A classic example is the matter of beef hormones. There were long debates on this issue in this House, and one of the contributors was Professor Tom Raftery, an expert in the area. It was incontrovertible from a scientific point of view that anabolic steroids were not harmful to human health when used properly on beef animals – and I am not including angeldust in that category, which is a different matter. People then said that the American farmers are using these steroids so we should also be able to use them. What this fails to recognise is the primacy of the consumer. If European consumers decide that they want beef without hormones that is the end of the argument; the science does not enter into it. Unfortunately, the legacy left by intervention over so many years is to make us avoid that reality and to assume that we could produce for a market and that it was up to the market to clear the product. There was no mention of the consumer. It is a hangover that is still with us and is causing problems in terms of selling our products on international markets.