On the Study of the Sustainable Development of Intangible Cultural Heritage of Indigenous Peoples’ Diets—Take the Protection of Geographical Indications as an Example

Abstract

From the perspective of geographical indications, this article introduces the methods used by the geographical indication system to protect indigenous peoples’ diets as an intangible part of their cultural heritage. By collecting and analyzing the data of the five major intellectual property offices of the world, we can understand the protection status of the intangible cultural heritage of indigenous peoples’ diets. Difficulties and controversies in the protection of food-related intangible cultural heritage geographical indications; the solution method is based on an in-depth understanding of development strategies, and four suggestions are provided; finally, the self-check sheet for the protection of indigenous peoples’ dietary intangible cultural heritage geographical indications is supplemented. Combining the questionnaire surveys and field visits, the conclusions are: The protection of indigenous peoples’ food culture is not a deliberate attempt at preserving traditions, but instead the market demand that is most directly oriented to the times and food; while protecting indigenous peoples’ food culture through geographical indications, revitalizing the inheritance and development of community food culture; giving more rights to the indigenous peoples, and providing a good legal protection environment for the inheritance, dissemination and innovation of intangible cultural food heritage; give full play to the potential of geographical indications and their associated benefits.

1. Introduction

The indigenous food culture comprises part of the cultural genes of the indigenous peoples, and is of vital importance to the sustainable development of the indigenous peoples and even the non-genetic inheritance of the indigenous foods [1]. Japanese scholar Kamal Puri believes: “The preservation, protection, and sustainable use of genetic resources and indigenous peoples’ traditional knowledge, creativity and practices are great for all mankind.” [2]. Since the Agreement on the Protection of Geographical Indications and Geographical Indications Related to Trade was included in the TRIPS Agreement (Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights), the discussion on the protection of geographical indications has always been a hot topic among academic circles. The currently vigorously developing bilateral free trade agreements and regional trade agreements have provided new development space for the protection of geographical indications.

Food culture has played a huge role in economic and social life since ancient times. For example, Tang Yuanzhen used “Food Guidance, Thickness and Specialty” to emphasize the regional differences of food in “Good Fortune in Early Summer”. That is, people’s livelihoods depend on food for continuous economic benefits as a daily necessity, and the differences between regions provide the possibility to expand more consumption space abroad. The conversion of conditional food and cultural resources into cultural productivity will bring economic benefits, and more funds will in turn be used for the protection and development of the indigenous peoples’ intangible cultural food heritage [3]. At the same time, a geographical indication is a sign that recognizes specific characteristics, reputation or product quality. The reason is attributed to its geographical origin. This recognition takes the form of collective intellectual property rights to give the market legal protection of product names [4]. From the perspective of consumers, geographical indications guarantee a specific quality and a clear source [5]. The dependence of modern society on food culture presents an increasingly difficult challenge. It is absolutely necessary for us to introduce the protection mechanism of geographical indications to the protection and development of intangible cultural heritage of indigenous peoples. In the course of work, the development of food culture has been given new impetus, and the awareness of the protection of indigenous peoples’ food and intangible cultural heritage geographical indications has been established. In addition, the living space of food culture has been expanded, so it can not only develop the economics of indigenous peoples, but also increase its own vitality while serving consumers better.

Through the official website of UNESCO, the Chinese Intangible Cultural Heritage website, the official website of the Agency for Cultural Affairs of Japan, and the official website of the Korean Cultural Heritage Agency, readers can learn about the cultural background of the indigenous peoples and the current situation of indigenous peoples’ protection worldwide. This information can be combined with that from related websites such as the official website of WIPO, the official website of the State Intellectual Property Office of China, the official website of the Japan Patent Office, and the official website of the Korean Intellectual Property Office to better understand the relevant situation of geographical indications. Combining field investigation, questionnaire distribution and preliminary research helps to explore the necessity and feasibility of protecting indigenous peoples’ dietary intangible cultural heritage through geographical indications. The collected data are imported into the SPSS system for analysis. The analysis includes the model regression coefficient analysis of the degree of protection of geographical indications via different factors, the data feedback frequency analysis of the questionnaire “Meal Information Source”, quantitative analysis of feedback data of “Indigenous Restaurant Suggestions”, etc. The following hypothesis is put forward: the protection of indigenous peoples’ food and beverage intangible cultural heritage through geographical indications will vigorously promote the economic development of indigenous peoples, innovate cultural preservation methods, and promote the sustainable development of indigenous peoples’ food and beverage intangible cultural heritage.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Arrangement of Research Status

Food culture is an important part of the protection of intangible cultural heritage. Among the 584 elements in 178 countries, there are 492 intangible cultural heritages, 67 intangible cultural heritages in urgent need of protection, and 25 excellent conservation methods. Among them, the number of food and beverage cultural heritages is only 14, accounting for 2.39%. The following table presents the list of food and beverage intangible cultural heritage announced by UNESCO, as shown in

Table 1. List of intangible cultural heritages for food.

Year of Inscription	States	Title
List of Intangible Cultural Heritage in Need of Urgent Safeguarding
2009	Belarus	Rite of the Kalyady Tsars (Christmas Tsars)
Representative List of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity
2015	Bulgaria	Surova folk feast in Pernik region
2013	Republic of Moldova—Romania	Men’s group Colindat, Christmas-time ritual
2010	France	Gastronomic meal of the French
	Czechia	Shrovetide door-to-door processions and masks in the villages of the Hlinecko area
2009	China	Dragon Boat festival
	China	Mazu belief and customs
	Colombia	Carnaval de Negros y Blancos
	Croatia	Festivity of Saint Blaise, the patron of Dubrovnik
	Croatia	Spring procession of Ljelje/Kraljice (queens) from Gorjani
	Hungary	Busó festivities at Mohács: masked end-of-winter
	Republic of Korea	Jeju Chilmeoridang Yeongdeunggut
	Yeongsanjae	Yeongsanjae
2008	Morocco	Moussem of Tan-Tan

Data source: UNESCO official website (https://zh.unesco.org (accessed on 25 May 2021)).

.

With regard to the connotation of food culture, the indigenous food recorded in the literature bears a rich national culture [6]. Mr. Sun Simiao said: “Although there are a hundred products of water and land for the elderly, every food is not mixed, and the five tastes interfere”. Among them, every step of the taste is the beauty of the form, and the cooking of food must be refined. The presentation of the form of practice will express the diet, reflecting the beauty and cultural heritage of the food itself. Lian Heng’s “The Panorama of Taiwan History” records: “The coast is rich in fish and shrimp, and there are many elk in the mountains. So everyone eats meat, and the treasure of food is shark’s fin and pigeon. At the time of the feast, the small dolphins must be cooked”. Another example is the “Xuexia Geng” recorded in the “Shan Jia Qing Gong”—“Pick hibiscus flowers, remove the heart and stalks, blanch the soup, and cook with tofu, red and white. It looks like a haze in the snow”.

Concerning the awareness of fine food, Confucius said, “You never tire of fine food, and you never tire of fine food.” From “The Analects of Confucius Xiangdang”: “The fast must change to eat, and the residence must change to sit. The food is not tired of fineness, and the meat is not tired of fine.” During the Spring and Autumn Period, Confucius was called “the four bodies are not working and the grains are not divided”. He is very particular about food, clothing, housing, and transportation. He did not eat the food because the food was stale or out of taste, and the fish was not fresh. The amount of meat eaten at the banquet cannot exceed the amount of rice noodles, and alcohol can be consumed casually but not excessively. Everything from the selection of ingredients, to cooking, to ingredients, to the dining environment, must be “essential”. “Essence” is also embodied in cooking utensils, which are mostly hand-made by the indigenous themselves, such as the Taroko wooden utensils mortar (duhung), pestle (ethnic language: sru), steaming bucket (ethnic language: kululuan), wooden bowl (ethnic language: kayu), wooden spoon (ethnic language: wihi), rice scoop (ethnic language: taku), and rice porridge mixer (ethnic language: Isux). The cooking methods are more refined and diverse. There are as many as 25 cooking methods in rough statistics, such as boiling for a short time, lifting, frying, deep-frying, soaking, roasting, baking, cooking, rinsing, stifling, boiling, sticking, firing, slipping, decocting, simmering, sauteing, potting, enduring, stewing slowly, burning, steaming, stewing, braising, bursting, etc.

Regarding the path of food culture protection, Zhang Jianmei and Chen Yu believe that: “The reasonable interests of right holders who have contributed to food culture innovation cannot be protected by law, and there is unfair competition in the food industry. In order to change this state, it is necessary to improve the current situation. There are legal provisions to protect the intellectual property rights of food culture.” [7]. Zhao Guisheng also pointed out: “The protection of intangible heritage through the legal system of geographical indications is of great significance for enhancing foreign exchanges, increasing visibility, increasing people’s income, and improving people’s living standards.” [8]. Joseph Nye once pointed out: “The comprehensive national strength of a country includes not only the manifestation of economic, technological, and military strength, but also ‘soft power’, which is reflected in cultural and ideological attractiveness.” The concept of “soft power” he presented has profoundly affected people’s views on international relations. Among them, geographical indications often accumulate profound cultures, and these cultural accumulations comprise an important part of a country’s soft power [9].

With regard to the initial benefits of geographical indication protection, Zhaopan Li and Shaofeng Zheng of Northwest A&F University conducted a micro-survey of 645 growers in the main kiwifruit-producing areas of Shanxi Province and employed propensity score matching methods to construct a counterfactual framework. The actual impact of the use of agricultural geographical indications on farmers’ income was analyzed, as shown in

Table 2. Calculation of the total cost and income per mu in the sample area [10].

