A shortage of Dijon mustard in France
economist.com
economist.com
Good or bad, I don't know.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The only noteworthy fact is that we got in this situation because it was not a completely free market but a regulated market due to subsidies for rapeseed, artificially increasing their profit margin.
If you price shift a good upwards and the demand remains static, yield per good increases and then supply should increase as suppliers willing to supply at the new price is greater than supplier willing to supply at the old price.
How can this be an assumption? Of course demand will respond to price.
In this context demand is the total desire of the market to consume that good at all, represented by a slope that has an inverse relationship with the price axis.
It'd be interesting to have an accounting of what end-of-the-day benefits people got for giving up their mustard.
But has it been studied that this is actually how this plays out with a low-level consumer good like mustard?
It would be a pretty big difference to me.
Lending money today instead of giving money lets leaders and voters today to punt sacrifices to tomorrow’s taxpayers, and of course inflates college tuition prices so the borrowers have reduced purchasing power, as well as future users of the currency.
That is the whole reason lending for college tuition became a thing. Some genius figured out how to cut taxes today while still being able to say they are helping expand access to higher education to poor people and college students.
Across all goods/services, that means richer people would be able to consume less, and poorer people would be able to consume more. Whether or not people sacrifice eating Dijon mustard is up to them.
The goal is not to guarantee Dijon mustard for everyone, the goal is to mitigate how poor poorer people are.
The other way to bring down Dijon mustard prices is for the government to increase supply of Dijon mustard, or remove whatever is restricting supply of Dijon mustard.
You're correct that the new equilibrium would be below 100.
The market will find an equilibrium, but it will involve people giving up mustard because the cost is too high. They have to - there is less mustard. Someone will have to give up consuming mustard and in the medium term it is going to be prices that are the mechanism. That is what prices going up generally mean - the market is shaking some people out so they stop using a product. In the short term I see they have a sign saying "only 1 mustard" or something like that.
I think we’ll have a lot more of these sacrifices coming up in the next thirty years that will hurt a lot more. Coffee is the one that I’m most worried about.
It will make sense for some to switch, and some will.
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)
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.
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).
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]"
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.
The problem with current systems, representative democracy, especially with non-proportional voting systems, is that getting elected becomes the only goal, and supporting extreme views is one of the strategy, which has been pushing parties, from all sides, towards extremes. There is a self-feeding vicious circle as soon as one party supports extreme views, it reinforces the opposite party support for the party over ideas, and that now affects the first party etc...
Being informed is like driving, every single person thinks they are better informed than the average! If you don't believe in democracy, can you please tell us what system is better?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusory_superiority#Driving_a...
Experiences with "sortition" has shown that a group of "average people" tend to make better decisions for the group then a few supposedly "elite".
None that I know of, that is the real tragedy.
On the illusion of superiority, I'm well aware of that but do not forget that it does not mean that some people are not actually better or worse (at information, driving, cooking or anything) than the others.
Some abilities can actually be evaluated, for example there is such a thing as truth, so even though one person can be bad at evaluating themselves, it is absolutely possible to recognise misinformation in others.
And this needs to be part of the education, part of the direct democracy.
Keep in mind that in many situations there isn't a single truth, compromises need to be made, different implementations of a system that should work in theory needs to be tested etc... The belief in a single great system has lead to many bad societies.
Here in Ireland, we've had a number of Citizens' Assembly meetings going back just shy of a decade (if you include the 2012 Constitutional Convention, which was effectively the first one in all but name) that have been tremendously productive and have lead to a lot of positive change that would never have happened if it were left purely to professional politicians. You might find it worth a read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens%27_Assembly_(Ireland)
Just because you don't believe in something doesn't mean there's a better alternative. It simply means there may not be an alternative to believe in.
The real crime was propping up Sadam in the 80’s when US did not see him as a threat and living him alive in 1991 (which just prove that US had zero actual concerns about the wellbeing and freedom of the people of Iraq in 2003)
The invasion itself was a far far worse crime that supporting Saddam materially.
what?
1991 was the same decision to make as 2003, except they chose restraint. When they flipped in 2003, almost everyone universally agrees, including you
> the US war in Iraq was unjustified
it was a bad decision, thus 1991 was the right move.
No they chose to instigate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_Iraqi_uprisings and then left the rebels out to dry. Thousands (possibly hundreds of thousands) of Iraqis were killed by Sadam's forces.
The equivalent of 1991 (obviously on a very different scale) would be the Allies stopping at the border of Germany in 1944 (after liberating France) and allowing Hitler to stay in power (while simultaneously claiming that it’s the job of the German people to remove him).
This was actually probably Chirac’s (and Villepin’s) finest hour.
It is also a non sequitur. Invading Iraq was (as was predicted back then) a catastrophe. We are still paying for it, even France, and will in the foreseeable future.
Invading and annexing a peaceful, if corrupt, neighbouring country, however, is much worse. Genocide in Iraq was well documented and at least the point could be made. There is nothing remotely similar in Ukraine, even ignoring both bits of disinformation (WMDs in Iraq and Nazis in Ukraine).
Which doesn't help your family and their weak bullshit filters, of course, and my condolances for their situation - if I knew how to speed up developing such a filter, I'd share it.
Edit: Didn't realise GP wasn't addressing you, my comment on your family was meant for someone else - how easy it is to be confused by online discussion even without bad intentions.
I'm not french, I have no idea who "chirac" is, and in general I think you maybe replied to the wrong comment?
I'm really not sure I actually understood what you meant, though. In my opinion, the US war in Iraq was unjustified and the Russian war in Ukraine is unjustified as well, and indeed between the US narrative back then and the Russian one today, there is no big difference.
