THE Australian Competition and Consumer Commission's inquiry into fertiliser prices has produced few surprises.
As with its recent look at grocery prices, the competition watchdog laid the blame for soaring local prices at the feet of world demand and supply forces.
What both inquiries essentially confirmed was the reality that we are part of a global economy with all the ups and downs that entails.
There should be net benefits, especially for farmers and other exporters. But these, of course, depend on markets being competitive, so efficient producers can make the front running.
And if anti-competitive forces are at work, the policy safeguards must be effective and applied in a fair and timely way.
Everyone knows world farm trade - except in Australia and a few other countries - is corrupted by subsidies, tariffs and quotas.
Unfortunately, reform talks have failed, leaving our farmers exposed to these unfair barriers for the foreseeable future.
On the import side, there's the threat of dumping - produce being sold here at below cost - or damaging import surges that can blight vulnerable industries.
Our anti-dumping laws need a re-think. Affected producers must prove dumping has occurred, a costly burden that seems manifestly unfair.
And we appear determined not to use safeguard measures available under world trade rules to protect import-exposed industries.
These are legitimate short-term tariffs put there specifically to allow producers time to adjust to globalisation pressures.
With world farm trade reform in limbo, we should be taking a more positive approach to this assistance.
Even on the home front, questions still linger about competition issues.
Sure, the ACCC has given the food and fertiliser supply chains a thumbs-up on this score. But in both cases, its analysis was superficial and suspicions linger that prices are not what you'd expect in a more competitive market.
The ACCC chose not to use its power to extract information from food manufacturers, processors and wholesalers to examine costs, prices and profits. The main focus was retailers.
And it was only asked to take an "informal" look at fertiliser prices, which meant it couldn't use its full powers, but instead relied on what people said and what information was at hand.
We need a far more forensic review of these markets.
