JAS CHIEF Executive Robert Reid has drawn attention to a seeming anomaly between what farmers are paid for their produce and the prices at which such produce reach the consumer. The observation is far from new, having been articulated by the JAS and others for decades.
In fact this was one of the prime reasons for establishing the Agricultural Marketing Corporation nearly three decades ago. We recall that among the objectives of that agency was the encouraging of the JAS and its members to get involved with selection and packaging of farmers' produce. Also contemplated was a system of crop forecasting and market intelligence.
We have the impression that had the JAS and its members seized the opportunity the AMC would have been a more vibrant organisation and may have survived and flourished. We think it might have been a mistake to essentially scrap the AMC based solely on its trading record; but we also think that Mr. Reid's simple calculation of the differential between what traders pay the farmers and their final price to consumers does not tell the whole story.
Much of the original AMC's concern is at play here. The simple comparison of prices ignores a vital element: the difference in bulk between what the trader buys at farm gate and what is actually bought by the consumer. This is particularly marked in cases of items such as yam. In other cases of more perishable produce, spoilage due to faulty reaping and handling and storage techniques, there is also substantial loss.
We believe that the JAS and its Chief Executive need to examine the whole situation carefully instead of giving in to knee-jerk reactions in a situation which is much more complex than has been recognised.
The opinions on this page, except for the above, do not necessarily reflect the views of The Gleaner.
