7 ms·

Canada's maple syrup 'rebels'

45 points by blowski 11y ago

blowski 11y ago
Favourite quote: > He says: "People who say that our practices are totalitarian should go see what happens in China, North Korea, or Africa." i.e. If you compare us to to North Korea, then we look good.
tomohawk 11y ago
One other side effect of this mafia is that it is almost impossible to get any grade of maple syrup other than dark amber seen on grocery store shelves. There are actually many different grades of maple syrup, depending on when syrup is extracted from the trees. The maple syrup mafia mixes all of the different grades together as that's easier/better for them. If you ever get the chance to try some of the other grades, its worth the treat.
lisivka 11y ago
I see no 'mafia' there. It is typical democracy.
- sidarape 11y ago
  You're downvoted but you're right. There are laws that protect the federation. If people really didn't want that, the laws would be abolished.
  - aianus 11y ago
    > If people really didn't want that, the laws would be abolished. Not at all. 95% of people could be against the cartel and it would still be law unless it was such a priority that it would actually change votes, which is not going to happen for a small issue like this. Similarly for laws like those preventing Tesla from opening retail stores in some states. Pretty much nobody except dealerships and their families are for those laws, but there's no incentive for a politician to change them since they would lose donation money and hardly gain any votes.
- wtbob 11y ago
  That's why I prefer a republic to a democracy. Some things shouldn't be allowed even if a majority want them.
aianus 11y ago
Can any Canadian lawyers shed some light on how this is legal?
- auxym 11y ago
  I'm Québécois but only a lowly engineer; Not sure which law applies, but agricultural monopolies are pretty common here. Milk and dairy products is the other well known one. So much that the productions quotas are the single most valuable part of most farming operations. Chicken and egg production is another big one.
- wmil 11y ago
  The Quebec government passed laws enabling it in 1990. It was modelled after the Canadian Wheat Board. The relevant legislation is called "Loi sur la mise en marché des produits agricoles, alimentaires et de la pêche" but it's all in french.
  - alricb 11y ago
    In English it's called "An Act Respecting the Marketing of Agricultural, Food and Fish Products": http://www.canlii.org/en/qc/laws/stat/cqlr-c-m-35.1/latest/cqlr-c-m-35.1.html http://www.canlii.org/en/qc/laws/stat/cqlr-c-m-35.1/latest/c...
SeanDav 11y ago
This is the problem with rules, laws and organizations created during, or as a result of, a crisis. There really should be an expiry date, or review system for when circumstances change, but there never is. So we end up with the Maple Syrup Mafia in the case of a maple syrup crisis and we end up with an increasingly restricted internet and increasingly reduced privacy because of terrorism fears.
max-a 11y ago
This was absolutely hilarious, but how comes the federation has power over people who don't want to have anything to do with it?
- pzone 11y ago
  Because of its entrenched political power.
dade_ 11y ago
Welcome to Quebec, the province intent on shooting itself in the head. Check out their language laws if you really want to see totalitarian, it destroyed their economy and has likely set them back forever. Beautiful place to visit, just beware of falling concrete.
- branchless 11y ago
  I live there, it's fantastic. Moved from London. Please god don't make me go back. My maple syrup is slightly more expensive than it might be. Boo hoo. Wake me up when you have sorted out all the corrupt banks that make UK land hideously expensive, then you can get onto small stuff like this.
- sidarape 11y ago
  First time I see Quebec bashing here.
  - dade_ 11y ago
    Not bashing. Just frustration, the province is a fraction of what it was destined to be, derailed by a bunch of terrorist lunatics in the 70s. The same regionalism plays out across the country, but their "leaders" just have the benefit of a language barrier to maintain their position and fables.
    - sidarape 11y ago
      We are on a thread about maple syrup and you're speaking about language laws and corruption in the construction industry. I can't see how you would not consider that bashing. > derailed by a bunch of terrorist lunatics in the 70s. Do you mean the FLQ? > The same regionalism plays out across the country, but their "leaders" just have the benefit of a language barrier to maintain their position and fables. What do you mean by that?
- auxym 11y ago
