8 ms·

They don't mention it, but one of the reasons the mustard seeds are not available in the Dijon region is because EU has been heavily subsidizing bio-energy crop

They don't mention it, but one of the reasons the mustard seeds are not available in the Dijon region is because EU has been heavily subsidizing bio-energy crops like rapeseed for the last decades (which coincidentally also looks a lot like mustardseed) Good or bad, I don't know.

treeman79 4y ago
Government paying people to burn food supplies.
- ajsnigrutin 4y ago
  There's a reason for that... They already produce or import enough food, so with growing plants for biodiesel: 1) you get some small amount of oil out of it. 2) if shit hits the fan, you have local farmers, with all the equipment and knowledge/training, who can immediately switch to food production if needed. The alternative would be to train new farmers, buy new equipment, etc., which would take a long, long time (especially if the government is organizing it), and there's that saying about two missed meals and a revolution, and french leaders really really don't want another revolution.
  - HWR_14 4y ago
    > who can immediately switch to food production if needed. I think farming is not as fungible as you think. > which would take a long, long time (especially if the government is organizing it), The government seems pretty adept at forcing people to learn some basic skills pretty fast and forcing others to make heavy equipment when wars occur.
  - pdpi 4y ago
    This general principle applies to a lot of seemingly-irrational government action: it's effectively buying insurance. We all understand that, in an ideal world, most forms of (consumer-focused) insurance are a blackhole that you dump money into and never actually get any money back, because insurance only pays out if things go awry. Subsidising strategic industries like farming falls under that exact same rubric. Ideally you don't ever want to cash in on that investment, but it's important that it's there. The CHIPS Act in the US is an example of this idea exactly. In a world where China is getting more aggressive around Taiwan, US-based foundries are an (expensive) insurance policy.
  - wizardofdos 4y ago
    3) you contribute to loss of biodiversity through increased land use for intensive farming (monoculture, high chemical use) 4) co2 balance of those 'biofuels' is way worse than fuels refined from extracted fossil fuels 5) additional supply of these fuels lowers fuel prices thereby slowing shift to renewable energy sources (i.e. renewable electricity) 6) simply paying farmers for fallow fields is a much simpler solution to the problem
    - Dylan16807 4y ago
      > co2 balance of those 'biofuels' is way worse than fuels refined from extracted fossil fuels By what metric? You get out much more energy than you put in. And when we're talking about keeping farms active, that land wasn't going to be doing something significantly better wrt carbon if the subsidy didn't exist.
    - ajsnigrutin 4y ago
      I agree with the first points, but if you pay farmers not to farm, you'll get farmers who don't farm, you'll get farmers with more fields that they can use (because they'll have fields for 100% of what they can produce + extra ones for governments money), and you'll get speculative investors investing in empty fields to collect money. So, when shit hits the fan, you have farmers who can't increase production, because they don't have the resources, and you get speculative investors who jump ship, plus a lot of empty fields and hungry citizens, revolution, guillotines, etc. If those areas are now producing crops, you have a guarantee, that the farmer can actually handle those fields, that the equipment is in working order, you know how much they can produce, and all it takes is just to switch the corn for eg. ethanol to corn fit for humans to eat.
    - wikfwikf 4y ago
      4 & 5 are simply nonsense. 3 does not really apply in France. There are extensive swathes of country which are hugely monocultured already with food crops. At the same time small farming, economically uncompetitive types of farming, and other forms of land stewardship are extensively supported by the state in various ways. The question of monoculture is much more complicated than to think that growing rape for biodiesel is going to remove biodiversity.
  - jiggywiggy 4y ago
    I think you give to much credit to the EU. The main reasoning is something like this: Climate change bad, green bio fuels good, subsidize as much as possible. We're subsidizing farmers like crazy anyway so maybe we can turn that fund into align with our other goals a bit. Oh wow we didn't realize there would be side effects.
    - GuB-42 4y ago
      You just rephrased what GP said, in a more snarky manner. The point is that countries have to keep their farms in working condition, whatever we make farmers do. And yes, biofuels are a way to achieve that, the alternative would be to farm too much mustard, which is not ideal either. And yes, as a side effect, a bad harvest in Canada and and a war in Ukraine can cause a temporary shortage of a non-essential food item. It sucks, but worse things happened in the last 2-3 years, including shortages, and it wasn't about farming. And I say that as someone who is directly affected by the mustard shortage.
