringes national laws which protect the designation of origin of Pisco as a distilled drink only produced in the regions of Atacama and Coquimbo (see DFL 181, Law 18,455).

The association requested a hearing with the Minister of Agriculture, as well as contacting the Agriculture and Livestock Service (SAG). This set of events made SAG to bring a ‘Complaint and Summons’ (ADC) to the company's commercial advertising SUR S.A. (MASSIVA), which is the one that installed the banner – associated with the brand ‘PERUVIAN’.

SAG’s director informed that the reason “we have completed this ADC to the company have to do with the designation of origin of pisco…That is why the aforementioned company must go to the offices of SAG RM to provide background on hiring this ad space".

Added to the banner, there is also a video through Youtube produced by the brand ‘PERUVIAN’ which emits strong statements against the Chilean Pisco industry (to watch the video click here). For instance the video made remarks that “Pisco is 100% Peruvian due to geopolitical reasons, etymological, geographical and historical"; that the Chilean Pisco is a sign which “mislead the designation of origin”; and generally that the Peruvians need to react against this and need to claw-back the term Pisco as the Spaniards did with the term ‘Jerez’ and France with ‘Champagne’.

The Pisco Producers Association also reported this situation to regional parliamentarians, and now the Chilean Chamber of Deputies has published the discontent of not only the Producers but the Chileans. In this regard, Deputy Sergio Gahona said "it is unacceptable that in our own country the designation of origin of pisco is infringed". The MP argued that "in cases like this all public actors responsible for it should take a more active role in the defence of the Designation of Origin of the Chilean Pisco”.

The battle over this term is not something new. For instance, in 2013, the EU registered Pisco as a DO from Peru. However, this registration acknowledged a previous trade agreement between Chile and the EU in which Pisco was recognized as a DO from Chile. The note clarifies that the protection granted to "Pisco" as a DO to Peru does not hinder the use of that name for products originating in Chile. Other trade agreements also see the dispute over the term: Malasia recognizes Pisco as a DO from Peru; a trade agreement between Chile and Nicaragua recognizes Pisco as a DO from Chile; another trade agreement between Peru and Costa Rica recognized Pisco as a DO from Peru.