THE other day in the local supermarket I noticed chicken breasts at half the usual price. But there was no origin on the label, so I asked the butcher where the pack came from. "Did it all ourselves, right here," he said.
Only later did it strike me that the butcher had said the packaged chicken had all been done “right here”. I checked the following day. He meant the packaging and pricing. And, by then, the cut-price poultry display featured the various packaged cuts, including “braai packs” with origins clearly labelled: Brazil, Germany etc.
But how is it that “previously frozen” chicken, raised and slaughtered in Germany, could sell at R34.99/kg as against R49.99 for the local variety? Does Germany not have a higher wage structure than South Africa? And are not the producer costs in euros? What about the shipping and freezing costs, along with the added carbon footprint?
Quite simply, this does not make sense, especially when the known cost structure of South African poultry is taken into account. It seems mind-boggling to realise that last year, South Africa imported 165 000 tonnes of chicken from the European Union alone. And it has now been announced, under a new deal brokered by government, that South Africa will import 65 000 tonnes of chicken a year duty free from the United States.
Yet we pay in devalued rands; they sell in euros and dollars. And generally efficient, cost effective local producers point out that the result of this latest deal with the US will result in thousands of jobs lost.
But how many jobs - right through the supply line as well as in maintenance and support services - have such imports already caused? How many jobs could have been created locally if food security was a priority?
No wonder local producers are concerned. Trade unions and all consumers should be too. However, the importers and retailers respond by claiming that they are doing everyone a favour, encouraging competition and helping consumers by lowering prices. This is both hypocritical and short-sighted: the competition is unfair and the medium- to long-term result will be fewer local jobs, with fewer pay packets and, therefore, less consumer demand.
This is another example of how so many in business look only to gaining the maximum profit in the shortest possible time. A blind spot apparently exists when it come to workers and job losses — and the long-term consequences, even for business.
Another factor that came to mind this week is that, according to the Bureau for Food and Agricultural Policy, more than 60% of the meat consumed in South Africa between 2012 and 2014 was poultry. The bureau also notes that countries that produce feed, such as maize, generally tend to have an advantage in the market place. And, until the recent drought struck - for which there was considerable forewarning - South Africa annually exported millions of tonnes of maize.
Here common campaigning ground can be found with trade unions, consumer groups and producers because of the knock-on effect. The influx of cheap poultry means crippling the local industry with the loss of still more jobs, right along the supply chain, putting consumers increasingly at the mercy of external suppliers and their prices.
What makes this information particularly pertinent is the publication last week by the statistician general of the latest youth unemployment statistics. These statistics are both shocking and frightening: millions of desperate, directionless and angry unemployed youth are now on the streets. It is a most appalling waste of human potential.
These factors all came to a head in this week of Freedom Day, that is followed on Sunday by May Day. Perhaps, instead of celebrating, this holiday period should give us cause to reflect that without jobs there can be no freedom from poverty and hunger.
And that while millions go hungry every day and are mired in poverty, real freedom does not exist.