- Location
- Moreton-in-Marsh, Glos
It would get avoided because most would think it was going to cost more.
Ironic that 2 of supermarkets regarded as premium, being Waitrose and M&S, where we all know it will cost more, do not endorse RT, isn't it?
The Red Tractor ACCS referendum
- Thread starter Clive
- Start date
Ironic that 2 of supermarkets regarded as premium, being Waitrose and M&S, where we all know it will cost more, do not endorse RT, isn't it?
- Location
- Essex
You seem in favour of RT. That's fine but it doesn't do farmers any good. It costs time, money and allows unfair competition from imports.
Furthermore, there is no proposed lowering of standards. As stated previously, we have legal requirements in this country, based on food and environmental safety and best practices.
At the moment it's a licence to sell at import parity but only if you pay us to say you have grown your crop without breaking the law.
What's happened to cross compliance in all this?
Last edited:
supermarkets mostly have their own schemes, none seem to place much marketing power on RT branded product and they can surely see the nonsense of it on processed items like bread and cereals, etc
I would suggest they could make more marketing capital out of being seen to be on UK farmers side / fair trade for them that they see from a brand that has proved itself to be worthless for 20 years now
- Location
- Lincolnshire
When I sold roadside tates not one customer asked what we sprayed them with or how many times we tested the sprayer though it was within the RT regime. All people did was buy on price, looked in the bag and if they got on well with them they came back for more. That’s how retailing works by and large other than maybe 1% of customers who read the guardian and buy imported vegan crap.
PS - Scottish assurance already is 3 years sprayer test vs the UK's 1 year
....... and supermarkets don't exclude Scottish products, do they! in fact "Scottish" is often used as a premium brand - Scottish Beff, Scottish Whiskey etc NOT Assured beef or assured whiskey ................ how unappealing does "assured whiskey" sound !!!
Yet more inconsistency / market distortion
We already do, supply what the customer wants, retail just wants to dress it up, with fake advertising. There is zero wrong with the products uk farmers are producing, that includes those in or out of RT assurance scheme, and 90% of what farmers produce doesn’t even go to retail it goes to other farmers along with those same imports with low standards you claim RT provide, retail if 80% of the feed is imported under lower standards that RT but it ends up in RT retail products why are we being held to RT standards unless it’s create the illusion for retailers to sell a lie to the public,
the joke is on the farmers and the consumers, so if we expose it the joke it is going to be on retail not us. In the end my crop will end up as feed for animals regardless of if I am in RT or a scheme designed to strip back assurance to what actually counts, the quality of the crop without making me fill in lots of forms, my farm is a small one it likely would walk any environmental standard anyone could dream up is has woods ponds miles of hedgerow and we only spray crop when needed, and it will exceed, every other supply from imported wheat or a non RT farmer.
But I did not get into farming to fill in pointless paper work so retail can make money from my product while not passing any of it back.
If retail needs RT and needs farmers to be in it, then they need to pay me to do so, or no deal.
90% of the pubic know zero about RT and any other assurance scheme.
And the retail are not paying us to help them, we are paying, they are profiting.
While retail premium brands are important to a section of the population most just buy on price hence the fact supermarket shelves are full of imports that don’t reach uk standards.
If retailers want RT they should pay me to be in it. Or the industry has to block all non RT assured products from sale in the uk. So we get our premium.
Breakthru
Member
- Location
- Scottish Borders
Have been saying regularly they have dismissed the power of TFF etc at their peril which is now coming home to roost. As far as the confusion about spray records etc. Remember these mills keep samples of what they are supplied. Their end product is quite often subject to some very detailed analysis and so if something illegal, untoward or whatever showed up they would go back through their intake supplies and be sure they would sue heavily. Therefore a reduced scheme does not automatically mean lowered standards. Make a blunder and pay the price. There is protection for the consumer further down the line so why the need for RT gold plated standards.
Exactly . We are red tractors customers. They are not supplying us with what we want .
Before I Google this; you are stating that RT accredited farmers in Scotland only have to have their sprayers tested every 3 years? Shocking if true.
- Location
- North Yorkshire
Most of my sales are to a feed mill I don’t know the % of farm assured customers it has but if they are not finishing stock then maybe they are not assured ?
what % of uk cereals end up on the supermarket shelves ?
My delve through the fridge and cupboards reveal lots of Union Jacks and no red tractor products
Maybe we are backing the wrong horse here ?
what % of uk cereals end up on the supermarket shelves ?
My delve through the fridge and cupboards reveal lots of Union Jacks and no red tractor products
Maybe we are backing the wrong horse here ?
- Location
- Yorks
Totally legal and totally true, and totally fine.
Selling to exact same supermarkets as RT, so why would RT burden us with 12 month testing.
And you know what, that Danish bacon you see in the supermarket only gets an assurance inspector visit those farms every 3 years.
@Guy Smith has gone very quiet
Actually no, we can set up a standard and if the AIC recognise it, it will enter alongside RT assured feeds and foods. Via the mills just like imported crops. The end user will see no change to RT products as far as the system is set up now, and retail can do zero about it. Even if non RT feeds are used in the assured mills suppling RT outlets. Just like they do now.
Suppliers demanding RT are few and far between the few that are, are dealing in meat products, or farmers are growing under direct contract and if they do I am sure the farmer will fill out any paper work they are needed to. Even if that’s far beyond RT standards.
Why is it shocking? . Do you think any farmer will want to use an unfit sprayer. It’s not in our own interests and the sprayer will be getting checked every time it’s used . This is at the nub of everything that’s wrong with these schemes.
Im a professional grower, with a certification to say I can use a sprayer. I would be embarrassed to be a sprayer tester, poking and prodding the machine, sticking a jug under a few nozzles with stop watch in hand , checking the boom breakback, whilst making the job last.
You can buy a car, take it on the road and it doesn’t need an MOT for the first three years of its life.
You've got form on here for being an inspector yourself I believe , so no wonder your so in favour.
Just to confirm, RT accreditation in Scotland doesn't require yearly sprayer testing?
So why is it necessary in England ....
Well crack on then. If retail can't do anything about it, why on earth is anyone dancing to their tune?
Never been a farm assurance inspector. Said it many times.
I'm just amazed that it is being claimed that Scottish RT assured farmers are operating to lower standards than English ones. Am I reading this right @Grass And Grain ?
More like English standards are more onerous