- Location
- Yorks
No need for ‘gatekeeper’ alternative to Red Tractor – AIC - Farmers Weekly
The Agricultural Industries Confederation (AIC) has faced a farmer backlash on social media after it concluded there is no current end market demand for
www.fwi.co.uk
Good article by Philip Case of FW.
I think what they (AIC) mean is...
AIC services run the UFAS mill assurance scheme, but most of the mills are AIC members. So AIC aren't really independent. Their internal committees say there's no call for a Red Tractor or SQC alternative.
Well they would say that, because their members are getting RT/SQC grain for no price premium. So why change it? Indeed, they haven't.
We're still in the situation where AIC insist UK grain is farm assured, but non-assured imports are allowed access to their feed mills. The unlevel playing field.
The whole Gatekeeper charade is just a smoke screen to make it look like imports are assured, when they're not. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with those feedstuffs, just like our non-assured grain grown to UK legislative standards is also just fine. Of course we've...
- Only got access to UK approved pesticides
- Our sprayers are tested every 3 years
- We've trained operators
- We've trading standards checking our grain storage and drying facilities
- We've trading standards checking we've got written HACCP grain handling protocols
- We've got UK TASCC approved merchants invited to take samples from our stores
- We've got H&S Executive and RPA checking our chemical stores
And they say it would be too expensive to have a UK Gatekeeper system, but it hasn't stopped AIC allowing non-assured imports to use Gatekeeper access. So why one rule for imports, and another for UK grain. One set of rules for any grain from any country, I don't care if the requirement is FA, or non-assured, but not one set of rules for every country in the world except the UK, who are required to have different rules.
And AIC say feed safety is their main concern and remit. But they're quite happy only requiring lab tests for imports on a 1 in 20 lorry load basis - and that's without an independent sampling superintendent, the merchant can do the sampling!. And ship lab testing frequency? well don't get me started on that one!
So, are AIC content with only one in twenty of us having RT assurance? That's the same ratio.
But AIC are happy with RT grain, even though we've pointed out if grain is in a central store, and a farmer fails RT audit for a serious non-conformance (1 in 14 do!), then that whole bulk store is now not assured. We've told AIC this. But this fact gets ignored, the whole bulk still gets loaded out as assured. That must be close to falling foul of trade description of goods.
Net result. We've to keep on paying the farm assurance fees.
I propose the British Farming Union stand up to this one way or another. Be that exposing these truths, or by starting a new grain assurance scheme where farmers get a say in the standards, but no processors or mills on the committees. Farmers do not like current assurance schemes, let's have a farmer controlled one, and only farmers involved in its operation. We'll decimate the membership of existing schemes.
Last edited: