betweenthelines
Member
- Location
- southwest
Very naive to think that every processor works out what price they can pay farmers without any reference to what other processors pay.
As I have mentioned before, a few years ago OFT did find some processors had acted in collusion to the detriment of the public and multi million pound fines were handed out. Although illegal, this actually meant a more stable supply chain here everyone got a slice of the cake.
The trouble for farmers is that, since then the big retailers decided to sell milk as a loss leader, and the only way processors can get by is by squeezing the farmer.
If legally binding contracts had to reflect COP, it may lead to a price increase to the public (but very few people would reduce purchases on a 1 or 2 ppl increase) but also a lot more stable industry throughout the supply chain, were any increase in overall production could be used to reduce cheese imports.
As I have mentioned before, a few years ago OFT did find some processors had acted in collusion to the detriment of the public and multi million pound fines were handed out. Although illegal, this actually meant a more stable supply chain here everyone got a slice of the cake.
The trouble for farmers is that, since then the big retailers decided to sell milk as a loss leader, and the only way processors can get by is by squeezing the farmer.
If legally binding contracts had to reflect COP, it may lead to a price increase to the public (but very few people would reduce purchases on a 1 or 2 ppl increase) but also a lot more stable industry throughout the supply chain, were any increase in overall production could be used to reduce cheese imports.