Area	Cost Benefit per mu	Use of Geographical Indications	Unused Geographical Indication	Difference
Overall situation	Cost of production	6.912	6.735	0.177
	output value	14.740	12.492	2.248
	net income	7.828	5.757	2.071
Zhouzhi County	Cost of production	7.123	6.883	0.240
	output value	15.000	12.661	2.339
	net income	7.876	5.778	2.098
Mei County	Cost of production	6.750	6.539	0.211
	output value	14.541	12.269	2.272
	net income	7.791	5.730	2.061

Unit: Thousand Yuan/Mu; Farmer’s production cost per mu; C = (XF + XL + XN)/S; Average output value of farmers per mu; Y = Σ_iQ_iP_i/S (i denotes different varieties of kiwifruit grown by farmers). Reprinted with permission from Ref. [10]. Copyright 2021, J. Northwest AF Univ. (Soc. Sci. Ed.).

.

From the above table on the cost–benefit situation in the production and operation of the main kiwifruit production areas in Shaanxi Province, it can be seen that overall, although the production costs of using geographical indications are higher than that of unused geographical indications by 0.177 (thousand yuan/mu), the difference in output value is 2.248 (thousand yuan/mu), and the difference in net income is 2.071 (thousand yuan/mu), that is, although the costs to kiwifruit growers with geographical indications are higher than that to growers without geographical indications, the higher costs equate to only 0.177 (thousand yuan/mu), which is far lower than the difference between the output value and net income generated. In addition, the output value and net income of kiwifruit growers with geographical indications are higher than those of farmers without geographical indications [10]. This illustrates that the adoption of geographical indications opens the possibility of bringing objective economic benefits to growers. By analogy with the indigenous peoples, the indigenous peoples can also bring objective income by employing geographical indications to grow food materials and operate indigenous-cuisine-based restaurants [11]. The economic benefits brought about by geographical indications with regard to indigenous peoples are beneficial to the development of their own nationalities, and many problems such as the backward development of indigenous peoples, poor infrastructure, and poverty will be greatly improved [12].

At present, wine is the most representative of the protected diet of geographical indications. In The Oxford Companion to Wine, Terroir is defined as “the sum of all natural environments in the area where the grapes are grown”. In other words, the scope of Terroir now includes many factors such as soil, climate, topography and winemaking methods, which comprise the objective composition of geographical indications. Lindquist said: “In the purchase of wine, the place of origin is an important consideration, because ‘the land becomes the brand’, and the brand enhances the competitiveness of GIS products. This also applies to GIS for other products.” Olszak pointed out that, unlike industrial products, for food products, take wine as an example. “One person can transport grape varieties, wine workers, presses, barrels or stills, and there is indeed such an effective world market, but it can replace soil and climate” [13]. Even though the two regions are similar, they still remain distinct due to certain historical and cultural characteristics. Therefore, the comprehensive protection of geographical indications or appellations of origin is carried out in the form of special legislation. The characteristic of this protection mode is to clarify the content and form of protection through the status and function of geographical indications.

2.2. Statistics on the Protection Methods of Geographical Indications in Various Countries

In order to understand the protection of geographical indications of its members, the WTO Secretariat has conducted a questionnaire survey of WTO members since 1999. A total of 43 countries and the European Union responded to the survey. The specific content we have completed is shown in

Table 3. WTO statistics on the protection methods of geographical indications in various countries.

	Business Conduct Law			Trademark Law			Special Protection
WTO Member	Anti-Unfair Competition Law	Consumer Protection	Counterfeit Litigation	Prevent Trademark Registration		Collective Marks and Certification Marks	Pre-Approval Requirements
				All Geographical Indications	Specific Geographical Indication		Yes	No
Australia	√	√	√	√	√		√	√
Bulgaria	√	√			√			√
Canada	√	√	√		√			√
Cuba				√			√	√
Czech Republic	√	√	√	√	√			√
Ecuador	√	√						√
Estonia	√	√		√	√			√
European Union	√	√		√	√			√
Austria	√			√	√			√
Belgium	√	√		√	√	√
Denmark	√	√		√	√			√
Finland	√	√		√	√
France	√	√		√	√			√
Germany	√	√		√		√	√	√
Greece				√	√
Ireland				√	√
Italy					√			√
Luxembourg	√	√		√	√
Netherlands	√	√		√		√
Portugal	√				√			√
Spain		√		√	√	√		√
Sweden		√			√	√	√
United Kingdom		√	√	√	√	√		√
China Hong Kong		√	√	√
Hungary	√			√	√			√
Iceland	√	√		√	√
Japan	√			√	√			√
Korea	√	√		√	√			√
Liechtenstein	√	√		√	√	√	√	√
Lithuania	√			√	√
Mexico	√	√		√				√
Morocco	√						√	√
new Zealand		√	√	√	√
Norway	√	√		√	√		√
Peru	√			√	√		√	√
Poland	√	√		√	√		√	√
Romania	√			√	√			√
Slovak Republic	√	√	√	√	√			√
Slovenia		√		√	√			√
Switzerland	√	√		√	√	√	√	√
Turkey	√	√		√				√
United States	√	√	√	√	√	√		√
Uruguay				√	√		√	√
Venezuela				√	√			√

Data Source: WTO; Members compare notes on how they protect geographical indications (https://www.wto.org/english/news_e/news10_e/trip_28oct10_e.htm (accessed on 25 May 2021)).

.

As can be seen from the above table, under normal circumstances, multiple protection methods of geographical indications are often used simultaneously in one country, and most countries use one type of protection as the main method, with other methods as supplements. For example, in addition to the protection of collective trademarks and certification marks, the United States also uses business conduct laws and even special legislative protection (mainly for wine geographical indications); in addition to special legislative protection. France also uses anti-unfair competition, consumer protection and other commercial protections with behavior law and trademark law protection. Generally speaking, according to the orientation of the geographical indications protection, it can be divided into two major protection modes, namely the special legislative protection represented by the old world such as France and the trademark law represented by the new world such as the United States, namely the so-called Roman registration, the protection model and the Anglo-American certification trademark protection model.

In fact, there is no difference between the advantages and disadvantages of the protection mode of geographical indications. Countries choose the protection mode that best suits their national conditions according to their specific historical conditions, social environment and legal traditions. Article 1 Paragraph 1 of the TRIPS agreement stipulates: “Each member may, but is not obliged, to implement in its law a broader protection than this agreement requires. As long as such protection does not violate the provisions of this agreement, each member has the right to their respective legal systems and practices shall determine the appropriate methods for implementing the provisions of this agreement”. This provision indicates that the TRIPS agreement, as the minimum standard for the protection of intellectual property rights that all members must comply with, does not prohibit member states from implementing changes in intellectual property rights. Strict protection does not put forward uniform requirements on the mode of protection of geographical indications by member states. In fact, based on the huge commercial value of geographical indications and the protection of national interests, most countries adopt two or more protection methods for the protection of geographical indications at the same time.

3. Significance of Conducting Research on Protection of Geographical Indications

In many cases, the traditional knowledge contained within a given culture facilitates self-identification among ethnic groups and allows the individuals within these groups to embrace the uniqueness of their culture. This is also a regional manifestation. The loss of this sense of national identity of their own culture will eventually lead to degradation of traditions [14], loss of culture and halt of national development. This is why it is necessary to protect the food culture of indigenous peoples through the exclusive rights of the geographical indication protection system, especially indigenous peoples whose traditional culture has been threatened, such as Native Americans. This is not to say that only non-mainstream cultures require traditional knowledge to generate cultural identity. Mainstream cultures also bear unique knowledge and expressions; however, there are less existential threats to mainstream cultures. Therefore, the general government does not feel the need to grant exclusive rights to the traditional knowledge of mainstream culture in order to preserve that culture.

Secondly, compared with the content of other intellectual property protection systems, geographical indications contain a rich regional cultural spirit [15]. Indigenous peoples have their own specific lifestyles, scope of activities, food culture, and as a product of the original ecology, a strong regional character. For example, Korean kimchi, Japanese cuisine, Chinese Tibetan barley wine, and so on. The disappearance of a geographical indication often means the disappearance of certain ethnic cultures that coexist with it. Mr. Hanyun Fan said: “The essence of the protection of geographical indications is to protect a kind of resource and protect a kind of natural and cultural heritage.” [16].

Finally, the protection of geographical indications will help indigenous peoples create their own national food brand, develop their culture, tourism, and ecology while bringing economic benefits. For example, the relatively rare and special indigenous “stone cooking method” and its associated independent cooking methods and eating habits have become the unique food culture of the Ami people. Moreover, the continuous rise of tourism has also attracted an increasing number of people to pursue a kind of “earth taste”. The use of indigenous peoples’ food culture resources to obtain economic income is more important to promote the inheritance and development of traditional food culture, promote protection and development, and give play to the economic advantages behind food culture resources. This is also to support the survival and development of the indigenous peoples themselves. Only by transforming the conditional food culture resources into cultural productivity and bringing economic benefits in a benign manner, can more funds be used in turn for the protection and development of the indigenous peoples’ food culture itself. Therefore, it is of great significance to explore the use of geographical indications to protect the intangible cultural heritage of indigenous peoples’ diets.

