FIGURES SHOW that the biggest plunge in prices in 2016 was experienced by cereal growers, but it was dairy farmers from the radical European Milk Board that were protesting by throwing milk powder as farm ministers met in Brussels.

They were there despite a 25% increase in the milk price by the end of 2016, and despite the European Commission keeping open its dairy aid package, which includes supporting producer organisations to give farmers more muscle in the supply chain.

The farm commissioner, Phil Hogan, said he could not understand why they were protesting. He suggested other sectors were facing difficult times and had not enjoyed the support dairy farmers had received, or seen prices increase so dramatically in 2016. He warned that beef had been hit because of dairy cow culling last year, while poultry is suffering because of a global surge in production and the impact of avian flu. He said that all sectors, and not only dairy, continued to face uncertain times and that volatility was here to stay.

This was no real surprise, and the Commission response is changing from market support to more aggressive promotion outside the EU. It has been increasing its promotional budget – and results suggest this is proving effective, with sales increasing in key markets such as the United States and China.

With the new, more aggressive stance towards trade in the United States it is hard to see where trade is going. There is no question that the government in London sees trade deals with countries outside the EU as its primary goal, to offset criticism of its Brexit strategy.

It was however disappointing this week, when the prime minister, Theresa May, was talking about new industrial priorities after Brexit that neither farming or food were mentioned. This is surprising, given that food is in high in the top ten of manufacturing businesses in the UK, and is a major employer in rural areas. While the government's trade strategy is not well developed – or if it is, has not been made public even to industry bodies – I would bet on the outcome, and it is unlikely to be a good one for the farming industry.

Hopefully I will be proved completely wrong on this, but my hunch is that policy on trade will be driven by securing access to key markets for exports, particularly sales that will help London retain its position as a global centre for banking, finance and insurance. This will be the driver, and the default position will be deals based on mutual tariff free access.

This would open the UK market to a surge in commodity imports, and food would be high on that list. This is not a new concept, but in EU trade negotiations so-called sensitive products that need to be protected are identified. These generally include food, since the EU is wide open to cheap imports because of the high cost base of its regulation-driven farming systems.

It is difficult to see the UK, desperate as it is to conclude trade deals, being as keen to protect sensitive products. The days when the Conservative party was the natural ally of farmers are long gone, and indeed the farming industry now has few friends at Westminster.

The argument likely to be put forward by ministers is that food imports would help sustain a successful food industry, which would enjoy reduced input costs; at the same time it would help keep prices down on supermarket shelves, which would please the general public. The countryside would then be maintained by paying farmers environmental grants to deliver 'public goods'. The most efficient farms would have the option of matching these lower prices, while farmers in general would specialise to supply fresh products, such as milk, and to meet the demand of the still substantial top end of the consumer markets where provenance is important.

This would change farming as we know it. But if the government is cynically calculating the approach that would deliver most for the economy and please a majority of voters, this depressing scenario for agriculture is the one that would do that. The fact that Defra has a minister more interested in Brexit than agriculture makes this outcome all the more likely, if no less depressing for an industry that deserves more from Westminster for having backed the departure of the UK from the European Union.