Exactly, the alternative is far, far scarier than I wish to imagine.Speak to anyone who works in a mill that supplies Tesco etc
Unannounced inspections, thorough ones at that, apparently.
Suspended from Red Tractor
- Thread starter Clive
- Start date
spin cycle
Member
- Location
- north norfolk
kiwi pom
Member
- Location
- canterbury NZ
How about picking up the phone first and actually talking to someone about the situation. Or do we not do that anymore.
kiwi pom
Member
- Location
- canterbury NZ
212 posts in and we get a sensible reply.
spin cycle
Member
- Location
- north norfolk
kiwi pom
Member
- Location
- canterbury NZ
red tractor is very different animal to silverfern
Do they not have phones?
Yes , but no one answers.
- Location
- Lincolnshire
The end user isn't selling the raw ingredient. The merchant is buying the raw ingredient, and his customer, the miller is cleaning it and processing it, then the supermarket is selling the finished product.
There is always a large amount of sh!t on farms. It makes things grow. It's part of the system. That's why the raw produce is washed and cooked.
People have lost sight of the reality of food production and now expect the impossible.
On another note, when grain was stored in rat and mouse infested stacks, subject to damp and mould, were there mass deaths every year as a result? No. If anything people were healthier and less prone to allergies than they are now.
binbusy
Member
- Location
- South Suffolk
On the other hand beings most the yield come from Clive there could now be a National undersupply of assured wheat for a few days.
Watch the prices climb folks.
Watch the prices climb folks.
Actually I think you'll find the expected lifespan back then was considerably less than now.
I agree wholeheartedly that the general population has become disconnected to food production, that needs addressing somehow, I don't know how though. maybe a proper shortage would make them reconnect???
I still say the RT is most likely to be the better option, instead of users further up the chain running an inspection scheme.
At least the inspectors I've dealt with have a good dollop of common sense generally, I'm not so sure they would if it was run by tesco et al.
Richard Budd
Member
- Location
- Kent
It has been interesting to read this thread as it has developed, whilst Clive may feel aggrieved that he has been suspended and this is an over reaction, the point is the grain was delivered with mouse droppings and so was not deemed (quite correctly) fit for consumption in the human feed chain. So when RT are informed of this they have no choice but to suspend the member until proof has been provided that the storage is up to standard - seems pretty sensible to me. In Clive's case it should be a very simple for him to prove his stores are up to standard as they are modern and have passed RT with no problem in the past. I think most farmers who take pride in the product they produce will welcome RT taking this stance over grain quality as there are far too many stores around this country that are a disgrace and you would not want the grain from these making it into the food chain - the only reason they do is because farmers do not show the RT inspector these stores.
Many of the posts on this thread have centered around arguing it is hardly a crime having vermin excrement in a food product, this is potentially a very damaging argument to our industry. Particularly when we are about to see the biggest change to our markets in the next two years as the country goes through Brexit; you could argue that we sell on a global market, but it would only take one health scare or a tabloid newspaper to run an exclusive report on vermin feces in wheat destined for human consumption to see mills around the country drop British wheat like a stone. We have an industry we mostly can be proud of and we need to strive to the highest standards in order to optimise the market for the goods we grow - it amazes me sometimes that farmers seem too think they have a god given right to sell their product no matter what the quality, we are in a competitive gobal market and as such need to make sure we produce a product that stands out and gives our customers the confidence they are buying the best they can and as such we can then receive a fair price.
However this is as far as my support for Red Tractor Farm Assurance Schemes go, they are becoming more and more burdensome we currently do Combinable Crops, Fresh Produce, LEAF, SMETA and BRC - so why for example when we do our Fresh Produce audit do we have the ridiculous situation where we have to answer questions about our packing facility when this is covered by a far more detailed - BRC, there should be a question are you BRC accredited if yes give them your membership number and move on. Why are these audits still covering items that are covered by UK legislation? The NFU must get better at getting the message over about Red Tractor and fast - it is our quality mark and we need the public to recognise it as such and choose to pick up UK produce where it is seen, once we are out of Europe our protection from cheap food from other global competitors could well be removed and the only way we will have to hold our market share is if people see the Red Tractor marque as that found on a safe, quality product. If this is not achieved in the next two years then it will have to be majorly reformed and standards relaxed in order to allow UK farmers to compete with cheap imports. The NFU also need to get far more aggressive with the blatant mis-use of the marque by major multiples.
Like it or loath it Red Tractor does provide UK agriculture with a standard that has prevented any major food scares for over 10 years, and prevented the UK farmer from sensational and damaging reports in the media that could destroy our businesses overnight. To that extent Clive I would suggest you would do well to steer clear of the Sun as the outcome could be more than you bargained for!!!!
Many of the posts on this thread have centered around arguing it is hardly a crime having vermin excrement in a food product, this is potentially a very damaging argument to our industry. Particularly when we are about to see the biggest change to our markets in the next two years as the country goes through Brexit; you could argue that we sell on a global market, but it would only take one health scare or a tabloid newspaper to run an exclusive report on vermin feces in wheat destined for human consumption to see mills around the country drop British wheat like a stone. We have an industry we mostly can be proud of and we need to strive to the highest standards in order to optimise the market for the goods we grow - it amazes me sometimes that farmers seem too think they have a god given right to sell their product no matter what the quality, we are in a competitive gobal market and as such need to make sure we produce a product that stands out and gives our customers the confidence they are buying the best they can and as such we can then receive a fair price.
