JUST after he became farm commissioner, Phil Hogan was in Dublin for a conference organised by the Irish Farmers Association.

There he raised issues that went down well with farmers, including the unfairness of the supply chain and the power of retailers. On the price farmers pay for fertiliser, he questioned why this was still high when oil and gas prices had fallen. This was in early 2015, and since then energy prices have plunged, while fertiliser prices have remained stubbornly high.

On both issues progress has been very limited, confirming that even the top man in European agriculture cannot always deliver. However Commission officials have effectively blocked legislation that would have given a voluntary code for retailers some teeth. This confirms the lobbying might of the European organisation representing retailers, which campaigned hard against this in Brussels.

On fertiliser prices, an investigation into how the market operates would have to be triggered by the competition commissioner. While he can press for that to happen, it is not in Hogan's gift to deliver.

It was at a meeting of the IFA that Hogan made that commitment to act - and this week, that organisation made clear its frustration that nothing has happened, highlighting what excessive prices and duties are costing farmers and the economy.

At this time of the year this reflects what farmers everywhere are saying, when they look at fertiliser against energy prices. An added dimension in the UK is that, until recently, prices should have been driven down by the strength of sterling. Fertiliser is second only to feed as the biggest cost on farms, and any reduction in price would pay big dividends for farmers.

The IFA commissioned the International Food Policy Research Institute in the United States to undertake the study into the fertiliser market it believes the European Commission should have carried out. The study claims lower fertiliser prices across the EU would improve farm profitability and create up to 17,000 much needed jobs in rural areas by making agriculture and food more competitive. It questions why European prices have increased while they have fallen elsewhere, and while this is a snapshot of prices at a point in time, the arguments are sound. The central, and most damaging claim for the Commission, is that the duties it imposes on the import of fertilisers protect global companies at the expense of farmers.

These are referred to as anti-dumping duties, to protect European manufacturers. But given where prices are for farmers, there is scant evidence large, globally vertically integrated businesses need the protection the European Commission gives them. The report makes the points that farmers have been making for a long time. For years they were told fertiliser prices are high, because they are linked to the price of oil and gas, the biggest cost in their manufacture. But when those prices fell and fell again, fertiliser prices remained high.

Farmers were also told that prices reflected supply and demand and a buoyant commodity market for farm products. That is certainly not the case now, but it has not dented fertiliser prices.

This all adds to farmers' frustration when they are having to spend money they do not have to buy something that is over-priced, because without it they will not have a business.

Farmers know to their cost that the European Commission cannot resist interfering in their businesses, but it seems more reluctant to take on big issues, such as the power of retailers and the fertiliser industry.

Lack of action in areas like this tempts people towards the 'no' camp in the referendum. To be fair to Brussels these are not easy targets, and in the past it has tried and failed to establish a case against oil and fertiliser companies over competition rules. However that is not an argument for not trying again.

The IFA has now presented its reports on the fertiliser market to Phil Hogan. They are fairly confident he is on their side, but what is needed now is for him to press a lot harder with his fellow commissioners for action. It might not succeed, and it would not be speedy, but knowing the European Commission is on their side might make farmers feel a bit better when they feel they are being over-charged by companies that have all the advantages of scale and market power farmers lack, as the weakest players along the food supply chain from inputs to supermarket shelf