      - jiggywiggy 4y ago
        No, he was arguing they actually have a longterm view understanding the impact of their policy and having the illusion that they would be able to make the correct policy changes to influence farmers of switching back when needed. And there is lot of reason the be snarky about the EU, I mean the fact they keep moving every few months for hundreds of millions of dollars is extremely disrespectful to the European people. Let alone their disregard of national democracies.
kurupt213 4y ago
canola is in the mustard family
GekkePrutser 4y ago
So now the price will go up, and it'll be worthwhile growing mustard seeds again.
- bell-cot 4y ago
  Ah, no. You probably should talk to a real farmer about current crop prices vs. futures prices, the capital & other costs of trying to switch from growing Crop A to Crop B, lead times, inelastic demand, and how many farmers have been wiped out (bankruptcy & liquidation) due to a series of "it sounded good at the time" decisions.
  - Dylan16807 4y ago
    They mean it in an average sense, not advice to particular farmers. It will make sense for some to switch, and some will.
- hammock 4y ago
  If the price increase weren’t due to a subsidy, that would be true. Instead, a subsidy creates a sustained shortage. Unless something else (not price action) increases the demand for mustard, its price will not move back to equilibrium. This concept is in Econ 101 (albeit one of the less intuitive concepts taught)
  - Dylan16807 4y ago
    Well first off they didn't say the price will move back, they said the shortage will end. Now that it costs more, more supply can be obtained. But also it's likely that when the equilibrium point moved, farmers (or other parts of the supply chain) overshot it. That puts us in a price spike, so even if the new normal is higher than the old normal, if you check during a spike you should expect the price to go down.
    - GekkePrutser 4y ago
      I'm the OP and yes you explained what I meant to say very well. All foodstuff prices are going up now anyway. And tbh, mustard is like 0.1% of my food budget so if it goes up a bit or even triples in price I won't think twice about it. I just meant that this will force a new equilibrium, subsidy or not, people will keep growing mustard. And of course tackling climate change is also a big priority, and renewable fuels are a good option for things that can't be electric (e.g. planes).
finikytou 4y ago
it is bad. and french people never wanted that. but it seems to be for the greater good. also most of the commercial mustard brands buys seeds from china and brand it as french. hence why there is a shortage. commercial greed of companies that want to bank on the french branding while buying the product in cheaper labor cost regions.
- Yoric 4y ago
  Pretty sure it's Canadian actually.
  - gambiting 4y ago
    Even the article mentions it. Edit: if this wasn't 100% crystal clear, judging by some replies - I mean "even the article mentions it [Canada being a source of mustard seeds]"
    - seszett 4y ago
      I don't even care much about mustard or live in France (though I am French) and I knew it just from reading French news months ago. But I've heard so much disinformation in the last weeks when I was back at home with my family, many aging people (not especially lacking education, and of various social status but just "normal" people) who seem to get most of their information from random posts on Facebook, that I've lost any remaining trust in democracy (or at least direct democracy as many people advocate today) as a viable system for the coming years. Democracy needs a well-informed population making informed decisions, but what I see is the total opposite. If these people (who make up the majority of the population in our aging society) were to take decisions themselves, we would likely ally with Russia to finish the war against the "maybe-not-as-bad-but-still-very-bad" Ukrainians to restore mustard production and make gas flow again since there is no exceptional drought or any climate change at all, since summer last year was not so warm. Or some other nonsense. Sorry for the rant, but my reflections were actually triggered by the comments I heard back then regarding the mustard shortage. I had never realised how misinformed people were.
Yoric 4y ago
I also seem to understand that growing mustard seeds requires lots of pesticides that are considered harmful to environment or farmers in the EU. Easier to buy it from countries with different regulations.
- jiggywiggy 4y ago
  yeah and pesticide rules on non-edible crops used for bio-fuels are often much more relaxed. It's also why it might not always be a good idea to live next to a flower farm.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

treeman79 4y ago

Government paying people to burn food supplies.