However this is as far as my support for Red Tractor Farm Assurance Schemes go, they are becoming more and more burdensome we currently do Combinable Crops, Fresh Produce, LEAF, SMETA and BRC - so why for example when we do our Fresh Produce audit do we have the ridiculous situation where we have to answer questions about our packing facility when this is covered by a far more detailed - BRC, there should be a question are you BRC accredited if yes give them your membership number and move on. Why are these audits still covering items that are covered by UK legislation? The NFU must get better at getting the message over about Red Tractor and fast - it is our quality mark and we need the public to recognise it as such and choose to pick up UK produce where it is seen, once we are out of Europe our protection from cheap food from other global competitors could well be removed and the only way we will have to hold our market share is if people see the Red Tractor marque as that found on a safe, quality product. If this is not achieved in the next two years then it will have to be majorly reformed and standards relaxed in order to allow UK farmers to compete with cheap imports. The NFU also need to get far more aggressive with the blatant mis-use of the marque by major multiples.
Like it or loath it Red Tractor does provide UK agriculture with a standard that has prevented any major food scares for over 10 years, and prevented the UK farmer from sensational and damaging reports in the media that could destroy our businesses overnight. To that extent Clive I would suggest you would do well to steer clear of the Sun as the outcome could be more than you bargained for!!!!
Last edited:
Sensible yes but it's playing their silly game that allows this stupid situation to exist
It needs fundemental change - it's unrealistic and therefore unfit for purpose
I proved my stores and procedures were up to standard at our last inspection - nothing has or will change
I have no issue with rejection for human consumption but the blackmail standard mean right now I can't deliver a load of animal feed even
It's a protection racket, simple, my only option to lift suspension is to lie and say I will change my already plenty good enough system, I won't do that
Richard Budd
Member
- Location
- Kent
I am sure you did, and I am not arguing with you on this point, the problem is that the powers at RT are informed of vermin contamination in a sample so they stop you supplying until they can prove this is an isolated incident, if they did not and you were not as a conscientious they have no way of knowing you are not emptying out some dodgy old store that feeds half the local rat and mouse population. It should ultimately protect those farmers that have invested in good quality storage and see some of the disgraceful storage in current use ripped down.
I absolutely agree with you that RT standards have become more and more onerous and less and less relevant to proving a good quality product is being produced.
Old Boar
Member
- Location
- West Wales
Why not send them a dead mouse in the post and tell them they now have the offender? Of course you will have put a tag in its ear and have filled out a movement form, a copy of which is enclosed with the mouse.
Once they have received it, and obviously would have disposed of it, ask them for a copy of the waste management documentation.
Once they have received it, and obviously would have disposed of it, ask them for a copy of the waste management documentation.
kiwi pom
Member
- Location
- canterbury NZ
I would imagine you don't have to change anything just prove your standard are as high as they were at your last inspection and that you are prepared to review your systems IF they are seen to be ineffective.
- Location
- Owaka, New Zealand
Sounds similar to on farm visits/audits here.Speak to anyone who works in a mill that supplies Tesco etc
Unannounced inspections, thorough ones at that, apparently.
Dairy inspector will ring and say they're coming next week, to give you a week to scrub the buttons and catch up on paperwork.
Tesco or Sainsbury's auditor just shows up and goes looking in your sheds.. accompanied by an independent vet + another vet from your favourite meat processor.
this is in the great unregulated republic of NZ, I'd love to see Red Tractor try and get off the ground here.. consumers get traceability and damn good product without buying a slice of BS
Last edited:
- Location
- Moreton-in-Marsh, Glos
Not sure about conspiracy theories but must admit to having a lot a sympathy with @Clive and his attitude towards RT.
When ACCS started we passed our first three annual inspections without any problem. Then I started writing articles for Farmers Weekly and we got a new inspector.
The following two years we failed for the most trivial of reasons. It occurred to me that this new inspector was being especially harsh because I was a FW writer. In fact his first ever comment to me was that he hoped I wouldn't write something nasty about him if we were to fail!
On his third year he failed us on something he had passed us on the previous two years! He literally walked round and round the farm until he could find something to fail us on. That was it for me. I wrote a stinking letter to ACCS demanding a different inspector. His boss came out to see me and our suspension was immediately revoked.
The following year our inspector rang to make an appointment, then immediately rang again to say that while he was inspecting us, he would be being inspected himself! He asked if I would object to this to which my answer was " No we don't mind." I knew the reason why!
Guess what? We passed no trouble at all that time. Thank goodness that inspector no longer works for what is now CMI. In fact his boss inspects us now and touch wood, we have always passed with him.
But what really gets my goat is that we pay these feckers. If you take an HGV test, the examiner is trying to pass you, not deliberately fail you! Why should RT be different?
We must not allow these organisations to get away with this sought of idiocy.
Last edited:
- Location
- Berkshire
I've been reading this thread with great interest as my wife previously worked in the fresh produce industry.
We as arable farmers have a very easy life compared to them !!
Really Clive, quit your wingeing, supply some evidence to RT to support your exemplary store and standards and move on ....
While I think that the whole RT scheme may at times be a bit of a box ticking exercise, it has made all the difference on a lot of failing stores and has overall raised standards.
We as arable farmers have a very easy life compared to them !!
Really Clive, quit your wingeing, supply some evidence to RT to support your exemplary store and standards and move on ....
While I think that the whole RT scheme may at times be a bit of a box ticking exercise, it has made all the difference on a lot of failing stores and has overall raised standards.