I dare say that the comments from growers in England (p1) and Ireland (p8) this week do not represent the opening of the floodgates, but it’s a start.

The only way that there can ever be meaningful dialogue about the supermarkets and their relationships with and treatment of suppliers is if all stakeholders are brought into the equation. The multiples have had their say - at extraordinary length in some cases - but their suppliers have deigned it unwise to do so, which typifies the one-sided nature of many of the retailer/supplier “partnerships” that exist.

It is not a witch-hunt, however, and while Somerfield is the party under fire this week, no-one - protected by the shroud of anonymity of course - would deny that you could substitute any UK retailer and similar practices will have been applied at one time or another.

Playing suppliers off against one another may be seen by some as a legitimate business tactic, as could the big four’s policy of benchmarking themselves against each other at the lowest price point. Various other practices you could label “sharp” spring to mind, and every other link in the supply chain remains powerless to intervene.

This needs to be out in the open because the supermarkets do a wonderful job in so many ways. Only by putting their houses in order and working in a way that secures loyal suppliers’ futures can they continue to do that job.