  You know, "the economy" does not have to be this deity that you absolutely have to sacrifice every aspect of culture, history, socializing, and every part of living an enjoyable life to. Québec still has the third highest GDP in the Canadian provinces [1]. Québec lost a lot of manufacturing and automotive sector jobs in the last decade or two. So has most of the western world. I don't think it has much to do with the language. As for the infrastructure, I'd posit that crappy infrastructure at high costs is largely due to corrupt politicians (ever hear of another place where money played too big a role in electoral campaigns?) and construction companies being run by the mafia [2]. Which, of course, all are problems of their own, and in no way is Québec a utopia. It's just a bit tiring to always hear the easy intellectual shortcuts that blame everything on law 101. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Canadian_provinces_and_territories_by_gross_domestic_product https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Canadian_provinces_and... [2] http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/editorials/the-charbonneau-lesson-public-contracts-are-always-a-criminal-opportunity/article27484535/ http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/editorials/the-c...
rdlecler1 11y ago
This is a system that doesn't tend toward Nash equilibrium. If everyone is permitted to maximize their production then it floods the market, prices drop and everyone loses. You could argue that you should let the strong survive. Wipe out the higher cost producers and leave yourself with a factor syrup producing industry. Yes you can (arbitrarily) value market efficiency over this, but the vast majority of products chose otherwise. They put together a system that benefits their interests. We do this all the time when we create laws. Now you have a few free-riders who benefit from the higher prices created by restricted supply, but who don't want to pay the cost. If the market was left to it's own devices, they would probably be out of husiness altogether or they would be running a factory sapping operation. And let's be clear, unlike water, energy, syrup is a luxury good not an essential commodity. The additional cost of inefficient production will be a rounding error for most consumers.
- aianus 11y ago
  > The additional cost of inefficient production will be a rounding error for most consumers. You can say this about almost any single consumer good. If this crap is allowed to proliferate, it would represent a material increase in the cost of living. > Yes you can (arbitrarily) value market efficiency over this What's arbitrary about preferring low-cost syrup? Monopolies are illegal for good reason, they unfairly enrich the monopolist at the cost of the consumer.
  - rdlecler1 11y ago
    You're making a very strong value judgement that cheap goods and low cost production trump tradition and the ability for people to make a living. I simply don't accept your premise as a blanket statement.
- pzone 11y ago
  This is such narrow minded logic. I know you're referencing the logic of concentrated benefits and diffuse costs. Saying for any individual consumer, paying an extra 5% for their maple syrup on average is a drop in the bucket, so if sales are $1 billion USD, we're basically letting the farmers extract $50 million from consumers, and that's not too much money, so who cares? Well, I think $50 million is a lot of money, but that is seriously neglecting the other, bigger cost: the blocking of incentives to maximize production quantity and develop innovations. If the cartel were dismantled, it's not just that prices would fall for existing consumers, but total supply curve would increase as well, since farmers would each have the incentive to produce as much as possible. Maybe it would turn from a $1 billion market to a $1.25 billion market. Whatever the particular number, it's bound to be a huge amount of value destroyed. But the most violent sort destruction is that production quotas kill the incentive to innovate. Look at publications like this - there is very little incentive to experiment with new techniques like this in Quebec, because even if you could double your production, you wouldn't be allowed to sell anything past your quota. http://modernfarmer.com/2014/01/maple-syrup-revolution/ http://modernfarmer.com/2014/01/maple-syrup-revolution/ Destroying the incentive to innovate is murdering the future.
mabbo 11y ago
