The discovery of growth promoters, banned in the EU for five years as carcinogenic, in poultry meat imported from Brazil should cause no particular surprise. The pressure under which international trading companies put third world farmers to produce is intense.

It would not be so bad if the returns were enough to provide a decent standard of living for those who work in these systems. They do not.

That said, safe production methods are essential. Whatever is claimed, the supervision of farming practices in foreign parts is generally not as strict as those in this country.

For example, on our farm we are members of the assurance scheme for pigs. This means that an independent assessor checks every year that we are using satisfactory methods on the farm. Additionally our own vet calls once a quarter to make sure that the pigs are healthy and that the correct records are being kept.

We do not object to these arrangements. We have always taken the view that since we have nothing to hide there is no problem if people come to have a look. We would like to think that there is some sort of link between proper production systems and the marketability of what we are producing.

Systems of this sort are in place in the UK for most producers of the major agricultural products.

For example, it is not possible to get a contract to supply contract potatoes for crisp and chip production unless one is a member of an assurance scheme.

Most of the cereals grown here are similarly farm-assured.

The cost of belonging to these schemes falls on the producer. Each individual one does not cost a huge amount, but it is perfectly feasible to be a member of three or four, if a mixed farming method is practised. The total cost can therefore mount up.

It is only when non-assured produce is purchased, especially from abroad, when price becomes more important than consumer safety, that it gets annoying.

British farmers' costs have been forced up and they still do not get the reward of selling the goods.

Most of us have long since abandoned any hope of getting any extra as a result of the care we have taken. Just making the sale would be good.

This weekend we ate chicken for Sunday lunch. It was bought from a local supermarket. It had the Red Tractor symbol signifying it was produced to farm assured standards in the UK. It cost £3.99.

Four of us with decent appetites had more than enough and there was a reasonable amount left for sandwiches for Monday.

It is quite difficult to argue that it was expensive.

Or, to put it the other way round, how cheap do we want our food?

The average UK consumer spends about ten per cent of income on food. This proportion is falling. It does not strike me as being a lot.

In those circumstances is it really necessary to import foreign chicken with whatever dubious production ingredients?

UK chicken production plants are being closed down because they cannot meet the price the buyers demand. The staff will be unemployed or have to find other jobs.

The only way we can avoid yet another industry being exported is by buying UK produced goods. It's clearly too late for some industries.

If we make conscious efforts to support UK food we may save some UK jobs and the spending that goes with them.

Otherwise we have only ourselves to blame for further decline.

Updated: 10:20 Tuesday, March 18, 2003