4. Research Methods

4.1. Document Analysis

This article studies the dietary culture of indigenous peoples, collects relevant information according to the research direction, understands the status and trends of domestic and foreign research, and comprehensively analyzes the data. The literature research is based on the China CNKI (China National Knowledge Infrastructure) database (https://www.cnki.net (accessed on 15 March 2022)), the National Food Library of Japan (https://dl.ndl.go.jp (accessed on 15 March 2022)), and the National Library of Korea (https://nl.go.kr (accessed on 15 March 2022)) for document reading; supplemented by “The Analects” created by Confucius and his disciples during the Spring and Autumn Period and Warring States Period, Yunnan People’s Publishing House, “Chinese Food Story”, “Food Language” sub-volume and the “Shan Jia Qing Gong” included in it [17] (published in 2004) and other related materials. At the same time, it pays attention to both the collection of second-hand information and the relevant investigations conducted by others, studies the current situation and challenges of expanding the living space of food culture through indigenous restaurants from the side, and produces a comprehensive study on it. The collation and collection of these materials in the literature research enriches the research content, consolidates the basic research, broadens the horizon, and adds depth to the research.

4.2. Data Analysis

Data sources include the official website of WIPO (https://www.wipo.int (accessed on 20 December 2021)), the official website of the State Intellectual Property Office of China (https://www.cnipa.gov.cn (accessed on 20 December 2021)), the official website of the Japan Patent Office (https://www.jpo.go.jp (accessed on 20 December 2021)), and the official website of the Korean Intellectual Property Office (https://www.kipris.or.kr (accessed on 20 December 2021)). Data analysis is carried out by integrating data into the SPSS system. Research methods include model regression coefficient analysis, data frequency quantification statistics, etc. The research content includes the analysis of model regression coefficients of different factors on the degree of protection of geographical indications, the frequency analysis of the data feedback of the questionnaire “Meal Information Sources”, and the quantitative analysis of the feedback data of “Indigenous Restaurant Recommendations” and so on.

4.3. Questionnaire Survey

In the early stage, we conducted on-site visits to indigenous restaurants in Taipei City, New Taipei City, and the Lushan tribe in Renai Township, Nantou, Taiwan; the ethnic minorities interviewed in mainland China were mainly Hui, Yi, and Dongxiang ethnicities; other indigenous peoples interviewed were indigenous people from Peninsular Malaysia (via video communication), and subsequently designed the questionnaire on this basis. The scope of the investigation included residents of Taipei City, New Taipei City and indigenous restaurant operators, and the Lushan tribe in Renai Township, Nantou, Taiwan. A total of 400 questionnaires were sent out and 392 were returned, with a 98% recovery rate [18]. The tree diagram structure of the questionnaire is shown in Figure 1.

5. Results

5.1. The Number of Geographical Indications Is Increasing Year by Year

Through the “2018 World Intellectual Property Indicators”, “2019 World Intellectual Property Indicators” and “2020 World Intellectual Property Indicators” reports published annually on WIPO’s official website, the number of geographical indications in each country is summarized in addition to the three-year average. The statistical data of various countries are compared and analyzed, and the specific content is as shown in

Table 4. Summary of the number of geographical indications in each year.

National/Regional Authority	2017	Rank	National/Regional Authority	2018	Rank	National/Regional Authority	2019	Rank
China	8507	1	China	7247	1	China	7834	1
European Union	4932	2	European Union	4968	2	European Union	4794	2
Republic of Moldova	4615	3	Republic of Moldova	4732	3	Republic of Moldova	4767	3
Georgia	4196	4	Bosnia and Herzegovina	4499	4	Georgia	4416	4
Bosnia and Herzegovina	3415	5	Georgia	4426	5	Bosnia and Herzegovina	4354	5
Ukraine	3112	6	Armenia	3228	6	Switzerland	4259	6
Australia	2130	7	Ukraine	3115	7	Armenia	3228	7
Serbia	1247	8	Australia	2064	8	Ukraine	3117	8
Costa Rica	1109	9	Mexico	1687	9	Australia	2065	9
Peru	1047	10	Viet Nam	1130	10	Mexico	1690	10
Israel	974	11	Costa Rica	1121	11	Viet Nam	1333	11
Viet Nam	960	12	Peru	1072	12	Costa Rica	1161	12
Mexico	933	13	Serbia	1020	13	Chile	1144	13
Canada	830	14	Cuba	1001	14	Peru	1100	14
U.S.	587	15	Israel	1000	15	Serbia	1026	15
Iran (Islamic Republic of)	499	16	Canada	835	16	Israel	1022	16
Turkey	313	17	U.S.	779	17	Burkina Faso	1017	17
India	305	18	Turkey	398	18	Cuba	1010	18
Chile	283	19	Iran (Islamic Republic of)	385	19	Canada	841	19
Russian Federation	262	20	India	330	20	U.S.	529	20
Total	40,256		Total	45,037		Turkey	487	21
						India	361	22
						Japan	316	23
						Argentina	112	24
						Malaysia	85	25
						Total	52,068

Data source: “2018 World Intellectual Property Indicators”, “2019 World Intellectual Property Indicators”, “2020 World Intellectual Property Indicators”.

and

Table 5. Comparison of statistical data over three years.

National/Regional Authority	2017	National/Regional Authority	2018	Difference	Increase	National/Regional Authority	2019	Difference	Increase
China	8507	China	7247	−1260	−17.39%	China	7834	587	7.49%
European Union	4932	European Union	4968	36	0.72%	European Union	4794	−174	−3.63%
Republic of Moldova	4615	Republic of Moldova	4732	117	2.47%	Republic of Moldova	4767	35	0.73%
Georgia	4196	Georgia	4426	230	5.20%	Georgia	4416	−10	−0.23%
Bosnia and Herzegovina	3415	Bosnia and Herzegovina	4499	1084	24.09%	Bosnia and Herzegovina	4354	−145	−3.33%
Ukraine	3112	Ukraine	3115	3	0.10%	Ukraine	3117	2	0.06%
Australia	2130	Australia	2064	−66	−3.20%	Australia	2065	1	0.05%
Serbia	1247	Serbia	1020	−227	−22.25%	Serbia	1026	6	0.58%
Costa Rica	1109	Costa Rica	1121	12	1.07%	Costa Rica	1161	40	3.45%
Peru	1047	Peru	1072	25	2.33%	Peru	1100	28	2.55%
Viet Nam	960	Viet Nam	1130	170	15.04%	Viet Nam	1333	203	15.23%
Mexico	933	Mexico	1687	754	44.69%	Mexico	1690	3	0.18%
Canada	830	Canada	835	5	0.60%	Canada	841	6	0.71%
U.S.	587	U.S.	779	192	24.65%	U.S.	529	−250	−47.26%
Turkey	313	Turkey	398	85	21.36%	Turkey	487	89	18.28%
India	305	India	330	25	7.58%	India	361	31	8.59%
Total	38,238	Total	39,423	1185	3.01%	Total	41,894	2471	5.90%

Note: The difference is the comparison between the current year and the previous year’s data. Data source: “2018 World Intellectual Property Indicators”, “2019 World Intellectual Property Indicators”, “2020 World Intellectual Property Indicators”.

.

The “World Intellectual Property Indicators” analyzes global intellectual property activities, based on annual statistics on filing, registration and renewal of national and regional intellectual property offices and WIPO. In Table 4, it can be seen that the total number of geographical indications in 2017 according to the “2018 World Intellectual Property Indicators” is 40,256, and the total number of geographical indications in 2018 as calculated by the “2019 World Intellectual Property” is 45,037. The total number of geographical indications in 2019 as calculated by the “Intellectual Property Indicators” is 52,068. Because some statistics have been added to the total number of geographical indications in 2019, comparing the three-year statistical data at the same time (see Table 5), we can see that the total number of geographical indications has continuously increased from 3.01% to 5.90%. To a certain extent, this reflects an increase in people’s awareness of the protection of geographical indications and an increase in the number of people choosing to declare geographical indications.

The results of this study showed that residents of different backgrounds had a different sense of community identity, which affected their community participation and sense of community consciousness. Therefore, it is suggested that relevant organizations and units organize related activities, provide more activity-related information, and provide community services to promote positive attitudes among residents towards their own community.

5.2. The Alcoholic Geographical Indications Account for a Relatively Large Proportion

After collecting the number of geographical indications in each country from the reports of the “2018 World Intellectual Property Indicators”, “2019 World Intellectual Property Indicators” and “2020 World Intellectual Property Indicators” published on the WIPO official website in each year, the various types of geographical indications are summarized, and the proportion of the number of various types of geographical indications in the total number of geographical indications in different years is analyzed. The specific content is summarized in

Table 6. Percentage of various geographical indications in each year.

Product Category	Year
	2017	2018	2019
Agricultural products and foodstuffs	28.2%	29.9%	34.2%
Handicrafts	2.7%	2.7%	3.5%
Services	12.0%	0.1%	0.1%
Others/Unknown	0.0%	16.3%	5.6%
Wines and spirits	57.1%	51.1%	56.6%

Data source: “2018 World Intellectual Property Indicators”, “2019 World Intellectual Property Indicators”, “2020 World Intellectual Property Indicators”.

.

It can be seen from the above table that alcoholic geographical indications account for the largest proportion of each year. In the three-year period from 2017–2019, the number of alcoholic geographical indications accounted for 57.1%, 51.1%, and 56.6% of the total number, respectively. This reflects the necessity of classifying alcohol geographical indications as a separate category. Alcohol geographical indications comprise the bulk of the current geographical indication statistics, and are also the main category for countries to declare geographical indications. Moreover, this reflects that wine culture exists all over the world and bears different characteristics, while forming an important component of the national food culture [19].

