AHDB cereals poll and Red Tractor

Would you support a cereals exit vote if ahdb do not “fix” the marketplace distortion caused by RT?

  • Yes

    Votes: 92 93.9%
  • No

    Votes: 6 6.1%

  • Total voters
    98

AIMS

Member
Trade
Location
UK
Are we paying for RT through, RT membership fees, AHDB and NFU membership fees?
RT's annula income is around £4.5million

This is made up of 50% from farmers fees for being in the scheme, 45% Royalty fees for those post farm gate businesses who wish to make a RT claim either via their logo or in writing and, they claim 5% from AHDB. Actually 5% = £225,000 whereas AHDB actually pay £249,000 per annum at present.
 

Grass And Grain

Member
Mixed Farmer
Location
Yorks
RT's annula income is around £4.5million

This is made up of 50% from farmers fees for being in the scheme, 45% Royalty fees for those post farm gate businesses who wish to make a RT claim either via their logo or in writing and, they claim 5% from AHDB. Actually 5% = £225,000 whereas AHDB actually pay £249,000 per annum at present.
It's a funny old world. Farmers pay to join a scheme, it's supposed to be a brand to aid marketing, yet retailers/processors have to pay to use the logo. Therefore RT are sort of putting up financial barriers to promotion of the brand/logo.

Meanwhile, everyone in control of these assurance schemes closes their eyes and pretends they don't notice imports slipping in under the cover of darkness. They're saying we must adhere to their highest standards, yet at the same time knowingly disregarding their own standards.

Which standards is it. We need one standards. I'm not bothered what it is, but it needs to be equal. Farmers, NFU and AHDB can't support this any longer. We must have change.

I think AHDB are taking the first steps to address this. Will it get results? Don't know. If it doesn't, then I'd suggest Plan 'B'.
 

Drillman

Member
Mixed Farmer
It's a funny old world. Farmers pay to join a scheme, it's supposed to be a brand to aid marketing, yet retailers/processors have to pay to use the logo. Therefore RT are sort of putting up financial barriers to promotion of the brand/logo.

Meanwhile, everyone in control of these assurance schemes closes their eyes and pretends they don't notice imports slipping in under the cover of darkness. They're saying we must adhere to their highest standards, yet at the same time knowingly disregarding their own standards.

Which standards is it. We need one standards. I'm not bothered what it is, but it needs to be equal. Farmers, NFU and AHDB can't support this any longer. We must have change.

I think AHDB are taking the first steps to address this. Will it get results? Don't know. If it doesn't, then I'd suggest Plan 'B'.
I will correct you there-


RT set up a scheme that we pay into to market our goods at world price (that we were selling at world price anyway) and at the same time are charging folks further down the line a fee to use a logo to sell goods that they were happily selling for the same price beforehand anyway.

who’s making the money here?

not the farmer

not the manufacturer?

must be RT....
 

Grass And Grain

Member
Mixed Farmer
Location
Yorks
I would like AHDB to go into competition with RT

nothing wrong with giving us more choice
If AHDB were to consider RY not fit to have pur marketing budget, and if RT/AIC don't fix the unlevel playingfield, then an alternative scheme seems the only option.

Personally I'd start by setting up a rival scheme to AIC in the first instance. One which didn't differentiate in standards based solely on country of origin.
 

AIMS

Member
Trade
Location
UK
I will correct you there-


RT set up a scheme that we pay into to market our goods at world price (that we were selling at world price anyway) and at the same time are charging folks further down the line a fee to use a logo to sell goods that they were happily selling for the same price beforehand anyway.

who’s making the money here?

not the farmer

not the manufacturer?

must be RT....
RT claim that they are not for profit and that every £ of money after paying for their offices (They are on Fenchurch Street in the City of London sio must be a high rent) and their staff is then spent on marketing such as their surrent TV ad
 

AIMS

Member
Trade
Location
UK
It's a funny old world. Farmers pay to join a scheme, it's supposed to be a brand to aid marketing, yet retailers/processors have to pay to use the logo. Therefore RT are sort of putting up financial barriers to promotion of the brand/logo.

Meanwhile, everyone in control of these assurance schemes closes their eyes and pretends they don't notice imports slipping in under the cover of darkness. They're saying we must adhere to their highest standards, yet at the same time knowingly disregarding their own standards.

