From Dr A. Grech.

In the same way that we cannot remember rainy days from our childhood, or pain inflicted by dentists, Gozitans have forgotten that the abattoir in Gozo was closed because it did not comply with EU standards. They probably have not noticed too that the EU Standard formula has become an excuse for all types of diversion that make the illogical look somewhat reasonable. The abattoir in Gozo was closed because it was going to be refurbished, we were told, and upgraded to EU standards. Is this another pious aspiration, an idea that will fall through once more, somewhere between official pronunciation and copious reports and files on bureaucratic shelves? This of course brought about a number of consequences, least of which is the extra expenses for Gozitan livestock breeders to transport their livestock to Malta.

More significant though is the reality that Gozitan livestock breeders can hardly compete with the imported meat, for which nobody in a position of responsibility seems to want to apply the EU Standard formula, or any standard for that matter. It has been pointed out that the imported meat has a high content of fat that is not healthy for the consumer, a content that is more than that found in meat produced in this country. Food is what makes a living thing and that goes for cows and bulls as well. You are what you eat.

Surely a case could be made against the EU standards formula in favour of a better product for the Maltese consumer, and the health of the Maltese in general. In other matters where it suited it, the Maltese government did not hesitate to defy EU rules and regulations, and make a case out of its posturing.

Since Malta’s entry into the EU, the price of beef has gone down by almost a third. This we welcome as a result of healthy competition, or rather the decision of the Maltese government to direct our economy towards what is commonly accepted as “economies of scale”. But it was known from the very start that this would adversely affect Maltese and Gozitan breeders, accentuated by the increase in the price of fodder and fuel.

And there is more than the hardship for the livestock breeders. The consumer has had to pay for another anomaly. The livestock breeder sells his beef about one third cheaper than ox meat. Yet the consumer pays the higher price for both types of meat without distinction. Who is pocketing the difference in price is obviously the “butcher”, or rather, the meat seller, who does not distinguish between one type of meat and the other.

Where do the paladins of consumer protection stand on this?

Alfred Grech

GOZO