- Location
- Devon
Fully agree with all of that.
However, being realistic I don’t think we will ever get away from the need for some kind of basic assurance. If the NFU had kept it basic rather than embellishing it then I would have respect for them but the remit of the scheme grows ever larger each year and is no longer solely concerned with basic food safety but is moving into socio environmental ethical areas which while being “nice to haves” for the high end grocery trade, aren’t really needed for exported feed barley. In many cases all that is needed is a signed declaration for example to say that crops aren’t grown on protected habitats. But no, they want a full blown mass balance which really typifies the way a small simple basic requirement is blown out of all proportion and used as an excuse to heap even more unnecessary paperwork on the farmer most likely with the hidden agenda of ensuring the farmer passes no non assured grain through his business. A crafty but of RT Surveillance by the back door.
I find it hard to believe the NFU allowed this through in this form.
Absolutely.
When the very good NFU bod's came to speak to me they asked what would make me reconsider cancelling my membership.
As they said the NFU would not support the ending of RT in anyway I said there were 2 choices.
1, They have to ensure that there is no compulsion to be RT. There must clear paths to sell produce not RT.
or 2, RT must have a basic level which is free [or have a nominal fee] with a higher level of assurance that has to make itself financially viable.
I think they agreed but weren't hopeful.