Which standards is it. We need one standards. I'm not bothered what it is, but it needs to be equal. Farmers, NFU and AHDB can't support this any longer. We must have change.

I think AHDB are taking the first steps to address this. Will it get results? Don't know. If it doesn't, then I'd suggest Plan 'B'.
To our mind one of the main issues is this. We are not self sufficient in what we produce. So the RT is seen as a means of differentiating UK farmed products on supermarket shelves from the required imports. Were we self-suffiecient and producing a surplus then there possibly would be a need for RT to promote British Farmed foods in global markets. It is interesting to note that RT are not members of the DIT's Trade and Agriculture Commission
 

Grass And Grain

Member
Mixed Farmer
Location
Yorks
I will correct you there-


RT set up a scheme that we pay into to market our goods at world price (that we were selling at world price anyway) and at the same time are charging folks further down the line a fee to use a logo to sell goods that they were happily selling for the same price beforehand anyway.

who’s making the money here?

not the farmer

not the manufacturer?

must be RT....
No, no, no. How dare you suggest it's been done for financial gain. Obviously it's just done for food safety :mad:

And the Ukranian wheat assurance is? Well, tbh, there's probably nothing wrong with Ukranian wheat, it's just that UK users have been press-ganged into only being allowed to use assured, and been told there's something wrong with UK wheat if it doesn't have a sticker.
 

Surgery

Member
Location
Oxford
To our mind one of the main issues is this. We are not self sufficient in what we produce. So the RT is seen as a means of differentiating UK farmed products on supermarket shelves from the required imports. Were we self-suffiecient and producing a surplus then there possibly would be a need for RT to promote British Farmed foods in global markets. It is interesting to note that RT are not members of the DIT's Trade and Agriculture Commission
I would think quite the opposite , if we were a net exporter to my mind assurance schemes would pump their chests out further with the exported produce (look here rt standard , Great Britain blah blah blah , look at what your buying) whilst every other country wouldn’t think twice as to where it comes from.
You would only have to look in average Joe’s supermarket trolley that rt isn’t the deciding factor in people’s buying habits , cash is.

let’s also be honest certain supermarkets have also been known to advertise there one brands in such a fashion it gives the impression the produce was grown-reared in the uk when clearly it’s not.
 

tullah

Member
Location
Linconshire
RT claim that they are not for profit and that every £ of money after paying for their offices (They are on Fenchurch Street in the City of London sio must be a high rent) and their staff is then spent on marketing such as their surrent TV ad
Of course RT DONT make a profit. The directors and employees are paid out before you get to the bottom line of profit.
Is there a list available showing all these people.
 

Clive

Staff Member
Arable Farmer
Location
Lichfield
RT's annula income is around £4.5million

This is made up of 50% from farmers fees for being in the scheme, 45% Royalty fees for those post farm gate businesses who wish to make a RT claim either via their logo or in writing and, they claim 5% from AHDB. Actually 5% = £225,000 whereas AHDB actually pay £249,000 per annum at present.

yet its “not for profit”


£ 4.5 million is keeping someone in gravy !
 

Clive

Staff Member
Arable Farmer
Location
Lichfield

Drillman

Member
Mixed Farmer
RT claim that they are not for profit and that every £ of money after paying for their offices (They are on Fenchurch Street in the City of London sio must be a high rent) and their staff is then spent on marketing such as their surrent TV ad
Well considering there probably all working from home due to COVID they can terminate the lease on the office and pass the saving on to us.

If in future an office is really truly needed (which is unlikely) a couple of portacabins on a remote corner of an industrial estate be plenty good enough to print and post stickers from.
 

SFI - What % were you taking out of production?

  • 0 %

    Votes: 81 42.2%
  • Up to 25%

    Votes: 68 35.4%
  • 25-50%

    Votes: 30 15.6%
  • 50-75%

    Votes: 3 1.6%
  • 75-100%

    Votes: 3 1.6%
  • 100% I’ve had enough of farming!

    Votes: 7 3.6%

Red Tractor drops launch of green farming scheme amid anger from farmers

  • 1,294
  • 1
As reported in Independent


quote: “Red Tractor has confirmed it is dropping plans to launch its green farming assurance standard in April“

read the TFF thread here: https://thefarmingforum.co.uk/index.php?threads/gfc-was-to-go-ahead-now-not-going-ahead.405234/
Top