Charanda’s Past and Future
Casa Tarasco does a lot to promote charanda as a uniquely Uruapanse product. The government of Michoacán also supports the product, with various offices sponsoring the yearly Festival de Charanda. But, I still remain confused. Why does charanda get a denomination of origin and something like Pox from Chiapas does not?
As far as I can tell, there is no compelling academic evidence that the term charanda has more than a century of use as a term for distilled sugarcane. Sure, it means “red soil” in Purépecha, but that’s what most evidence from the 1900s suggests it meant–just red soil–in reference to rains and floods in local newspapers. Only in commercial contexts post-Don-Cleofas do we see charanda in reference to rum.
An August 10, 1938 publication of Periódico Oficial del Estado de Baja California Norte, lists “Charanda ‘Aguardiente Extra’” made by Fidel A. Contreras in a catalog of products. The following year, advertisements for an aguardiente called Charanda (that uses the same logo as Casa Tarasco’s Charanda Uruapan brand today) appear in several newspapers being sold by Miguel Barba. But both of these instances, which are the earliest I could find where charanda refers to rum, are in reference to a brand, not a cultural beverage. It seems likely that the brand owners could have picked up on a local practice of calling rum charanda in Purépecha, but it seems more likely that the brand itself brought the term into common use. Twenty years later, El Espiritu Publico, Periódico Oficial del Estado de Campeche, published July 13th, 1959, includes “charanda michoacana” in a list of Mexican foods from specific origins.
Perhaps the red soil and the unique climate around Uruapan can impart terroir in cane spirits distilled there, but charanda is a brand more than a local heritage. One family has kept the spirit alive for over 100 years. This is honorable, laudable, and estimable. The family is doing smart business by trying to get the government to protect their brand. Denominations of origin have a value on every bottle you can put them on. But denominations of origin are not intended to take the inheritance of a family and turn it into the heritage of a region. The Pacheco family has curated an excellent offering of spirits, and the Mexican government is in agreement. Personally, I think it’s a bit weird.
While more research needs to be done to confirm the roots of charanda, it seems that the denomination of origin was a business tactic to get one family’s product into the international market with the sheen of governmental protection and cultural importance. With almost no other producers on the market, it is extremely difficult to argue that the denomination of origin is protecting charanda producers. While the trade body (run by the family) often claims that 11 producers exist, it seems that the denomination is only protecting one producer, Casa Tarasco.
Denominations are good business for the government and the companies, so I get it. Ultimately, Mexico can give out denominations of origin to whatever they see fit. Charanda, though, is no tequila. Should any evidence prove me wrong, I am happy to renounce my point of view.