I won't argue that the Federation should exist, but I will argue that these producers are idiots for wanting it to stop existing. It's giving them their livelihood. Maple Syrup prices continue to rise year after year (addicts like myself will tell you all about it). Supply is highly variable- some years the weather just doesn't work well, and there's little produced, other years there's an abundance. The Federation's cartel powers and large reserve mean that they set syrup prices (increasing, always) and they make supply constant. They also market it, increasing demand. As an individual producer, the lack of the Federation is problematic: have a bad year, and you have nothing to sell; have a good year, well, so does everyone else- so now the price of syrup is rock-bottom, and you make very little profit, unless you decide to store it yourself and wait for a bad year. Demand can also drop with supply variability. What company would start depending on pure maple syrup, knowing that next year it's price may double? These guys want to have the prices that only exist because of the Federation's cartel powers, but refuse to follow the their rules. I have little sympathy.
- iolothebard 11y ago
  Yeah, god forbid they should be able to do what they want with their own property. Morons, who wouldn't like giving away 12%/pound for the privilege of someone doing price fixing for you.
  - mabbo 11y ago
    Don't misunderstand me, I agree with you- I think it's a bit oppressive that laws like this exist. But I can't understand why, now that it exists and these producers are making so much more money from it, they'd want to dismantle it. Edit a moment later: in regard to "who wouldn't like giving away 12%/pound for the privilege of someone doing price fixing for you.". A: Someone who gets 13% (or 113%) more because of the price fixing.
    - iolothebard 11y ago
      Sounds like the mafia. Except jail instead of being maimed/killed.
maxki 11y ago
The seasonal production volume of maple syrup is very sensitive to temperature patterns. One year you have a huge production and the next few years almost nothing, and it's not about efficiency, only about freezing/defreezing patterns. In such a "market", where the production side is practically random, it will cycle from boom to bust forever. I don't see other solutions than a cartel to solve this. What they do is accumulate surplus during "boom" years, and release it during "bust" years, the offer becomes a smoother curve. Without such a mechanism, no rational investor will invest beyond a "hobby" scale production. An investigation on how industries subject to "random like" production variations can solve the price unpredicability problem would make a more interesting article. Presenting it as an "evil cartel" story, is more sensationalist and involves much less research for the journalist.
- icebraining 11y ago
  As far as I know, the way the rest of the agriculture producers solve this is with futures. Cartels have some advantages, but they are often unstable, and so they have to be enforced with threats of jail, as in this story, and which helps the characterization as "evil".
  - slavik81 11y ago
    Unfortunately, this sort of cartel is not unusual in Canadian agriculture. I have mixed feelings about Stephan Harper, but abolishing the Wheat Board and pardoning protestors [1] was a definite achievement in my books. [1] http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/harper-pardons-farmers-arrested-under-old-wheat-board-law-1.1146436 http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/harper-pardons-farmers-arres...
- aianus 11y ago
  Nothing is stopping entrepreneurs from stockpiling tanks of syrup in good seasons to sell at a profit in bad seasons. If the extremes are like you say, it would be good business and would help stabilize prices somewhat. No insane cartel required.
  - 11y ago
wtbob 11y ago
> 'People who say that our practices are totalitarian should go see what happens in China, North Korea, or Africa.' 'We're not as bad as North Korea!' is hardly compelling. Why not set up a system of maple syrup futures, rather than sending in police and raiding people's homes?
- binarymax 11y ago
  I wish, that every time I saw a quote like this in a news article, the journalist would put a caption referencing the fallacy type.
alricb 11y ago
One issue with the Federation is that cheating is really rampant, even among its board members. Part of the problem is that maple syrup harvesting is essentially a seasonal activity, with quite a short season, so it's a side activity for almost all producers, except the very largest ones; when they see high prices, they really want to make the extra money, unlike dairy farmer who sell year-long.
_lce0 11y ago
When I first finished reading the post-capitalism article, I was feeling some sort of hope. Now, after this, it's just emptiness. Some time ago I read some metaphor a guy who build something that people really wanted, and then came another man with clubs and took it from him, build walls around it, and charged for it.
koenigdavidmj 11y ago
This exists in the US too for a handful of products. Raisins are the ones I remember (NPR's Planet Money did a story recently that is almost like this one but about raisins).