5.3. Most Countries Use Legal Means to Account for a Larger Share of the National System

According to the “2019 World Intellectual Property Indicators” report published on WIPO’s official website, the number of effective geographical indications included in the national system, regional system and agreement by the national/regional authorities through legal means in 2019 was included in the total through legal means. The proportion of the number of effective geographical indications is summarized and analyzed. The specific content is as shown in

Table 7. National/regional authorities counted in 2019 that included effective geographical indications.

National/Regional Authority	National Systems	Regional System	Agreements
Australia	9.3	0.0	90.7
Brazil	100.0	0.0	0.0
Canada	78.1	0.0	21.9
Chile	14.4	0.0	85.6
China	100.0	0.0	0.0
European Union	67.8	0.0	32.2
France *	0.2	55.9	43.9
Germany	50.9	22.7	26.3
India	100.0	0.0	0.0
Israel *	0.1	0.0	99.9
Italy *	0.6	55.7	43.7
Japan	31.3	0.0	68.7
Jordan	100.0	0.0	0.0
Malaysia	100.0	0.0	0.0
Morocco	99.2	0.0	0.8
Netherlands	0.0	67.8	32.2
OAPI	100.0	0.0	0.0
Spain	0.0	67.8	32.2
Sri Lanka	100.0	0.0	0.0
Switzerland	2.5	0.0	97.5
Thailand	100.0	0.0	0.0
Turkey	99.4	0.0	0.6
U.K.	0.0	67.8	32.2
U.S.	100.0	0.0	0.0
Ukraine	0.8	0.0	99.2

Note: OAPI is the African Intellectual Property Organization. The special protection of geographical indications in Switzerland does not require registration. Only names registered or recognized in accordance with the “Agricultural Law” and “Trademark and Origin Mark Protection Law” or court judgments or special legislative documents are included in the national protection system. Source: WIPO Statistics Database, September 2020. * includes Lisbon data. Data source: “2019 World Intellectual Property Indicators” (https://www.wipo.int/publications/en/details.jsp (accessed on 13 August 2021)).

.

It can be seen from Table 7 that all valid geographical indications such as China, India, Jordan, Malaysia, OAPI, Sri Lanka, Thailand, and US are included in the national system through legal means. Additionally, Australia, Morocco, and Turkey are included in legal means. The number of effective geographical indications in the national system also accounted for more than 90%; in the statistical data, the number of effective geographical indications included in the national system through legal means accounted for the least, accounting for 0.2%.

The number of valid geographical indications included in the regional system through legal means is generally less than the number of valid geographical indications included in the national system through legal means, but the number of valid geographical indications included in the regional system through legal means in France, Italy, Netherlands, Spain, and UK was more than the number of valid geographical indications included in the national system through legal means, France and Italy accounted for 55.9% and 55.7%, respectively, and Netherlands, Spain, and the UK accounted for 67.8%.

The number of valid geographical indications included in the agreement through legal means is mostly more than the number of valid geographical indications included in the regional system through legal means, but less than the number of valid geographical indications included in the national system through legal means, but Australia, Chile, Israel, Japan, Switzerland, and Ukraine have more valid geographical indications included in the agreement through legal means than the number of valid geographical indications included in the national system and regional system through legal means, accounting for 90.75, 85.6%, 99.9%, 68.7%, 97.5%, 99.2%, respectively.

Currently, there are several suggestions in the Doha Development Agenda (DDA): Firstly, Argentina, Australia, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Japan, South Korea, Mexico, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Paraguay, Chinese Taipei, South Africa, and the United States jointly proposed TN/IP/W/10/Rev.2, which envisages the use of the register as a database. Members will choose whether to participate in registration, and the intellectual property authorities of participating members will consult the database when considering the protection of personal trademarks or geographical indications in their own countries. Secondly, on 19 July 2008, the proposal TN/C/W/52 from more than 100 WTO members included a revised and abridged version of the original EU proposal on multilateral registration. The proposal is described as a negotiated compromise between the sponsors and envisages a system that applies to all members. Although members can choose whether to register their own geographical indications, all members must “consider” the registration of a term and treat it as “primary evidence”, that is, the term conforms to the definition of a geographical indication.

Finally, further procedures within each country will be handled entirely within the country’s domestic legal system, including confirmation that the term is a qualified geographical indication, possible challenges, and whether the term is an exception, for example because the term is universal. (Previously, the EU proposed that if a term is registered with a hypothesis and the legal phrase is “an irrefutable presumption”, then all WTO members should protect the term, except for Member States that have successfully challenged the term. It also opposes the connection with two other intellectual property issues: “extending” the current enhanced protection of wine and spirits to all products: and requiring patent applicants to disclose the source of genetic material used in their inventions and related traditional knowledge).

6. Current Dilemma

6.1. The Realistic Dilemma of the Protection of Intangible Cultural Heritage Geographical Indications of Indigenous Peoples

First of all, it is necessary to discuss “To what extent does the traditional culture protected by geographical indications belong to innovation?” Traditional culture, especially food and beverage intangible cultural heritage, is an existing and ancient culture. How can it meet the requirements of substantive characteristics? With reference to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) adopted by the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development on 5 June 1992, and the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO)’s definition of the concept of traditional knowledge, it was found that CBD refers to “traditional knowledge”. “Lifestyle” is stated, while WIPO is “expressed in a context based on tradition”. These two observations tell us that the products produced based on the original ecological cultural background have unlimited possibilities for innovation, and this type of innovation conforms to the geographical indication system, and naturally obtains the protection of geographical indications.

In 2000, WIPO members established the Intergovernmental Committee on Intellectual Property and Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Folklore (IGC). Because of its liveliness, traditional knowledge is inherited and develops in an ethnic community, often constituting the identity of the ethnic community. For this reason, it is inconvenient to use the current intellectual property system for protection, which generally grants protection for a limited time to inventions and original works created by individuals with names and surnames. The vitality of traditional knowledge also means that it is not easy to define what “traditional” knowledge is.

Recognizing that traditional forms of innovation and creation are protectable geographical indications will mark a historic turn in international law, enabling indigenous peoples to have a say in the use of their traditional knowledge by others. For example, this will protect traditional meal-making techniques and secret recipes from misappropriation, allowing the community to control commercial development and obtain collective benefits from it. Although WIPO’s ongoing negotiations are mainly initiated and promoted by developing countries, the discussions do not follow the “North–South” boundary. There are two types of intellectual property protection currently seeking establishment: defensive protection and active protection. Defensive protection aims to prevent people outside the community from acquiring intellectual property rights over traditional knowledge. India has compiled a searchable traditional medicine database that can be used as evidence of “prior art” when patent examiners evaluate patent applications. The database originated from a well-known case in the United States Patent and Trademark Office: The United States Patent and Trademark Office granted a patent (subsequently revoked) to the healing use of turmeric, although this property is widely known among traditional Indian communities and is also recorded in ancient Sanskrit. Defensive strategies can also be used to protect sacred cultural expressions, such as sacred symbols or dances. Active protection means granting rights to enable communities to promote their traditional knowledge, control its use and benefit from commercial development. However, any specific protection granted by domestic law may not apply to other countries. This is one of the reasons why many indigenous peoples and local communities and governments are urging the development of international law instruments.

6.2. Not Purely in the Category of Private Law

The trademark protection of geographical indications illustrates the non-private and non-public legal nature of geographical indication rights at the legislative level, but is based on a kind of legal right between the two. First of all, the diversity of the subject of rights shows that the right of geographical indications cannot be completely attributed to a single individual, but rather belongs to a kind of right that is shared within a certain range. This kind of shared right cannot employ the so-called supremacy of private rights and ownership. Absolute is equal to the traditional principle of private law.

If the rights of geographical indications are given to specific producers or operators, their private value orientation will ultimately result in unfair competition, infringement of consumer rights and endless extraction of resources or benefits from natural resources [20,21]. Moreover, it is quite detrimental to the traditional culture of the indigenous peoples in the public domain. Specifically for indigenous peoples in developing countries, they will be subject to serious traditional cultural plagiarism (skills, art, works, etc.). The Peruvian Act 27,811 “Regulations on the Protection of Knowledge of Indigenous Peoples” protects traditional knowledge that has flowed into the public domain through monetary compensation. Because this knowledge cannot be prohibited from being used by others, it is compensated for by giving the indigenous people a certain amount of monetary compensation, so that the benefits generated by the use of the knowledge can still be fairly shared with the indigenous peoples. This is actually a limited interpretation. Interpreting time as “nearly twenty years” is too difficult to protect the traditional knowledge of indigenous peoples that exists in the public domain.

Article 8 of the “Indigenous People’s Traditional Biodiversity Knowledge Protection Bill” stipulates: “For the use of traditional knowledge in the public domain, a third party must pay an indigenous people’s rights.” It can be seen that the use of traditional knowledge in the public domain is not protected, but is restricted through the “purpose and method of use”. It is limited to the use of the knowledge for commercial gain, and it commends that only the traditional knowledge is derived from the original [22]. Only those who live in ethnic groups or tribes are required to pay royalties. Intellectual property protection is to better encourage people to realize inventions and creations and to promote the development of productivity. However, the protection of geographical indication rights also has problems pertaining to limitation or excessiveness. In the value application of the public domain, it is necessary not only to fully respect the cultural creations of indigenous peoples, but also to release the value of geographical indications, so that the public can obtain the benefits of original and novel ideas and inventions. In doing so, the geographical indications can truly benefit the public and promote societal development.