But the main take I get from our conversation is that you were the one that was initially misinformed (thinking French mustard mainly comes from China), didn't read or believe the linked article by a "respectable" established news outlet (that clearly says the mustard in question comes from Canada), then spread your wrong information (in your comment) and now you're trying to say that I'm as misinformed as anyone when you are factually, indisputably, the one person who is misinformed in this particular discussion.
I do believe I am more effective at checking the accuracy of the the information I read or hear about than other people. I do not think that everyone is equally as misinformed, far from it.
The US war in Iraq can be unjustified, while the US' intention against an actually terrible Saddam regime being benevolent, while Russia's is actually selfish territorial control and Donbas resources. Equating the Saddam regime to Zelenskyy's Ukraine is egregious.
And just to let you know. go back in time a bit. any one that was against iraq was someone "misinformed" that was not following mainstream opinion. so at that time you would have indeed said that chirac was spreading wrong information :) people like you - the ones that are always on the good side / the right side of history are more dangerous than people that inform themselves on facebook
Exporting blame abroad is for the greater good?
For instance champagne can only come from the champagne region.
I guess I won’t fully understand until a peanut butter shortage hits the States. We nonetheless took their request seriously :)
The different pronunciations of "refridgerator" and the threat to break into your house and eat all your butter in front of you and your family had me in tears the first time I saw it :D
About a month ago, Business Insider put out a cool little video on french dijon mustard and why it's so expensive / hard to get. Fun little watch.
So yeah, last years shortfalls in mustard yields in Canada, the current draught in Europe preventing France to increase local rpoduction and the war Ukraine preventing imports from either Russia or Ukraine hurts. Luckily we still have some stock, even mustard looses some taste over time even if kept in cold and dry storage and was never opened...
I know that there are some German mustards that are very close to Dijon, but on balance the risk is much lower going with a French brand.
Is Dijon used for anything but cooking? I can't see myself having a non-sweet mustard on a sausage etc. But use dijon in cooking or sallads.
Is anyone even reading the article?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_designation_of_origi...
I've only tried a small number of Dijon-labelled mustards, but they've all been radically different. I'd say the only thing they had in common was being mustards and the texture.
That said, mustard is indeed a must for a lot of things.
My Dijon quest got started since I really like the flavor profile of the Maille Dijon mustard with certain kinds of deli meat, but I find it too strong so I can't use as much as I'd like. So I was hoping for something with a similar flavor profile but with less heat.
I've yet to find a replacement, but I have found a few others that I really enjoy for other sandwiches so.
French, and worse, English mustard are far too violent, and it's not as pleasant a pain as a strong chili pepper.
I suspect close relatives to hoard and run a "black market" mustard network. They got at least 3 sort of mustard last time we went to see them for dinner. I'm definitely jealous!
At least for me, I knew it was coming from supply issues with Canada's mustard seeds (however I was thinking it was caused by last year's fires, not a drought)
I can see “non essential” food products like these will be effected more and more in the future
Changing the allotment between France and other countries for exporting firms takes time, and so it does happen that more mustard is sent to countries that don't much care for it, while the French are deprived of it.
Maybe it's more lucrative for French companies to sell it for 2x to the Swiss instead of locally.
It all started in Dijon, the capital of Burgundy, in the spring of 1634, when, as luck (or Providence) would have it, ...
?? English mustard is almost noxious
I do also like the flavour of American mustard, you just have to use very different quantities. I would recommend something like 5-10x the amount of US mustard to UK mustard. A jar of Colmans mustard should last you a year or so.
But you can't compare English mustard to hot (chili) sauces - they're not the same type of spiciness at all. English mustard packs a great kick like you'll get from good horseradish sauces or wasabi, which isn't surprising since they're all in the same family. You get the feeling of the sinuses clearing, but there's no heat/burning sensation that sticks around in your mouth. Both of these are great additions to the right foods.
I dunno about that, I can slather stuff in a strong chilli sauce and can happily eat up to Madras curries (vindaloo with some discomfort) but English mustard _kills_ me.
Sorry - that's just wrong, probably should be illegal. ;-)
Brown sauce (HP if you are posh) that's the only thing to have on a bacon sarnie.
It's a bit of a strange statement to me also. Hot dog stands aren't much of a thing here, and Dijon or English mustard are much more common than French's Yellow Mustard or whatever.
But yeah, English mustard or Dijon goes into a lot of stuff in my kitchen.
Now, when there's a shortage of yer Dijon ketchup, that's when you're going to see Americans up in arms, with apologies to the BNL.
Or, did you mean American yellow mustard isn’t usually spicy? That doesn’t mean there isn’t mustard in it.
For instance, my brother loves to tell you how there's no "real chicken" in a McChicken sandwich.
English mustard is in no way "milder and sweeter" than Dijon mustard - quite the opposite. I'd like to see the author eat a U.S. hot-dog (they're not particularly common in Britain) slathered in English mustard without their eyes watering.
For example in France, we already see some wines and champagnes change taste. After such a hot summer the next batch of a few domains, gathered in fall, will probably contain many disappointments. Other regions which used to not have great conditions might become much more interesting to grow raisin. Maybe some clever (or lucky) guy will buy the next good fields while some of the existing domains will go bankrupt.
This is just an example of course.
Zakuson is a quite good Russian style mustard, widely available because it’s made in Canada.
Pardon me.
Plenty of oils and plenty of mustards.
Real wasabi is more expensive partly because it is more difficult to cultivate (in stream beds vs. soil) and partly because growers keep supply low to hike up the price.
If you can't tell the difference, consider yourself lucky. I probably spend a few hundred dollars a year on wasabi and use it quite rarely.
Asking for friend living in a globalized economy that is going to traverse turbulences for a few decades.
also, there probably aren't as many people in Miami buying Dijon mustard as in France ...