ajsnigrutin 4y ago
There's a reason for that... They already produce or import enough food, so with growing plants for biodiesel: 1) you get some small amount of oil out of it. 2) if shit hits the fan, you have local farmers, with all the equipment and knowledge/training, who can immediately switch to food production if needed. The alternative would be to train new farmers, buy new equipment, etc., which would take a long, long time (especially if the government is organizing it), and there's that saying about two missed meals and a revolution, and french leaders really really don't want another revolution.
- HWR_14 4y ago
  > who can immediately switch to food production if needed. I think farming is not as fungible as you think. > which would take a long, long time (especially if the government is organizing it), The government seems pretty adept at forcing people to learn some basic skills pretty fast and forcing others to make heavy equipment when wars occur.
- pdpi 4y ago
  This general principle applies to a lot of seemingly-irrational government action: it's effectively buying insurance. We all understand that, in an ideal world, most forms of (consumer-focused) insurance are a blackhole that you dump money into and never actually get any money back, because insurance only pays out if things go awry. Subsidising strategic industries like farming falls under that exact same rubric. Ideally you don't ever want to cash in on that investment, but it's important that it's there. The CHIPS Act in the US is an example of this idea exactly. In a world where China is getting more aggressive around Taiwan, US-based foundries are an (expensive) insurance policy.
- wizardofdos 4y ago
  3) you contribute to loss of biodiversity through increased land use for intensive farming (monoculture, high chemical use) 4) co2 balance of those 'biofuels' is way worse than fuels refined from extracted fossil fuels 5) additional supply of these fuels lowers fuel prices thereby slowing shift to renewable energy sources (i.e. renewable electricity) 6) simply paying farmers for fallow fields is a much simpler solution to the problem
  - Dylan16807 4y ago
    > co2 balance of those 'biofuels' is way worse than fuels refined from extracted fossil fuels By what metric? You get out much more energy than you put in. And when we're talking about keeping farms active, that land wasn't going to be doing something significantly better wrt carbon if the subsidy didn't exist.
  - ajsnigrutin 4y ago
    I agree with the first points, but if you pay farmers not to farm, you'll get farmers who don't farm, you'll get farmers with more fields that they can use (because they'll have fields for 100% of what they can produce + extra ones for governments money), and you'll get speculative investors investing in empty fields to collect money. So, when shit hits the fan, you have farmers who can't increase production, because they don't have the resources, and you get speculative investors who jump ship, plus a lot of empty fields and hungry citizens, revolution, guillotines, etc. If those areas are now producing crops, you have a guarantee, that the farmer can actually handle those fields, that the equipment is in working order, you know how much they can produce, and all it takes is just to switch the corn for eg. ethanol to corn fit for humans to eat.
  - wikfwikf 4y ago
    4 & 5 are simply nonsense. 3 does not really apply in France. There are extensive swathes of country which are hugely monocultured already with food crops. At the same time small farming, economically uncompetitive types of farming, and other forms of land stewardship are extensively supported by the state in various ways. The question of monoculture is much more complicated than to think that growing rape for biodiesel is going to remove biodiversity.
- jiggywiggy 4y ago
  I think you give to much credit to the EU. The main reasoning is something like this: Climate change bad, green bio fuels good, subsidize as much as possible. We're subsidizing farmers like crazy anyway so maybe we can turn that fund into align with our other goals a bit. Oh wow we didn't realize there would be side effects.
  - GuB-42 4y ago
    You just rephrased what GP said, in a more snarky manner. The point is that countries have to keep their farms in working condition, whatever we make farmers do. And yes, biofuels are a way to achieve that, the alternative would be to farm too much mustard, which is not ideal either. And yes, as a side effect, a bad harvest in Canada and and a war in Ukraine can cause a temporary shortage of a non-essential food item. It sucks, but worse things happened in the last 2-3 years, including shortages, and it wasn't about farming. And I say that as someone who is directly affected by the mustard shortage.
    - jiggywiggy 4y ago
      No, he was arguing they actually have a longterm view understanding the impact of their policy and having the illusion that they would be able to make the correct policy changes to influence farmers of switching back when needed. And there is lot of reason the be snarky about the EU, I mean the fact they keep moving every few months for hundreds of millions of dollars is extremely disrespectful to the European people. Let alone their disregard of national democracies.

