"Col" wrote in message
...

"Howard Neil" wrote in message
...

You say the "cheapest/best product should prevail" as if they are the
same thing. They are not.

OK, 'best value for money'. Whatever.

So you are happy to import stuff which has been produced by people working
under appalling conditions (I forget the level of birth defects due to
improper use of herbicides in Central America)


For instance, in livestock farming UK farmers have to comply with
welfare standards (quite right too) and have to abide by identification
rules (every cow and bull has to have an individual passport so the meat
on your table is traceable back to an individual animal. This ensures a
high quality product but the costs are massive. There are many countries
in the world where animal welfare is virtually non existent (and where
BSE or poultry diseases, for instance, are rampant) and where the
farmers receive very large subsidies from their government. This allows
them to flood our market with sub standard food.

No it doesn't.
We won't allow just any old disease ridden food into the country.

Except we do, it is only in the last two years that the Customs and Excise
actually bothered looking for it


This is not true competition. Farmers in the UK are being hit from two
sides. There is the consumer who will only shop on price, irrespective
of the quality or risks, on one side and a government that seems intent
on destroying farming on the other.

And to return to my original point, why are farmers being protected
against this anyway?

Because of Bread and circuses. A hungry urban population is a danger. And we
are not all that far from shortage. Remember how fast we had panic buying
during the oil dispute

If they don't get their cheap widgets they moan, if they suddenly don't have
guaranteed food supply they panic

Jim Webster