6.3. Protection of Conflicts between Specific Rights Holders and Collective Ownership

The subject of the right to a geographical indication is only limited to the product producers within the specific geographical area who possess the right to use the geographical indication. For example, the so-called geographical indication right refers to the exclusive right of the producer of the product in the place of origin to enjoy the name of origin [23]. From the analysis of the legal attributes of geographical indication rights, it is clear that the subject of geographical indication rights should be a subject scope that includes all interested parties, and it is a right subject between public and private rights [24]. Only when the rights of specific producers are emphasized from the perspective of private rights, will there be no effective protection from the legal provisions of geographical indications regarding the legal interests of other relevant subjects. From this perspective, the subject of the right of geographical indications should include: specific product producers, specific product consumers, and the public in the geographic area where the geographical indication belongs. The concept of a specific subject recognizes that individuals become the subject of protection, but at the same time most countries or regions also attach great importance to collective geographical indications.

On the other hand, it is difficult to trace the origin of food culture and to prove whether it was created by individuals or by multiple people. The worst results may be unfounded. Under such circumstances, application of the geographical indication system may result in the dilemma of not being able to find the protection subject [25]. Young individual creative subjects hope to protect through intellectual property rights, but at the same time they will also touch on the interests of their own ethnic groups and conflicts with ethnic elders (chiefs). For the protection of geographical indications, most countries require non-natural persons to have legal personality, but this presents a great restriction for the indigenous. Some of these people who hold all the knowledge of eating and drinking may be just a group of rural farmers, or the ethnic group may be too small to have a legal personality, and thus face subsequent exclusion from the protection subject. However, without the gift of nature, it is difficult to create a product protected by geographical indications based on the wisdom of the producer alone. Moreover, the connotation of geographical indications has already been recognized as a sign with a specific regional nature in the scope of international affairs. Therefore, this natural blessing should not belong to one or some limited producers, but a right shared by the ethnic group.

6.4. Conflict between the Protection Period and the Need for Permanent Non-Disclosure of Certain Dietary Intangible Cultural Heritage

“The term of protection” is a major feature of geographical indications. Taking China’s intellectual property system as an example, the term of protection for geographical indications in intellectual property is ten years and can be renewed once for ten years; the term of invention patent rights is also ten years, the term of utility model patents and design patents is ten years; and the term of copyright protection is generally fifty years [26,27]. However, for indigenous peoples, food cultural heritage is mostly based on the cultural identity of the indigenous peoples, and the indigenous peoples may be unwilling to let a third person use the knowledge for self-beneficial purposes or to expose it to the public domain. For this type of traditional knowledge, it is more suitable to be protected indefinitely, and the method of protection is not to be disclosed in the public domain for public use [28]. At present, Article 7 of Panama’s “Special System for Collective Intellectual Property Rights of Indigenous Peoples” stipulates: “Departamento de Derechos Colectivosy Expresiones Folclóricas, through the Ministry shall, among other things, grant the collective rights of indigenous people Registration is hereby established in the the Dirección General del Registro de la Propiedad Industrial (DIGERPI) of the Ministry of Industry and Commerce. The Congress of Indigenous Peoples or traditional authorities shall conduct such registration upon request to protect their clothing, art, music and other protected traditional rights [29,30]. The registration of the collective rights of indigenous peoples shall not be void and shall not have a fixed term: the application of registration to DIGERPI does not require the services of a lawyer and is exempt from all fees. Appeals to the registration shall be personally notified to the Congress of Indigenous Peoples or representatives of traditional authorities.”

After weighing the interests of the indigenous peoples and the general public, if it is still necessary to make it public, at least within a certain range, it cannot be used arbitrarily by the public. Article 9 of the “Draft Law on the Protection of Indigenous Peoples’ Traditional Biodiversity Knowledge” stipulates: “Undisclosed traditional knowledge must not be disclosed, obtained or used without the prior consent of the indigenous people’s tribe and the signing of a contract. The indigenous peoples or tribes to which the traditional knowledge is not disclosed have the right to claim and commend the source for the disclosure or use of the related traditional knowledge.”

7. Discussion

7.1. Continued Increase in Declaration Is a Necessary Condition for Realizing the Protection Value of Geographical Indications

The application and approval of the intangible cultural heritage geographical indications of the indigenous peoples’ diet forms the basis for the development of the indigenous peoples’ dietary intangible geographical indication products. The protection and development of the indigenous people’s dietary intangible cultural heritage is the development of the indigenous people’s dietary behavior. The core of the Geographical Indication (GI) product economy is also a very important part of the sustainable development of the intangible cultural heritage of indigenous peoples’ diets. The establishment of an indigenous people’s dietary intangible cultural heritage geographical indications management agency, which specializes in the declaration, development and protection of indigenous people’s dietary intangible cultural heritage geographical indications, can further promote the declaration process of indigenous peoples’ dietary intangible cultural heritage geographical indications [31]. At the same time, attention should be paid to increase the number of applications for indigenous people’s food and beverage intangible cultural heritage geographical indication protection products, formulate and implement indigenous people’s food and beverage intangible cultural heritage geographical indication management system and quality supervision system, and improve the quality and brand of indigenous people’s food and beverage intangible cultural heritage geographical indication products’ value.

From

Table 8. Comparison of the amount of intellectual property applications and authorizations among the four countries.

Business Volume		2017				2018				Variety				Increase (%)
		JPO	KIPO	CNIPA	USPTO	JPO	KIPO	CNIPA	USPTO	JPO	KIPO	CNIPA	USPTO	JPO	KIPO	CNIPA	USPTO
Application volume	domestic	260,292	159,031	1,245,709	293,904	253,630	162,561	1,393,815	285,095	−6.662	+3530	+148,106	−8809	−2.6%	+2.2%	+11.9%	−3.0%
	foreign	58,189	45,744	135,885	313,052	59,937	47,431	148,187	312,046	+1748	+1687	+12,302	−1006	+3.0%	+3.7%	+9.1%	−0.3%
	total	318,481	204,775	1,381,594	606,956	313,567	209,992	1,542,002	597,141	−4914	+5217	+160,408	−1014	−1.5%	+2.5%	+11.6%	−3.3%
Authorized amount	domestic	156,844	90,847	326,970	150,949	152,440	89,227	345,959	144,413	−4404	−1620	+18,989	−6536	−2.8%	−1.8%	+5.8%	−4.3%
	foreign	42,733	29,815	93,174	167,880	42,085	29,785	86,188	163,346	−648	−30	−6986	−4534	−1.5%	−0.1%	−7.5%	−2.7%
	total	199,577	120,662	420,144	318,829	194,525	119,012	432,147	307,759	−5052	−1650	+12,003	−11,070	−2.5%	−1.4%	+2.9%	−7%

Source of data: “Statistical Report of the World’s Five Intellectual Property Offices in 2018”, “Statistical Report of the World’s Five Intellectual Property Offices in 2017”; JPO: Japan Patent Office; KIPO: Korean Intellectual Property Office; CNIPA: China National Intellectual Property Administration; USPTO: United States Patent and Trademark Office.

it can be shown that China has obvious quantitative advantages in intellectual property declaration and the rate of increase is conspicuous. In 2018, the increase rate was 11.6% (application volume) and 2.9% (authorization volume) compared with 2017. Except for South Korea, where the increase in applications was positive, the remaining countries all declined. The declaration of intellectual property rights can also reflect the strength of the declaration of geographical indications to a certain extent (see

Table 9. The proportion of the number of geographical indications in China and the United States in the total number of declarations.

National/Regional Authority	2017			National/Regional Authority	2018
	Total Number of Applications	Number of Geographical Indications	Percentage		Total Number of Applications	Number of Geographical Indications	Percentage
China	1,381,594	8507	0.61%	China	1,542,002	7247	0.46%
U.S.	606,956	587	0.09%	U.S.	597,141	779	0.13%

Source of data: “Statistical Report of the World’s Five Intellectual Property Offices in 2018”, “Statistical Report of the World’s Five Intellectual Property Offices in 2017”.

). In 2017, the number of geographical indications in China accounted for 0.61%, of the total number of applications, the number of geographical indications in the United States accounted for 0.09% of the total applications; in 2018, the number of geographical indications in China accounted for 0.46% of the total applications, and the number of geographical indications in the United States accounted for 0.13% of the total applications. The number of geographical indications in the two countries accounted for less than 1% of the total applications. Although people’s awareness of geographical indication protection has increased, the overall application is small and there remains much room for improvement [32,33].

In terms of quantity, it reflects the increase in declaration and is also a reflection of changes in ideology. Only when the idea of bearing a good influence on the protection of indigenous people’s dietary intangible heritage through geographical indications has gradually penetrated into the indigenous peoples’ minds, will it be truly realized [34,35]. Regarding the substantive protection of geographical indications for the intangible cultural heritage of indigenous peoples’ diets, at present, no country has provided statistics on the number of geographical indication protections for indigenous people’s food and beverage intangible cultural heritage. However, we can use the data compiled in the above table to reflect that large countries such as China and the United States are still relatively weak in the declaration of geographical indications. The number of geographical indications accounted for less than 1% of the total application volume. Increasing the intensity of declaration is the most basic way to realize the protection of geographical indications for food products and even the intangible cultural heritage of indigenous peoples.