kurupt213 4y ago

canola is in the mustard family

GekkePrutser 4y ago

So now the price will go up, and it'll be worthwhile growing mustard seeds again.

bell-cot 4y ago
Ah, no. You probably should talk to a real farmer about current crop prices vs. futures prices, the capital & other costs of trying to switch from growing Crop A to Crop B, lead times, inelastic demand, and how many farmers have been wiped out (bankruptcy & liquidation) due to a series of "it sounded good at the time" decisions.
- Dylan16807 4y ago
  They mean it in an average sense, not advice to particular farmers. It will make sense for some to switch, and some will.
hammock 4y ago
If the price increase weren’t due to a subsidy, that would be true. Instead, a subsidy creates a sustained shortage. Unless something else (not price action) increases the demand for mustard, its price will not move back to equilibrium. This concept is in Econ 101 (albeit one of the less intuitive concepts taught)
- Dylan16807 4y ago
  Well first off they didn't say the price will move back, they said the shortage will end. Now that it costs more, more supply can be obtained. But also it's likely that when the equilibrium point moved, farmers (or other parts of the supply chain) overshot it. That puts us in a price spike, so even if the new normal is higher than the old normal, if you check during a spike you should expect the price to go down.
  - GekkePrutser 4y ago
    I'm the OP and yes you explained what I meant to say very well. All foodstuff prices are going up now anyway. And tbh, mustard is like 0.1% of my food budget so if it goes up a bit or even triples in price I won't think twice about it. I just meant that this will force a new equilibrium, subsidy or not, people will keep growing mustard. And of course tackling climate change is also a big priority, and renewable fuels are a good option for things that can't be electric (e.g. planes).

finikytou 4y ago

it is bad. and french people never wanted that. but it seems to be for the greater good. also most of the commercial mustard brands buys seeds from china and brand it as french. hence why there is a shortage. commercial greed of companies that want to bank on the french branding while buying the product in cheaper labor cost regions.

Yoric 4y ago
Pretty sure it's Canadian actually.
- gambiting 4y ago
  Even the article mentions it. Edit: if this wasn't 100% crystal clear, judging by some replies - I mean "even the article mentions it [Canada being a source of mustard seeds]"
  - seszett 4y ago
    I don't even care much about mustard or live in France (though I am French) and I knew it just from reading French news months ago. But I've heard so much disinformation in the last weeks when I was back at home with my family, many aging people (not especially lacking education, and of various social status but just "normal" people) who seem to get most of their information from random posts on Facebook, that I've lost any remaining trust in democracy (or at least direct democracy as many people advocate today) as a viable system for the coming years. Democracy needs a well-informed population making informed decisions, but what I see is the total opposite. If these people (who make up the majority of the population in our aging society) were to take decisions themselves, we would likely ally with Russia to finish the war against the "maybe-not-as-bad-but-still-very-bad" Ukrainians to restore mustard production and make gas flow again since there is no exceptional drought or any climate change at all, since summer last year was not so warm. Or some other nonsense. Sorry for the rant, but my reflections were actually triggered by the comments I heard back then regarding the mustard shortage. I had never realised how misinformed people were.

Yoric 4y ago

I also seem to understand that growing mustard seeds requires lots of pesticides that are considered harmful to environment or farmers in the EU. Easier to buy it from countries with different regulations.

jiggywiggy 4y ago
yeah and pesticide rules on non-edible crops used for bio-fuels are often much more relaxed. It's also why it might not always be a good idea to live next to a flower farm.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]