Current issue

81 Vol 21-1. May - August 2012

Back issues

80 Vol 20-4. Feb-May 2012

79 Vol 20 - Issue 3 - Autumn 2011

78 - Vol 20 - Issue 2 - Summer 2011

77 - Vol 20 - Issue 1 - Spring 2011

76 - Vol 19 - Issue 4 - Winter 2010

see all back issues

What they say about us...

Thank you for letting me know. I would also like to let you know that your magazine is very popular with our students. Many of the students at this school are from a rural farming background and it has been fantastic to have some reading material that appeals to them, particularly the more reluctant readers.

Mrs Kathryn Durkan, LRC Manager, John Port School

John Port School, Derbyshire

If you'd like your comments featured here, please contact us

Will the new Grocery Ombudsman be of any help to farmers and growers?

Call me a pessimist, but I doubt it. The more law the more entrenched the protagonists. Supermarket buyers will make sure their new contracts are worded sufficiently widely for them to operate as normal. Government wants to see minimal change, as low supermarket prices, however achieved, help keep the nation happy.

A Grocery Ombudsman tells us the government is concerned, and is addressing the problem. Will he/she be busy? I doubt it - what processor is going to run to an Ombudsman and risk the termination of a contract on which their business depends?

Are there any actions that could improve the terms of trade for farmers? Gwyn Jones, NFU Dairy Director has been working on milk contracts, devising an agreement fair to both sides. The widespread adoption of fair contracts which have at least in part be written by the producer and not simply provided by the buyer, be it in milk, strawberries or fresh beef or lamb, would go a long way to help. If buyers realised they had to go along with such contracts to be certain of supply, and that these contracts were by and large fair to both parties, change could take place.

Public pressure can still be effective, and farmers need to be continually devising ways of letting the ultimate consumers of their products know that they are being supplied at or below cost. The countryside got together over hunting - maybe the same organisations, which after all make good use of farming land for their sport, should be prevailed upon to help the farmers, who after all give them the land on which to gallop, the coverts for their non-quarry, and feed for their steeds!

The Grocery Ombudsman is about politics, not livelihood. Once established, consumers will be able to justify in their mind the low prices they see on supermarket shelves - be happy with the two-for-one promotions which are often funded by the supply trade, as are so many of the special offers etc, as well as any costs associated with in-store product promotion. Will the Ombudsman be able to change these practices? It's doubtful, but buyers are going to need to be caeful to include for them in the supply contracts. The real issue is that they shouldn't be there in the first place.