7.2. Propaganda Channels Continue to Broaden to Strive for Greater Living Space for Ethnic Food and Intangible Cultural Heritage

Due to the regionality and resource dependence of the production of intangible cultural heritage products of indigenous peoples, the regional brands of food and beverage intangible cultural products of indigenous peoples have outstanding competitive advantages in the fierce market competition [36]. Through a preliminary survey of consumer information sources for indigenous restaurants in Taipei and New Taipei City, it is found that the current brand promotion of food and beverage intangible cultural heritage products of the city’s indigenous peoples mainly adopts more traditional marketing methods such as TV reports, radio introductions, newspaper introductions, magazine introductions, website introductions, relatives and friends introductions, restaurant leaflets, government brochures, etc. These methods are affected by regions, there are relatively broad sexual restrictions, and the scope of publicity is limited. Through the respondents’ feedback on the suggestions for “indigenous restaurants”, it can be found that the respondents hope to make full use of the Internet channels to realize the promotion of the indigenous peoples’ food culture. The national food culture is observed through TV, computer, and mobile phone. In the form of pictures, videos, etc., more people’s attention are attracted. This kind of mass media is more attractive to the general public, and is also an excellent way to protect and inherit the national food culture. It also provides hope with regard to the addition of scientific and technological elements which can aid in the cultural development of indigenous peoples. The “digital holographic projection” restaurant is designed to expand the living space of the indigenous restaurant and also broaden the scope of propaganda regarding the intangible cultural heritage of the indigenous people’s diet.

It can be seen from

Table 10. Frequency analysis of data feedback from the questionnaire “Meal Information Source”.

Frequency Analysis Results
Name	Options	Frequency	Percentage (%)	Cumulative Percentage (%)
TV report	1.0 (Yes)	30	7.65	7.65
	2.0 (No)	362	92.34	100.00
Broadcast introduction	1.0 (Yes)	10	2.55	2.55
	2.0 (No)	382	97.44	100.00
Newspaper introduction	1.0 (Yes)	20	5.10	5.10
	2.0 (No)	372	94.89	100.00
Magazine introduction	1.0 (Yes)	40	10.20	10.20
	2.0 (No)	352	89.79	100.00
Website Introduction	1.0 (Yes)	50	12.75	12.75
	2.0 (No)	342	87.24	100.00
Relatives and friends introduction	1.0 (Yes)	190	48.46	48.46
	2.0 (No)	202	51.53	100.00
Restaurant flyer	1.0 (Yes)	10	2.55	2.55
	2.0 (No)	382	97.44	100.00
personal experience	1.0 (Yes)	50	12.75	12.75
	2.0 (No)	342	87.24	100.00
Passing by	1.0 (Yes)	140	35.71	35.71
	2.0 (No)	252	64.28	100.00
Government Folding Introduction	1.0 (Yes)	200	51.02	51.02
	2.0 (No)	192	48.97	100.00
total		392	100.0	100.0

Data source: The raw data for the data analysis of the above table is from the results of the 4.3. questionnaire, which is analyzed in depth here.

that more than 90% of the samples in TV reports chose “2.0”. From the broadcast introduction, more than 90% of the samples are “2.0”. In terms of magazine introduction, “2.0” accounted for the highest proportion at 89.79%. In terms of website introduction, “2.0” accounted for the highest proportion at 87.24%. More than 50% of the samples introduced by relatives and friends chose “2.0”, and 48.46% of the samples chose 1.0. From the restaurant leaflet, more than 90% of the samples are “2.0”. In terms of personal experience distribution, most of the samples are “2.0”, with a total of 342, accounting for 87.24%, and the proportion of 1.0 samples is 12.75%. In terms of government brochures, “1.0” accounted for the highest proportion at 51.02%.

The expansion of propaganda channels plays a decisive role in the living space of the intangible cultural heritage of indigenous peoples’ diets to a certain extent. Through the survey of consumer information sources for indigenous restaurants in Taipei and New Taipei City, it can be seen that although there are many ways to promote indigenous restaurants, the results are not satisfactory. The most popular choice is the introduction of government folds, but the number of introductions and the scope of distribution of government folds are limited, thus the scope of accepting consumers is relatively limited, and it can only be limited to the catering of a small number of people. Therefore, adapting to the development of the new era with the help of the Internet and new technology propaganda channels is an effective way to expand the living space sought by the indigenous peoples’ dining-related intangible heritage geographical indications directly facing the diners—the indigenous restaurants.

It can be seen from the

Table 11. Quantitative Analysis of Feedback Data on “Indigenous Restaurant Suggestions”.

Name	Sample Size	Percentage
Technology elements	4	1.02%
Food safety supervision	7	1.78%
Respect for minorities	3	0.76%
Restaurant decoration	3	0.76%
Publicity and education	20	5.10%
Highly recommended	3	0.76%
Improve service quality	3	0.76%
Market development	11	2.80%
Keep culture	130	33.16%
Experience project	3	0.76%
Should be protected	13	3.31%
Traditional ingredients	3	0.76%
Quality control	54	13.77%
Ancestral wisdom	3	0.76%
Package	3	0.76%
Cultural feature retention	3	0.76%
Government propaganda	3	0.76%
Set up a professional organization	3	0.765
In-depth understanding of culture	36	9.18%
The price is close to the people	3	0.76%

Data source: The raw data for the data analysis of the above table is from the results of the 4.3. questionnaire, which is analyzed in depth here.

that the interviewees have a certain degree of support for the culture of the indigenous peoples, but the indigenous restaurants do not reflect their own culture to a high degree. Among the suggestions, “maintain culture” accounted for the largest proportion, accounting for 33.16%; followed by it is recommended to “control the quality”, accounting for 13.77%. In addition, 1.02% of the respondents suggested that the indigenous restaurant’s external publicity should include technological elements, and 5.10% of the respondents wanted to learn about cultural publicity and education. Retaining culture represents the biggest suggestion that diners give to indigenous restaurants. Indigenous restaurants that have not integrated their culture into their cuisine and business model are no different from ordinary restaurants. The cultural embodiment and uniqueness of indigenous restaurants are what distinguishes indigenous restaurants from ordinary restaurants, thus indigenous restaurant operators should embrace and retain their cultural influence and shun commercialization. At the same time, 1.02% of the respondents suggested that the indigenous restaurant’s external promotion should include technological elements. Although the number of suggestions is small, it cannot be ignored. We can see this from Figure 2, this is a relatively innovative suggestion that combines technological elements, indigenous food intangibles with the original. The combination of the sustainable development of ethnic restaurants is an innovative path for the sustainable development of indigenous restaurants in the new era.

7.3. Continued Strengthening of Market Supervision Is a Strong Guarantee for the Protection of Geographical Indications

The most important thing for the development of indigenous peoples’ agricultural geographic indication products is to ensure their unique quality to obtain market recognition. Business entities should raise awareness of trademark and brand protection of indigenous people’s agricultural geographic indication products, and severely crack down on illegal activities such as infringement and counterfeiting. When the quality characteristics are good, the name and reputation are good, the scale of industrial development, and the invention capacity affect the protection of national/regional geographical indications, the standardized path coefficient value is 0.866 > 0, and this path shows a significance level of 0.01 (z = 3.873, p = 0.000 < 0.01), demonstrating that good quality characteristics will have a significant positive impact on the protection of national/regional geographical indications (see

Table 12. Number of complaints/trials of IP infringement cases in the four countries.

Appeals/Trial Volume		2016	2017	2018	Variety		Increase (%)
					2017 → 2016	2018 → 2017	2017 → 2016	2018 → 2017
JPO	Reject the request for review	18,898	18,591	16,536	−307	−2055	−1.6%	−11.1%
	Invalid request	140	161	159	+21	−2	+15.0%	−1.2%
KIPO	Dismiss the appeal request	5616	4351	3624	−1265	−727	−22.5%	−16.7%
	Request for invalidation	1180	529	460	−651	−69	−55.2%	−13.0%
CNIPA	Request for review	13,107	28,472	28,695	+15,365	+223	+117.2%	+0.8%
	Invalid request	3969	1126	1387	−2843	+261	−71.6%	+23.2%
USPTO	Request volume	650	515	669	−135	+154	−20.8%	+29.9%
	Number of cases closed	451	471	645	+20	+174	+4.4%	+36.9%
	Annual number of outstanding files	540	606	639	+66	+33	+12.2%	+5.4%

Data source: “Statistical Reports of the World’s Five Intellectual Property Offices in 2018”, “Statistical Reports of the World’s Five Intellectual Property Offices in 2017”, and “Statistical Reports of the World’s Five Intellectual Property Offices in 2016” issued by WIPO; JPO: Japan Patent Office; KIPO: Korean Intellectual Property Office; CNIPA: China National Intellectual Property Administration; USPTO: United States Patent and Trademark Office.

).

Collect the data of each year through “the Statistical Report of the World’s Five Intellectual Property Offices in 2018”, “the Statistical Report of the World’s Five Intellectual Property Offices in 2017”, and “the Statistical Report of the World’s Five Intellectual Property Offices in 2016” on the WIPO official website. The specific content of comparative data analysis such as data change and increase is as follows.

By comparing the number of appeals/trials of intellectual property infringement cases in the four countries, it can be seen that the number of reexamination requests and invalidation requests in China’s intellectual property infringement cases has increased significantly. In 2017, compared with 2016, the increase in reexamination requests in China’s intellectual property infringement cases was 117.2%. Compared with 2017, the number of invalidation requests in China’s intellectual property infringement cases increased by 23.2%; the number of petitions in US intellectual property infringement cases increased significantly in 2018 compared with 2017, measured at 29.9%; the number of outstanding cases of US intellectual property infringement cases in 2017, the year-on-year increase was 12.2% compared with 2016, and the increase in 2018 compared with 2017 was 5.4%. Therefore, attention should be paid to the protection of intellectual property rights. The situation of intellectual property infringements faced by various countries is still severe. Market supervision should improve the production and marketing supervision system of agricultural geographical indication products, improve law enforcement and supervision capabilities, pesticide residue detection capabilities and technical evaluation capabilities, and bring geographical indications protection into existence among the real objects of protection, reducing or mitigating the trend of infringement.

