AHDB would like to make clear its position regarding annual funding provided to Red Tractor

Grass And Grain

Member
Mixed Farmer
Location
Yorks
I think that's a pleasing statement to see. Well done AHDB. Taken on board all the points we've raised over past 10 months.

It's base requirement, but trying to be premium brand, so one level = no price premium.

It's higher standards (and cost to the farmer) than the imports which enter our market and get blended into the same end product.

Scheme is full of daft standards, some of which have nothing to do with food safety.

Will RT actually listen?
 

Chris F

Staff Member
Media
Location
Hammerwich
This is a big step for AHDB. I have said for many months this needs doing and it's great to see them doing it.

From all the Freedom of Information (FOI) requests we have seen, the words "common narrative" has been used a lot in the last year to keep NFU/RT/AHDB are singing the same tune. This approach has massively damaged the AHDB in my opinion. I have told them this.

This might be a bit watered down, but this is AHDB taking it's own stance.

It also opens the door for a new assurance scheme for Cereals to become a reality. As they say they are pro assurance and they have funded and will fund assurance in the future. But it doesn't say that assurance has to be Red Tractor.

Competition in this market is required and it's coming. That competition can now be funded by AHDB assuming it is "deemed to add demonstrable value to levy payers or help levy payers to reach agreed standards". Not sure Red Tractor can do that in the cereals market.
 

Humble Village Farmer

Member
NFFN Member
Location
Cb97ej
I think that's a pleasing statement to see. Well done AHDB. Taken on board all the points we've raised over past 10 months.

It's base requirement, but trying to be premium brand, so one level = no price premium.

It's higher standards (and cost to the farmer) than the imports which enter our market and get blended into the same end product.

Scheme is full of daft standards, some of which have nothing to do with food safety.

Will RT actually listen?
I don't think this is a problem caused by rt. It's the readiness of farmers to join the scheme and the trade taking the opportunity to insist on it.

rt don't need to listen to anyone or anything. They are perfect.
 

Chris F

Staff Member
Media
Location
Hammerwich
what like does he mean the whole Worlds farming industry ?

AHDB are only UK - so I read it as UK. We know consumers want assurance. Sometimes that assurance is just that it is UK and legal product, sometimes its more. I talk to loads of my non-farming friends (mostly men) and very few know about Red Tractor - but they all know about a union jack on food and associate that with better standards.
 

nickf

Member
Location
Oxfordshire
I read that as Nicholas saying farming as a whole industry, not as and individual farm. Plus he says farm assurance is important. Not Red Tractor.
I’m happy to concur on your point that he writes “farm assurance” rather than Red Tractor in this paragraph but it does feel sometimes that the 2 are used rather interchangeably at times.
If he had meant the whole industry perhaps he would have been better off writing “..farming’s success“, would have felt less personal to me!
 

Humble Village Farmer

Member
NFFN Member
Location
Cb97ej
AHDB are only UK - so I read it as UK. We know consumers want assurance. Sometimes that assurance is just that it is UK and legal product, sometimes its more. I talk to loads of my non-farming friends (mostly men) and very few know about Red Tractor - but they all know about a union jack on food and associate that with better standards.
And sometimes it's less, as in the case of imports.
 

Chris F

Staff Member
Media
Location
Hammerwich
I’m happy to concur on your point that he writes “farm assurance” rather than Red Tractor in this paragraph but it does feel sometimes that the 2 are used rather interchangeably at times.
If he had meant the whole industry perhaps he would have been better off writing “..farming’s success“, would have felt less personal to me!

Generally it has. The "common narrative" we have read so much about in emails backs up your exact point.

This reads to me as a Red Tractor divorce though. AHDB know Red Tractor is toxic right now. ASA are investigating over allegations they have misled consumers, a possible legal challenge to market manipulation, and so on.... this is putting distance between them and Red Tractor.

Also removes £250k a year of funding.

I expect they will withdraw as guarantor as well in the future.
 

nickf

Member
Location
Oxfordshire
Generally it has. The "common narrative" we have read so much about in emails backs up your exact point.

