{"id":3698,"date":"2022-07-14T08:00:00","date_gmt":"2022-07-14T06:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.wine-law.org\/?p=3698"},"modified":"2022-07-04T17:44:02","modified_gmt":"2022-07-04T15:44:02","slug":"linterdiction-de-desherbant-chimique-dans-le-cahier-des-charges-dune-aop","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.wine-law.org\/index.php\/linterdiction-de-desherbant-chimique-dans-le-cahier-des-charges-dune-aop\/","title":{"rendered":"L&rsquo;interdiction de d\u00e9sherbant chimique dans le cahier des charges d&rsquo;une AOP"},"content":{"rendered":"<span class=\"rt-reading-time\" style=\"display: block;\"><span class=\"rt-label rt-prefix\">tdl<\/span> <span class=\"rt-time\">&lt;\u00a01<\/span> <span class=\"rt-label rt-postfix\">minute<\/span><\/span>\n<div class=\"wp-block-cover is-light\"><span aria-hidden=\"true\" class=\"wp-block-cover__gradient-background has-background-dim\"><\/span><img loading=\"lazy\" width=\"676\" height=\"1014\" class=\"wp-block-cover__image-background wp-image-1909\" alt=\"\" src=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.wine-law.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/06\/markus-spiske-GnxktpZHjcM-unsplash-scaled.jpg?resize=676%2C1014&#038;ssl=1\" data-object-fit=\"cover\" srcset=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.wine-law.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/06\/markus-spiske-GnxktpZHjcM-unsplash-scaled.jpg?w=1707&amp;ssl=1 1707w, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.wine-law.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/06\/markus-spiske-GnxktpZHjcM-unsplash-scaled.jpg?resize=200%2C300&amp;ssl=1 200w, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.wine-law.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/06\/markus-spiske-GnxktpZHjcM-unsplash-scaled.jpg?resize=683%2C1024&amp;ssl=1 683w, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.wine-law.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/06\/markus-spiske-GnxktpZHjcM-unsplash-scaled.jpg?resize=768%2C1152&amp;ssl=1 768w, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.wine-law.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/06\/markus-spiske-GnxktpZHjcM-unsplash-scaled.jpg?resize=1024%2C1536&amp;ssl=1 1024w, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.wine-law.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/06\/markus-spiske-GnxktpZHjcM-unsplash-scaled.jpg?resize=1365%2C2048&amp;ssl=1 1365w, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.wine-law.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/06\/markus-spiske-GnxktpZHjcM-unsplash-scaled.jpg?resize=600%2C900&amp;ssl=1 600w, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.wine-law.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/06\/markus-spiske-GnxktpZHjcM-unsplash-scaled.jpg?resize=945%2C1418&amp;ssl=1 945w\" sizes=\"(max-width: 676px) 100vw, 676px\" data-recalc-dims=\"1\" \/><div class=\"wp-block-cover__inner-container\">\n<p class=\"has-text-align-center has-white-color has-text-color has-regular-font-size\">La premi\u00e8re AOP a faire inscrire une interdiction du d\u00e9sherbant chimique est corse. Il s&rsquo;agit de l&rsquo;appellation Patrimoniu. Cette mesure est d&rsquo;ordre plus politique que juridique. Il faut comprendre que le syst\u00e8me d&rsquo;appellation d&rsquo;origine, qui comporte des facteurs naturels et humains, est mis en \u0153uvre afin de garantir la typicit\u00e9 d&rsquo;un produit et d&rsquo;assurer une stabilit\u00e9 de la typicit\u00e9 dans le temps. L&rsquo;interdiction de l&rsquo;utilisation de d\u00e9sherbant chimique ne modifie pas un \u00e9l\u00e9ment du syst\u00e8me, \u00e0 moins de prouver que les d\u00e9sherbants chimiques ont une influence sur la typicit\u00e9 du produit. Toutefois, cette mesure pourrait bien ouvrir la voie \u00e0 d&rsquo;autres appellations.<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div>\n\n\n\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/www.corsenetinfos.corsica\/AOP-Patrimoniu-La-premiere-appellation-viticole-au-monde-a-interdire-le-glyphosate-et-les-desherbants-chimiques_a65502.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Voir l&rsquo;article sur corsenetinfos.corsica. <\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p><span class=\"rt-reading-time\" style=\"display: block;\"><span class=\"rt-label rt-prefix\">tdl<\/span> <span class=\"rt-time\">&lt;\u00a01<\/span> <span class=\"rt-label rt-postfix\">minute<\/span><\/span> Voir l&rsquo;article sur corsenetinfos.corsica.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":7,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"link","meta":{"sfsi_plus_gutenberg_text_before_share":"","sfsi_plus_gutenberg_show_text_before_share":"","sfsi_plus_gutenberg_icon_type":"","sfsi_plus_gutenberg_icon_alignemt":"","sfsi_plus_gutenburg_max_per_row":"","spay_email":""},"categories":[185],"tags":[469],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.wine-law.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3698"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.wine-law.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.wine-law.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.wine-law.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/7"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.wine-law.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3698"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.wine-law.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3698\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3699,"href":"https:\/\/www.wine-law.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3698\/revisions\/3699"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.wine-law.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3698"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.wine-law.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3698"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.wine-law.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3698"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}