I understand the sentimental comments about the plight of tomato producers in Kurdistan, though the story is more complex than thought. State-owned or supported agricultural production or factories are not a solution without commercialization.

The issue is not as simple as "some bureaucrats allow imported goods for their own benefit." Trade does not work that way.

If KRG was a tax-imposing government, I'd be the first one to advocate for tax relief for the sake of local production. It's not the case though.

If local produce isn't commercially viable, does not attract investment while not blocked by taxation regimes, the means of production and it's commercial viability should be questioned. It's a harder, unlikely to get public support but that's how you help unsuccessful producers.

If you have a strong mechanism of taxation encompassing all sectors, like Israel, direct or indirect agricultural subsidies would commercially make sense. In today's KRG, subsidy without taxation would mean unregulated public expenditure, the same as multi-salaried employees.

Import bans as suggested by many, would essentially mean market monopoly and unprecedented increase of prices in addition to the shortage of goods in the market in the absence of commercially viable production and taxation.

If I'd written anything along the lines of "KRG should ban imports and help these farmers now! How come Kurdish tomatoes aren't good!" this thread would receive dozens of retweets. That's the hardship I mentioned. Realistic discussions of economy will hardly get public support.