In addition, it is necessary to strengthen the supervision of the quality of applications for protection of geographical indications. Moreover, it is also necessary to strictly control the quality of applications for protection of geographical indications, and strengthen the quality monitoring and notification of applications for the protection of geographical indications. Some further necessary actions are to: Regulate the application of geographical indication protection, strictly deal with acts such as falsification of application materials, reject relevant geographical indication protection applications, strengthen credit supervision, form linkage constraints with intellectual property protection assessment and inspection, effectively promote the shift from the pursuit of quantity to the improvement of quality, strictly review and confirm geographical indications, strengthen the procedural connection and coordination between the identification of geographical indication protection products and the registration of geographical indication collective trademarks and certification trademarks, and strengthen the data exchange, information notification and resource sharing between the identification of geographical indication protection products and the registration of geographical indications as collective trademarks and certification trademarks and the registration of common trademarks. As well as the registration of ordinary trademarks, during the review process, the products protected by geographical indications and geographical indications are identified as collective marks and certification marks are registered as the result of the prior review. Efforts should be shifted to study and improve the rules for the review and confirmation of applications for the protection of geographical indications, uniformly standardize the identification elements of geographical indication names and the delimitation of protected areas, comprehensively consider factors such as consumer understanding and cognition when judging generic names, and study the establishment of a special classification system that effectively reflects the characteristics of geographical indications.

7.4. It Is an Inevitable Choice to Choose the Path to Effectively Protect the Intangible Cultural Heritage Geographical Indications of Indigenous Peoples’ Diets

Through data analysis of the “Statistical Report of the World’s Five Major Intellectual Property Offices in 2018”, the factors affecting geographical indications are divided into good quality characteristics, good name and reputation, unknown scope of protection, management protection level, industrial development scale, competitiveness, economic value, nine factors of social value and research and development capabilities. Each influencing factor is divided into five levels based on the annual reports of the five major intellectual property offices, 1 = worse, 2 = poor, 3 = fair, 4 = good, 5 = excellent. An analysis on the influence path of different factors on geographical indications is to be conducted. (Combined with other report data sources: China National Intellectual Property Office: “National Intellectual Property Service Industry Statistical Survey Report 2020”; Japan Patent Office: “2019 Japan Intellectual Property System and Economic Relationship Survey Report”; European Patent Office, Patent Office: “Annual Review 2019”; U.S. Patent and Trademark Office: “2020 US Annual Intellectual Property Report”; Korea Intellectual Property Office: “2019 Intellectual Property Trends Annual Report”).

It can be seen from

Table 13. Path analysis on the influence of different factors on the degree of protection of geographical indications.

Model Regression Coefficient Summary Table
X	→	Y	Non-Standardized Path Coefficient	SE	z (CR Value)	p	Standardized Path Coefficient
Good quality characteristics	→	Degree of protection of geographical indications in countries/regions	2.500	0.645	3.873	0.000	0.866
The name has a good reputation	→	Degree of protection of geographical indications in countries/regions	2.500	0.645	3.873	0.000	0.866
Unknown scope of protection	→	Degree of protection of geographical indications in countries/regions	−2.500	0.645	−3.873	0.000	−0.866
Management protection level	→	Degree of protection of geographical indications in countries/regions	1.000	0.548	1.824	0.068	0.632
Industrial development scale	→	Degree of protection of geographical indications in countries/regions	1.250	0.323	3.873	0.000	0.866
Competitiveness	→	Degree of protection of geographical indications in countries/regions	1.071	0.696	1.539	0.124	0.567
Economic Value	→	Degree of protection of geographical indications in countries/regions	0.833	1.236	0.674	0.500	0.289
Social value	→	Degree of protection of geographical indications in countries/regions	−0.833	1.236	−0.674	0.500	−0.289
Invention capabilities	→	Degree of protection of geographical indications in countries/regions	2.500	0.645	3.873	0.000	0.866

Remarks: → Represents the path influence relationship; Data source: “Statistical Report of the World’s Top Five Intellectual Property Offices in 2018” (https://www.cnipa.gov.cn/col/col90/index.html (accessed on 28 April 2021)); “Statistical Report of the World’s Top 5 Intellectual Property Offices in 2018” by China National Intellectual Property Office (CNIPA), United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), European Patent Office (EPO), Japan Patent Office (JPO) and Korea Intellectual Property Office (KIPO) and other five major intellectual property offices (referred to as the “Five Offices”) and World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO).

that when the quality characteristics are good, the name and reputation are good, the scale of industrial development and the research and development capabilities affect the degree of protection of national/regional geographical indications, the standardized path coefficient value is 0.866 > 0, and this path shows a significance level of 0.01 (z = 3.873, p = 0.000 < 0.01), thus demonstrating that good quality characteristics, good name reputation, industrial development scale, and research and development capabilities will have a significant positive impact on the degree of protection of national/regional geographical indications.

When the scope of protection is unknown to the extent of protection of geographical indications in countries/regions, the standardized path coefficient value is −0.866 < 0, and this path shows significance at the level of 0.01 (z = −3.873, p = 0.000 < 0.01), thus indicating an unclear scope of protection will have a significant negative impact on the degree of protection of geographical indications in a country/region.

When the level of management protection, competitiveness, economic value, and social value affect the degree of protection of geographical indications in a country/region, this path does not reach a level of significance (z = 1.824, p = 0.068 > 0.05), thus indicating the level of management protection and competition strength, economic value, and social value have no influence on the degree of protection of national/regional geographical indications.

In the protection of geographical indications, countries/regions should focus on strengthening the maintenance of positive influencing factors, avoiding or solving problems for negative influencing factors as much as possible, and not completely neglecting the factors that will not have an impact [37]. It is just that the degree of protection does not determine that the products protected by geographical indications will not have an impact on products that are not protected by geographical indications. Positive and negative influence factors are the direction that countries/regions pay attention to in the process of geographical indication protection. Only when the positive influence factors are fully exerted and the negative influence factors are suppressed can the maximum degree of protection of geographical indications be achieved.

8. Complement

At about 17:40 on 14 February 2021, a serious fire broke out in Laozhai (4A-level scenic spot) in Wengding Village, Cangyuan Wa Autonomous County, Lincang City, Yunnan Province, causing the destruction of 101 houses. As the “first batch of traditional Chinese villages” and “the last primitive tribes in China”, its “erxiweng” (ethnic language: eebsivōng), “moya” (ethnic language: moigia), and “biede” (ethnic language: nbied) and other ethnic traditional diets showed that no matter how difficult it is to source ingredients locally and move away from their habitats, primitive survival instincts will come to the fore. We will never catch up with the changes of nature, and the protection of food culture is imminent.

The dietary intangible cultural heritage risk factors of the indigenous peoples are roughly divided into 14 main factors and several secondary factors. Self-assessment is carried out on a scale of 0–10, and each traditional diet within an ethnic group is evaluated once. The higher the score, the higher the degree of endangerment of the culture, and vice versa. The self-test scores are evaluated by more than two-thirds of the ethnic group and the highest score is removed, the lowest score is removed, and the average score is taken for the remaining scores. After a certain degree of multi-ethnic self-inspection, one can compare it to measure the degree of cultural protection and endangerment of one ethnic group and that of the other ethnicity, so that more attention can be paid to the sections with higher scores and serve better cultural protection. Therefore, we designed

Table 14. Self-inspection table of risk scores of indigenous peoples’ dietary intangible cultural heritage geographical indications.

Major Factor	Secondary Factors	Score (0–10 Points)
Architecture and development	Housing, commercial development, industrial zone, main tourist accommodation and related infrastructure, interpretation and visiting facilities
Transport infrastructure	Ground transportation infrastructure, air transportation infrastructure, ocean transportation infrastructure, underground transportation infrastructure
Service infrastructure	Water conservancy infrastructure, renewable energy facilities, non-renewable energy facilities, localized utilities, major linear utilities
Pollution	Marine water pollution, groundwater pollution, surface water pollution, air pollution, solid waste, excessive energy input
Use of Biological Resources	Collection of aquatic resources, aquaculture, land conversion, animal husbandry, crop production, biological resource collection, survival resource utilization, commercial collection, survival collection, timber production
Physical resource extraction	Excavation, quarrying, oil and gas, water pumping
Local conditions affecting the physical structure	Wind, relative humidity, temperature, radiation (light), dust, water level, pests, microorganisms
The social use of the heritage	Ceremony/spiritual/religious connection, social importance, indigenous hunting/gathering, traditional lifestyle and knowledge system changes, identity/social cohesion/population community changes, tourism
Other human activities	Illegal activities, sabotage, military training, war, terrorism, civil strife
Climate change and severe weather events	Storm, drought, desertification, ocean water changes, temperature, other
Sudden ecological and	Volcanic eruptions, earthquakes, tsunamis, landslides, erosion, fires
Geological event	Displaced species, invasive terrestrial species, invasive marine species, invasive freshwater species, ecological imbalance, altered genetic material
Alien invasive	Management plan, legal framework, low-impact monitoring activities, high-impact monitoring activities, financial resources, human resources
Management and institutional factors	Other supplementary secondary factors

Total score (140 points).

to assist in the preservation of national culture.

To assess the risk of a single ethnic group’s dietary culture, the main factor is to observe whether the scores of individual major factors and the total score are high or low. By analyzing the structure of the risk factors of ethnic food culture, we can grasp the main factors that lead to food culture risks, and provide empirical support and policy guidance for food culture protection. For example, a certain ethnic group’s food culture has a risk score of 80. Factors such as the social use of heritage and basic service facilities are low, but the factors of building development and the use of biological resources are high. In saving food culture, attention should be paid to architectural development and biological resources usage factors.