45 points by blowski 11y ago

Favourite quote: > He says: "People who say that our practices are totalitarian should go see what happens in China, North Korea, or Africa." i.e. If you compare us to to North Korea, then we look good.

tomohawk 11y ago

One other side effect of this mafia is that it is almost impossible to get any grade of maple syrup other than dark amber seen on grocery store shelves. There are actually many different grades of maple syrup, depending on when syrup is extracted from the trees. The maple syrup mafia mixes all of the different grades together as that's easier/better for them. If you ever get the chance to try some of the other grades, its worth the treat.

lisivka 11y ago

I see no 'mafia' there. It is typical democracy.

sidarape 11y ago
You're downvoted but you're right. There are laws that protect the federation. If people really didn't want that, the laws would be abolished.
- aianus 11y ago
  > If people really didn't want that, the laws would be abolished. Not at all. 95% of people could be against the cartel and it would still be law unless it was such a priority that it would actually change votes, which is not going to happen for a small issue like this. Similarly for laws like those preventing Tesla from opening retail stores in some states. Pretty much nobody except dealerships and their families are for those laws, but there's no incentive for a politician to change them since they would lose donation money and hardly gain any votes.
wtbob 11y ago
That's why I prefer a republic to a democracy. Some things shouldn't be allowed even if a majority want them.

aianus 11y ago

Can any Canadian lawyers shed some light on how this is legal?

auxym 11y ago
I'm Québécois but only a lowly engineer; Not sure which law applies, but agricultural monopolies are pretty common here. Milk and dairy products is the other well known one. So much that the productions quotas are the single most valuable part of most farming operations. Chicken and egg production is another big one.
wmil 11y ago
The Quebec government passed laws enabling it in 1990. It was modelled after the Canadian Wheat Board. The relevant legislation is called "Loi sur la mise en marché des produits agricoles, alimentaires et de la pêche" but it's all in french.
- alricb 11y ago
  In English it's called "An Act Respecting the Marketing of Agricultural, Food and Fish Products": http://www.canlii.org/en/qc/laws/stat/cqlr-c-m-35.1/latest/cqlr-c-m-35.1.html http://www.canlii.org/en/qc/laws/stat/cqlr-c-m-35.1/latest/c...

SeanDav 11y ago

This is the problem with rules, laws and organizations created during, or as a result of, a crisis. There really should be an expiry date, or review system for when circumstances change, but there never is. So we end up with the Maple Syrup Mafia in the case of a maple syrup crisis and we end up with an increasingly restricted internet and increasingly reduced privacy because of terrorism fears.

max-a 11y ago

This was absolutely hilarious, but how comes the federation has power over people who don't want to have anything to do with it?

pzone 11y ago
Because of its entrenched political power.

dade_ 11y ago

Welcome to Quebec, the province intent on shooting itself in the head. Check out their language laws if you really want to see totalitarian, it destroyed their economy and has likely set them back forever. Beautiful place to visit, just beware of falling concrete.

