Voluntary Food And Grocery Code Of Conduct Analysis

763 Words2 Pages

As seen in figure 2 (p.2), a choke point exists between farmers and allied health services. Governmental requirements of farming practices are costly to implement, regulate and maintain. Consequently, farmers must work longer hours to achieve the same profits as previously attainable (Staley 2005). This leads to a lack of time for farmers to leave their properties and seek help when in need. The distance decay effect (Exworthy & Peckham 2006) is also at play, which is the principle that the further a person is from a health service, the less likely they are to access it. Government regulations regarding health service provision exacerbate this problem as workers have been removed from rural locations. In a survey conducted by Saltman et. al. …show more content…

The voluntary Food and Grocery Code of Conduct has been signed by some major retailers (Australian Competition and Consumer Commission n.d.). However, this code simply requires retailers to act on good faith with suppliers. The self-regulation of this code has resulted in infringements on farmers’ agency. Farmers are not consulted in the pricing of produce and end up being ‘price takers’ not price setters (Richards et. al. 2012 pp.256). Limited diversity in the supermarket industry has led to a decrease in resilience, as farmers do not have alternatives for trade and must sell their produce at lower prices than desired. Supermarkets can also require better “quality” produce, increasing financial strain and lowering production rates as produce is increasingly deemed unsatisfactory (Richards et. al. 2013). As farmers struggle to keep up with these demands their mental health worsens. This results in a decrease in physical activity (Brumby et. al. 2011), which in turn reduces production outputs. The power that the government and supermarket industries hold over these problems needs to be …show more content…

The government enacts policies which have direct impacts on the stress famers face. The wording of these policies further stigmatises farmers. For example, the use of the term “dryness” in the National Drought Policy places the onus on farmers to risk manage drought (Alston & Kent 2008). The result of this is the perception that natural disaster is not a concern, and farmers should “toughen up” and carry the financial burden without complaint. The government can also direct services to rural communities, change the focus of current evidence-based policies to policies based on values, and regulate industries. The suffering farmers face due to the supermarket industry is not recognised by the industry. Instead, they refer to their price setting as putting consumers first (Richards et. al. 2013). The industry benefits from setting prices and demanding unreasonable quality without risk of reprimand or punishment from the government. Both the government and the supermarket industry gain economically from the agriculture

Open Document