It is worth noting that evaluating only the scores of individual ethnic food culture risks prohibits objective analysis, because the status of individual scores in the overall is also critical. For example, the original score of an indigenous people’s self-inspection is 85. It is impossible to explain what this score means precisely because this is related to regional constraints and the overall indigenous people’s self-inspection score. When we have obtained a large number of ethnic food culture risk scores, we can evaluate the overall status of a single ethnic group. Here are two methods:

8.1. Percentile Rank

Percentile rank (PR), also known as “leading percentage”. In a series of numbers arranged in order of magnitude, the percentage of the number of times a score is lower than a certain score to the total number of times is the percentage rank of the score, which is represented by PR. For example, PR65 = 87 means that 87% of the scores are lower than 65 points.

Calculation formula: PR = 100 − (100 R − 50)/N, where R is the rank of a certain score in a series of numbers arranged by size, and N is the total number or number of scores. This shows that although the score of this nation is 65 points lower than the median value of 70, it is in the safe zone of food culture, but is located at 13% of the overall population. From the perspective of its status in the overall population, we still have reason to believe that the food culture of this nation is in danger.

8.2. Standard Score

After a sufficient number of nationalities have self-inspected, they will be given an average of the self-inspection scores, and also the standard deviation of a set of data. The standard deviation formula is as follows:

$$\sigma =\sqrt{\frac{1}{N}{\displaystyle \sum }_{i=1}^N {\left( x_i-\mu \right)}^2}$$

The calculation formula of the standard score is z = (x − μ)/σ, the value of the standard score represents the distance between the original score and the average of the population, and is calculated in the unit of standard deviation. Of course, the score is lower than the average when z is a negative number, otherwise it is a positive number. For example, when the standard score of a nation’s food culture risk total score is 2, we believe that the score of this nation is 2 standard deviations higher than the average; also when the score is −2, the score is 2 standard deviations lower than the average. At this time, we can proceed from experience and stipulate that when the standard score of a certain ethnic group is greater than 2.5, it can be classified as a food culture danger, and vice versa.

In addition, in statistics, we generally assume that the scores of each factor and the total scores all present a normal distribution. When the overall mean and standard deviation are known, by looking up the z distribution table, we can know the percentile rank and z-score at the same time, and can also convert the standard score and percentile rank. If the standard score of an indigenous nation is 1.5, by looking at the z-score table, the corresponding percentage is 0.93319, that is, the food culture risk score of the indigenous nation exceeds 93.319% of the indigenous self-inspection score. At that time, the national food culture is on the verge of danger and requires great attention. It is already in the wake of global national food culture protection. At the top of the risk score, groups need to pay attention to their own cultural protection loopholes in the individual categories with higher scores. This is the score interpretation standardization.

Similarly, when discussing the overall status of individual ethnic food culture dangers, in addition to comparing the total score, individual factors can also be compared with the content of the total score comparison; however, this will not be elaborated upon in this paper. The raw scores of different risk categories between diets are not comparable, while the standard scores of different risk categories are comparable. Due to different protective limiting factors, different diets have different score values for each risk category. For example, the original score of the first risk type of an indigenous people’s diet A is 6 points, and the original score of the second risk type is 4 points. From the raw scores, the first type of risk score of their diet A is higher than the second type of risk score. However, if the average risk score of the first category among all indigenous peoples is 7 points, and the average risk score of category 2 is 5 points, then the first category risk scores of diet A are below the average level of all indigenous peoples’ self-examinations. In addition, the second-type risk score is above the average level of all indigenous peoples’ self-examinations, that is, the second-type risk score of the student is substantially higher than the first-type risk score. From the perspective of standard scores, the first type of risk score is less than 500 points, and the second type of risk score is greater than 500 points. Since the standard score represents the position of the original score in the overall original score, it is comparable.

9. Supplementary Notes on Descriptive Statistics

This study applies SPSS narrative statistics/time distribution statistics to reveal the top three countries with the most complete “Business Conduct Law”, “Trademark Law” and “Specialized Protection” in “Geographical Indication Protection Methods” (the most secure for entrepreneurs) (Completed a total of seven indicators): the United States, Switzerland and Liechtenstein. However, Greece, Ireland and Italy have the least protection methods for geographical indications (completed two indicators).

In Table 4 and Table 5, the analysis of the “number of geographical indications”, “difference” and “increase” of the 16 countries in the world intellectual property index from 2017 to 2019 shows that geographical indications in the top three countries with development potential are: (1) Bosnia and Herzegovina (total increase: 20.76%, total difference: 373); (2) Mexico (total increase: 44.87%, total difference: 757); (3) Vietnam (total increase: 30.27%, total difference: 939). Interestingly, these three countries are all “developing countries”, and it is possible that the number of geographical indications can maintain a certain amount of growth. Among these 16 countries, the country with the most restricted geographical indication development is Serbia (total increase: −21.67%, total difference: −221).

Table 10: According to statistical analysis, the most effective publicity methods for food information in geographical indications are: (1) Introduction of government foldout advertisements; (2) Introduction of relatives and friends; (3) Passing by (self-promotion of the store).

Table 11: According to the comprehensive statistical analysis of “number of samples” and “percentage”, the ranking is: (1) Keep culture; (2) Quality control; (3) In-depth understanding of culture. According to the priority order of execution above, geotagging operators should pay attention to: (1) The degree of cultural preservation; (2) The control of food quality; (3) Enabling of consumers to deeply understand the culture. These are the three things that consumers pay the most attention to for the geographical indications food and cultural and creative industries.

In addition, the statistical results also found: Respect for minorities, Restaurant decoration, Highly recommended, Improve service quality, Ancestral wisdom, Package, Cultural feature retention, Government propaganda, Set up a professional organization, The price is close to the people in the “sample” the scoring results of “number” and “percentage” are the same. It is the item that the public pays the least attention to in the geographical indications catering section. Operators are recommended to avoid implementation under budget and resource constraints.

Based on the above statistics and analysis results, this research suggests that entrepreneurs or operators in the cultural and creative industries should invest in or start-up projects as follows: (1) Wines and spirits; (2) Agricultural products and foodstuffs, which also shows that cultural industries and cultural and creative industries need to have the characteristics of locality and local sales; however, special attention should be paid to the product: (1) The degree of cultural preservation (whether it has the characteristics of a cultural industry); (2) The control of food quality (food safety); (3) It can enable consumers to gain a deep understanding of the culture. These are the three things that consumers pay the most attention to for the geographical indication food and cultural and creative industries.

In the location selection section for investing in startups, according to this study, the United States, Switzerland and Liechtenstein are the most suitable. This is because compared with other countries, these three countries have the highest completeness in geographical indication protection law and intellectual property law. Therefore, it is also the most legally guaranteed. However, if you only invest in geographical indications and cultural and creative industries, it is recommended that you consider choosing: (1) Bosnia and Herzegovina; (2) Mexico; (3) Vietnam, because they not only have high annual growth rates, but the total difference is also positive. It can be seen from this that the cultural and creative industries are highly valued by these three developing countries.

The marketing aspect depends on: (1) Official advertising; (2) Word-of-mouth marketing; (3) The store’s features and decoration (self-promotion).

In addition, for: Respect for minorities, Restaurant decoration, highly recommended, improve service quality, ancestral wisdom, package, cultural feature retention, government propaganda, set up a professional organization, the price is close to the people, etc., operators with limited resources need to avoid excessive spending.

With the expansion of the successful British creative industry, countries around the world regard the creative economy as the main axis of future economic development. The cultural and creative industry, as the name suggests, is an industry that combines culture and creativity. It generally refers to people who live together in a society and share similar living habits, customs, and beliefs and other local characteristics. It is hoped that through the results of this research, operators and even the government should be reminded that in this era of global homogeneity, diversified local culture and art should receive international recognition and competitiveness.

10. Conclusions

The intangible cultural heritage of indigenous food represents a highlight of the cultural diversity among nations. While we empower and protect the rights and interests of indigenous peoples in other forms of cultural expression, we cannot ignore the importance of food intangible cultural heritage in indigenous culture. It is necessary to: Firstly, actively guide indigenous peoples to use geographical indications; secondly, strengthen the management, evaluation and supervision of the quality of geographical indication agricultural products; thirdly, ensure the effective transmission of the quality signals of geographical indication agricultural products, improve the information disclosure mechanism, crack down on counterfeiting behaviors, and resolve information inconsistencies; lastly, give full play to the potential of geographical indications for the economic development of indigenous peoples, create favorable conditions for the increase in income of indigenous peoples and the sustainable development of indigenous peoples’ dietary intangible cultural heritage.

In addition, from the perspective of geographical indications, it will better protect the rights of indigenous peoples’ dietary practices to create communities, and will also provide a good legal protection environment for the inheritance, dissemination and innovation of dietary intangible cultural heritage. By combining the self-inspection table for the risk coefficient of indigenous peoples’ dietary intangible cultural heritage geographical indications, one can compare the protection levels of the various dietary intangible cultural heritage geographical indications within the ethnic group and the degree of protection of the ethnic group’s dietary intangible cultural heritage geographical indications with other ethnic groups. The protection of geographical indications of food-related intangible cultural heritage and even the sustainable development of food-related intangible cultural heritage are of great positive significance. We look forward to a continual deepening in understanding of the protection mechanism of geographical indications, so that the dietary intangible heritage of indigenous peoples can vibrantly reemerge.