branchless 11y ago
I live there, it's fantastic. Moved from London. Please god don't make me go back. My maple syrup is slightly more expensive than it might be. Boo hoo. Wake me up when you have sorted out all the corrupt banks that make UK land hideously expensive, then you can get onto small stuff like this.
sidarape 11y ago
First time I see Quebec bashing here.
- dade_ 11y ago
  Not bashing. Just frustration, the province is a fraction of what it was destined to be, derailed by a bunch of terrorist lunatics in the 70s. The same regionalism plays out across the country, but their "leaders" just have the benefit of a language barrier to maintain their position and fables.
  - sidarape 11y ago
    We are on a thread about maple syrup and you're speaking about language laws and corruption in the construction industry. I can't see how you would not consider that bashing. > derailed by a bunch of terrorist lunatics in the 70s. Do you mean the FLQ? > The same regionalism plays out across the country, but their "leaders" just have the benefit of a language barrier to maintain their position and fables. What do you mean by that?
auxym 11y ago
You know, "the economy" does not have to be this deity that you absolutely have to sacrifice every aspect of culture, history, socializing, and every part of living an enjoyable life to. Québec still has the third highest GDP in the Canadian provinces [1]. Québec lost a lot of manufacturing and automotive sector jobs in the last decade or two. So has most of the western world. I don't think it has much to do with the language. As for the infrastructure, I'd posit that crappy infrastructure at high costs is largely due to corrupt politicians (ever hear of another place where money played too big a role in electoral campaigns?) and construction companies being run by the mafia [2]. Which, of course, all are problems of their own, and in no way is Québec a utopia. It's just a bit tiring to always hear the easy intellectual shortcuts that blame everything on law 101. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Canadian_provinces_and_territories_by_gross_domestic_product https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Canadian_provinces_and... [2] http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/editorials/the-charbonneau-lesson-public-contracts-are-always-a-criminal-opportunity/article27484535/ http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/editorials/the-c...

rdlecler1 11y ago

This is a system that doesn't tend toward Nash equilibrium. If everyone is permitted to maximize their production then it floods the market, prices drop and everyone loses. You could argue that you should let the strong survive. Wipe out the higher cost producers and leave yourself with a factor syrup producing industry. Yes you can (arbitrarily) value market efficiency over this, but the vast majority of products chose otherwise. They put together a system that benefits their interests. We do this all the time when we create laws. Now you have a few free-riders who benefit from the higher prices created by restricted supply, but who don't want to pay the cost. If the market was left to it's own devices, they would probably be out of husiness altogether or they would be running a factory sapping operation. And let's be clear, unlike water, energy, syrup is a luxury good not an essential commodity. The additional cost of inefficient production will be a rounding error for most consumers.

aianus 11y ago
> The additional cost of inefficient production will be a rounding error for most consumers. You can say this about almost any single consumer good. If this crap is allowed to proliferate, it would represent a material increase in the cost of living. > Yes you can (arbitrarily) value market efficiency over this What's arbitrary about preferring low-cost syrup? Monopolies are illegal for good reason, they unfairly enrich the monopolist at the cost of the consumer.
- rdlecler1 11y ago
  You're making a very strong value judgement that cheap goods and low cost production trump tradition and the ability for people to make a living. I simply don't accept your premise as a blanket statement.
pzone 11y ago
This is such narrow minded logic. I know you're referencing the logic of concentrated benefits and diffuse costs. Saying for any individual consumer, paying an extra 5% for their maple syrup on average is a drop in the bucket, so if sales are $1 billion USD, we're basically letting the farmers extract $50 million from consumers, and that's not too much money, so who cares? Well, I think $50 million is a lot of money, but that is seriously neglecting the other, bigger cost: the blocking of incentives to maximize production quantity and develop innovations. If the cartel were dismantled, it's not just that prices would fall for existing consumers, but total supply curve would increase as well, since farmers would each have the incentive to produce as much as possible. Maybe it would turn from a $1 billion market to a $1.25 billion market. Whatever the particular number, it's bound to be a huge amount of value destroyed. But the most violent sort destruction is that production quotas kill the incentive to innovate. Look at publications like this - there is very little incentive to experiment with new techniques like this in Quebec, because even if you could double your production, you wouldn't be allowed to sell anything past your quota. http://modernfarmer.com/2014/01/maple-syrup-revolution/ http://modernfarmer.com/2014/01/maple-syrup-revolution/ Destroying the incentive to innovate is murdering the future.

