This newspaper has repeatedly said that the eras of protectionism and overly generous social benefits are over and we stand by what we have said time and time again.

But news is now out that the EU is considering a 75% cut in funding for a programme that helps feed 18 million of its poorest citizens.

The cuts, which are set to take effect early next year, come at a time where economic growth is sagging coupled with rising unemployment and increasing food prices across the board. We are not talking pizzas instead of steak here. We are talking about people who are in dire need of help. The story was broken by the Associated Press last week, and carried comments from people who rely on the programme. “We poor, small people, we cannot face up to this,” said Rene Waltener, 41, who is unemployed and married with four children. “We sometimes have difficulties getting through the month, so a bit of milk here, a tin of cassoulet, a bit of yoghurt – the kids are happy with that and it allows us to continue.”

These are not people who have the latest mobile phones and flat screen TVs, these are people who cannot make ends meet, month after month. The Food for the Deprived programme dates back to 1987. At first, it relied heavily on food surpluses from farms that benefited from the bloated and inefficient CAP subsidy regime. But over time, as the farming industry became more efficient, food was increasingly purchased on the market to keep the programme going.

The EU’s 27 agriculture ministers will assess the programme this week in Luxembourg. On the table is a proposal to keep the programme going at €500 million through legal changes instead of moving to just €113 million, but at present it does not appear it will get a sufficient majority.

Harry Gschwindt of the Brussels Food Bank put the potential cut in simple terms. “This year we received 19 different products. Next year it’s only going to be four. It’s tomato soup, rice, milk rice and chicken,” he said. Gone are milk, sugar, corn and fish, and other contributions.

EU ministers argue that the programme cannot go on in its current format. Granted. We should not be buying products off the commercial market to implement the scheme.

Other ministers and ambassadors argue that it is national governments which are best placed to help, and best placed to define what poverty is. This reasoning also holds water. Poverty in, for example Slovakia, cannot be compared to poverty in Sweden. Whatever the case may be, a solution to this needs to be found. The argument against national government administrated funds is that often, one cannot see the wood for the trees in terms of the impoverished underclass. What we do not know cannot hurt us, so on a local level, it is perhaps easier to ignore what we do not want to see. An EU fund, administered at a Brussels level, could at least be implemented impartially, and from an outsider’s point of view. The real truth is that everyone is feeling the pinch, but the poor are getting poorer.