This reads to me as a Red Tractor divorce though. AHDB know Red Tractor is toxic right now. ASA are investigating over allegations they have misled consumers, a possible legal challenge to market manipulation, and so on.... this is putting distance between them and Red Tractor.

Also removes £250k a year of funding.

I expect they will withdraw as guarantor as well in the future.
Fingers crossed you are right.
 
This is a big step for AHDB. I have said for many months this needs doing and it's great to see them doing it.

From all the Freedom of Information (FOI) requests we have seen, the words "common narrative" has been used a lot in the last year to keep NFU/RT/AHDB are singing the same tune. This approach has massively damaged the AHDB in my opinion. I have told them this.

This might be a bit watered down, but this is AHDB taking it's own stance.

It also opens the door for a new assurance scheme for Cereals to become a reality. As they say they are pro assurance and they have funded and will fund assurance in the future. But it doesn't say that assurance has to be Red Tractor.

Competition in this market is required and it's coming. That competition can now be funded by AHDB assuming it is "deemed to add demonstrable value to levy payers or help levy payers to reach agreed standards". Not sure Red Tractor can do that in the cereals market.

There is no way assurance can be only Red Tractor alone so it is pleasing to see a levy board that is funded out of farmer's pockets announce their divorce from Red Tractor. They are a sullied brand supported only by a few spiv farmers who are paid by them - the rest of the farmers don't like it because we see it for what it is - a market blocker and a cartel. If RT is as good as it claims it won't worry about this and it will continue to get the premium for its members from the marketplace as it claims it always has done...

I don't have a problem with the principal of assurance either - but I don't think the NFU need be anywhere near it either. Maybe when Tom Bradshaw comes in their could be a change of spirit.

I really hope Mr Saphir knows the extent of how little appetite farmers have for being bullied into accepting unfair situations and how dim a view we all take of the collusion between the AHDB, AIC, RT and NFU - its really really unethical
 
Last edited:

teslacoils

Member
Arable Farmer
Location
Lincolnshire
There is no way assurance can be only Red Tractor alone. They are a sullied brand supported only by a few spiv farmers who are paid by them - the rest of the farmers don't like it because we see it for what it is - a market blocker and a cartel.

I don't have a problem with the principal of assurance either - but I don't think the NFU need be anywhere near it either.

I really hope Mr Saphir knows the extent of how little appetite farmers have for being bullied into accepting unfair situations and how dim a view we all take of the collusion between the AHDB, AIC, RT and NFU - its really really unethical
Nfu needs to keep well clear.
 

Grass And Grain

Member
Mixed Farmer
Location
Yorks
QMS (Scottish red meat) are stopping Lloyds register carrying out farm assurance.
SAOS are recruiting for a team to do it.
It's going to be all change in the FA sector. It's going to get shaken up.
I would argue there is no assurance to the consumer for imported product (unless they have their own brand). Most flour comes with no assurance, its just "legal".
AIC mutually recognised EFISC-GTP importers scheme allows grain to be trade assured with NO farm assurance AND NO gatekeeper lab testing assurance. That's right, no assurance at all when it reaches the mill intake.

Members of UK Flour Millers will purchase imports under the EFISC-GTP scheme, yet they say we've to be RT assured.
 

Is Red tractor detrimental to your mental health?

  • Yes, Red tractor increase my stress and anxiety

    Votes: 283 98.3%
  • No, Red tractor gives me peace of mind that the product I produce is safe to enter the food chain

    Votes: 5 1.7%

HSENI names new farm safety champions

  • 117
  • 0
Written by William Kellett from Agriland

Farm-safety-640x360.png
The Health and Safety Executive for Northern Ireland (HSENI) alongside the Farm Safety Partnership (FSP), has named new farm safety champions and commended the outstanding work on farm safety that has been carried out in the farming community in the last 20 years.

Two of these champions are Malcom Downey, retired principal inspector for the Agri/Food team in HSENI and Harry Sinclair, current chair of the Farm Safety Partnership and former president of the Ulster Farmers’ Union (UFU).

Improving farm safety is the key aim of HSENI’s and the FSP’s work and...
Top