According to Chinese standard GB 18650-2008, Lung Ching tea can only bear that name if it has been produced in the 168 square kilometer area of West Lake just inland from Hangzhou. And in December last year, the Chinese government introduced a national puerh standard which stated that the name ‘puerh’ could only be used for aged teas produced in Yunnan province’s 11 prefectures. It also states that the tea must be made according to a defined methodology from the large leaf varietals of the camellia sinensis bush growing in a defined geographic area. The Chinese recognize that the quality and character of individual teas results from a combination of local natural factors and local traditional culture and more than 50 other Chinese tea products are protected by similar legislation. The government’s aim is to standardize character, planting procedures, and production and processing methods.

In India in the 1990s, the Tea Board of India introduced a system of logos to protect the authenticity of Darjeeling, Assam and Nilgiri teas. In 2000, it incorporated into the 1953 Tea Act a compulsory system of certification for all exported Darjeeling tea. This states that everyone who produces and exports Darjeeling tea must pay an annual license fee and enter into a license agreement with the Tea Board, and must provide information about the Darjeeling teas they make or sell. Certificates of Origin must accompany all exports of tea and this protects the tea at least until it leaves the country. The Tea Board has also used the 1999 Geographical Indications of Goods Act to apply for the registration of the word ‘Darjeeling’ and to prevent the misuse of the name and the logo.

In May, 2009, it was the turn of tea producers in southern India to celebrate the award of Geographical Indication to their Nilgiri teas. In 2005, Nilgiri Planters’ Association initiated negotiations to create a new logo for their teas (different from the logo introduced previously by the Tea Board of India) and to set new standards of quality, safety, hygiene, environment and pesticide usage. The certificate of GI status for Nilgiri orthodox tea was presented in December, 2008 and planters celebrated in May, 2009 with a tea festival in Coonoor.

The types of schemes discussed above bestow a sort of intellectual property on individual products and acknowledge that a particular food’s character, quality and reputation are unique to its place of origin. The schemes have two main aims – to safeguard the commercial interests of producers in the town or region of origin and to protect the production methods, quality and character of the original product so that producers of similar products outside that area cannot use the same name. In the wine trade Appellation d’Origine Contrôlée guarantees that protected products are manufactured according to an agreed set of standards in a designated town or region.

Labeling for products protected by such schemes must adhere to agreed regulations and can refer in the case of wine to the type of soil, the varietal of grape used, the method of cultivation and the manufacturing process. Labels can also express the close link between the product and its place of origin, between the manufactured item and the expert or experts – in some trades and industries referred to as ‘masters’ - who manufactured it. But, with a few exceptions such as those mentioned above, regulations and controls like this do not exist in the tea world and are unlikely to be introduced on a wide scale in the foreseeable future.

However, some tea companies are moving towards applying the criteria used by the wine industry to the way in which they buy and market their teas. This is particularly true for smaller tea companies such as Tim d’Offay’s Postcard Teas, Ed Eisler’s Jing Tea, Jennifer Wood’s Canton Tea Company and Nigel Melican’s Nothing But Tea in the UK; Jing Tea Shop, Rishi Teas and Dan Robertson’s The Tea House in the US, Wang Li Juan’s Terre de Chine and Lien Nguyen’s Lynes in Paris.

There are doubtless many similar companies working to the same principles around the world. It is very often the owners of such companies who travel to the countries of origin, meet the people who make the tea, and very carefully select the quantities of tea they require. Of course, all tea buyers select by tasting a number of samples of the teas offered, but these very focused buyers look not just for good teas but for the ultimate in quality and character.

And because they build a close relationship with the manufacturers – in some cases with just one family or one tea master – they can then tell the story to their customers. They can give exact details of the ‘terroir’ and describe the region and the teas from firsthand experience – the rich red soil, the steamy forest surroundings, the best season for plucking, the precise location of the estate or garden, the exact processes by which the leaves are withered, panned, rolled, shaped, dried, and even information about which varietals the leaves are from. The labels, marketing material and web pages of such companies often give the name of the tea maker, the exact day or week when the tea was plucked, photographs of the pluckers and tea makers at work.

Customers love to feel a connection to the source; it adds to their sense of enjoyment and pleasure and increases their understanding of tea as connoisseurs. Just as with wines, a system of appellation contrôlee would help raise awareness about the character, quality and production of tea; it would educate more people and increase appreciation of both the product itself and the work that goes into making it. Connoisseurship must include all of these factors.

So, if we are to work towards the introduction of a system of ‘appellation’ regulations, we need to consider carefully what information must be given about each specialty tea. There are probably five areas of information that are needed to ensure that each tea is given an accurate and true ‘identity’ – the varietal of the bush the leaves have been harvested from, the exact geographical location with further details about the soil and the altitude, when the tea was plucked, how the tea was manufactured and whether by hand or machine, and who made the tea. This would mean of course that the makers and traders in the country of origin will themselves have to be very clear and honest about the teas they offer and will have to pass on any relevant information to buyers.

The specific tea bush varietal is of great significance in many producing regions. Taiwanese oolong makers choose the varietals they cultivate very carefully to ensure the best flavor and fragrance in their teas - favorites include Qing Xing Oolong (Green Heart), Cui Yu (Green Jade), and Tie Kuna Yin. The majority of Japanese senchas are made from the Yabukita varietal and if the same varietal is not being cultivated in Vietnam or China for the manufacture of steamed green teas, will it be acceptable under a regulatory system to sell steamed green teas from those regions as ‘senchas’? And if ‘Da Hong Pao’ oolongs are not really made from the original historic varietal, will traders be allowed to sell them as Da Hong Pao?

And if geographical specificity is to be included under provenance regulations, it will no longer be enough, for example, to say that a Long Jing is a ‘great West Lake tea’. Within the West Lake Long Jing area, several significant villages and mountains – Plum Village (Mei Jia Wu), West Lake (Xi Hu), and Lion Mountain (Shi Feng) to name just three - were once individually famous for their teas and could once again be specified as the place of origin. And within each of those villages and mountains, there are even smaller districts and mountains which allow traders to pinpoint even more accurately where the tea is from – for example, Lion Mountain includes Dragon Well Temple (Long Jing Si), Weng Family Mountain (Weng Jioa Shan), and Man Jue Long. Perhaps in the future, such specific geographical information will have to be given.

When stating details of when a tea has been harvested, regulations may not in the future accept a general term such as ‘spring-picked’ or ‘autumnal’. Producers may have to give the date or the exact period within which the tea was plucked. Instead of vaguely saying that the tea was made by ‘a tea master who has 50 years’ experience’, labeling will perhaps have to give the name of the individual or the family. And when detailing the method of manufacture, ‘hand-made’ should mean hand-made and not partially machine-made; ‘wild’ should mean wild and not semi-cultivated or semi-wild; ‘rare’ should perhaps only apply to teas that are made in small batches and are therefore difficult to find, not to teas that are produced in huge quantities and are therefore widely available.

There is at the moment a good deal of deception and vague language involved in descriptions on packaging and web pages and the implications, subtle connections, suggestions and hints are designed to make ordinary teas sound more exotic and unusual than they really are. Everyone who cares about tea and wishes to enthuse others with their own passion has a responsibility to educate and explain, to tell the truth about the products they sell. Instead of adding to the confusion that already exists, we must strive for transparency and clarity with the objective of increasing people’s knowledge and understanding about the teas they are learning to love. A system of regulatory controls on the details tea traders give their customers could help to place tea in its rightful place alongside wine as a true connoisseur beverage.