But that won't quell the controversy because of the long running row over supermarket groups using their market power to squeeze unacceptably low prices from Britain's farmers. This argument had been simmering long before foot and mouth gave it an added dimension. Farmers have been complaining that they have been forced to sell lambs to supermarkets at less than cost or at an unacceptably low profit so shops can keep prices down out of the sweat of the farming community. That was true. But it is also true that the imbalance in bargaining power between a handful of giant supermarket groups and the small farmers may have led to an oligopolistic situation in which shop prices are lower than they really ought to be simply because a small number of buyers can squeeze prices down to uneconomic levels.
Farmers are particularly vulnerable when there is a surplus of the products they produce.
It is possible that the destruction of livestock brought about by the foot and mouth outbreak will so reduce the supply of UK meat that higher prices will result. But that will depend on whether customers switch back to home production. Either way, there is something wrong with the balance of power between supermarkets and British farmers. Consumers can't have it both ways - sympathising with farmers while continuing to shop until they drop in supermarkets. It is all very well for the National Consumer Protection Council to call on customers to shop elsewhere for cheaper food.