mabbo 11y ago

I won't argue that the Federation should exist, but I will argue that these producers are idiots for wanting it to stop existing. It's giving them their livelihood. Maple Syrup prices continue to rise year after year (addicts like myself will tell you all about it). Supply is highly variable- some years the weather just doesn't work well, and there's little produced, other years there's an abundance. The Federation's cartel powers and large reserve mean that they set syrup prices (increasing, always) and they make supply constant. They also market it, increasing demand. As an individual producer, the lack of the Federation is problematic: have a bad year, and you have nothing to sell; have a good year, well, so does everyone else- so now the price of syrup is rock-bottom, and you make very little profit, unless you decide to store it yourself and wait for a bad year. Demand can also drop with supply variability. What company would start depending on pure maple syrup, knowing that next year it's price may double? These guys want to have the prices that only exist because of the Federation's cartel powers, but refuse to follow the their rules. I have little sympathy.

iolothebard 11y ago
Yeah, god forbid they should be able to do what they want with their own property. Morons, who wouldn't like giving away 12%/pound for the privilege of someone doing price fixing for you.
- mabbo 11y ago
  Don't misunderstand me, I agree with you- I think it's a bit oppressive that laws like this exist. But I can't understand why, now that it exists and these producers are making so much more money from it, they'd want to dismantle it. Edit a moment later: in regard to "who wouldn't like giving away 12%/pound for the privilege of someone doing price fixing for you.". A: Someone who gets 13% (or 113%) more because of the price fixing.
  - iolothebard 11y ago
    Sounds like the mafia. Except jail instead of being maimed/killed.

maxki 11y ago

The seasonal production volume of maple syrup is very sensitive to temperature patterns. One year you have a huge production and the next few years almost nothing, and it's not about efficiency, only about freezing/defreezing patterns. In such a "market", where the production side is practically random, it will cycle from boom to bust forever. I don't see other solutions than a cartel to solve this. What they do is accumulate surplus during "boom" years, and release it during "bust" years, the offer becomes a smoother curve. Without such a mechanism, no rational investor will invest beyond a "hobby" scale production. An investigation on how industries subject to "random like" production variations can solve the price unpredicability problem would make a more interesting article. Presenting it as an "evil cartel" story, is more sensationalist and involves much less research for the journalist.

icebraining 11y ago
As far as I know, the way the rest of the agriculture producers solve this is with futures. Cartels have some advantages, but they are often unstable, and so they have to be enforced with threats of jail, as in this story, and which helps the characterization as "evil".
- slavik81 11y ago
  Unfortunately, this sort of cartel is not unusual in Canadian agriculture. I have mixed feelings about Stephan Harper, but abolishing the Wheat Board and pardoning protestors [1] was a definite achievement in my books. [1] http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/harper-pardons-farmers-arrested-under-old-wheat-board-law-1.1146436 http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/harper-pardons-farmers-arres...
aianus 11y ago
Nothing is stopping entrepreneurs from stockpiling tanks of syrup in good seasons to sell at a profit in bad seasons. If the extremes are like you say, it would be good business and would help stabilize prices somewhat. No insane cartel required.
- 11y ago

wtbob 11y ago

> 'People who say that our practices are totalitarian should go see what happens in China, North Korea, or Africa.' 'We're not as bad as North Korea!' is hardly compelling. Why not set up a system of maple syrup futures, rather than sending in police and raiding people's homes?

binarymax 11y ago
I wish, that every time I saw a quote like this in a news article, the journalist would put a caption referencing the fallacy type.

alricb 11y ago

One issue with the Federation is that cheating is really rampant, even among its board members. Part of the problem is that maple syrup harvesting is essentially a seasonal activity, with quite a short season, so it's a side activity for almost all producers, except the very largest ones; when they see high prices, they really want to make the extra money, unlike dairy farmer who sell year-long.

_lce0 11y ago

When I first finished reading the post-capitalism article, I was feeling some sort of hope. Now, after this, it's just emptiness. Some time ago I read some metaphor a guy who build something that people really wanted, and then came another man with clubs and took it from him, build walls around it, and charged for it.

koenigdavidmj 11y ago

This exists in the US too for a handful of products. Raisins are the ones I remember (NPR's Planet Money did a story recently that is almost like this one but about raisins).