AIC Farmer Meeting on Friday

[Chris F]

A group, including myself and 3 cereals farmers met with Robert Sheasby and John Kelley from the AIC on Friday afternoon.

AIC were able to take us through their role in the industry.

It was great to understand the process that a new scheme would have to go through to be accepted by AIC. It was also positive that the AIC would welcome a new scheme. This completely contradicted the AHDB statement in an FOI email, that that another scheme would not be accepted by post farmgate supply-chains. It was agreed that Red Tractor is far from perfect and it was discussed how to improve on it. Interestingly, AIC run schemes operate much more the way we think Red Tractor should. Systems run with online portals and expert assessors. The farmers disputed the AIC claim that Red Tractor was voluntary. This keeps being repeated by the trade, they are very out of touch here. Hopefully meeting more farmers will change that.

Other schemes were discussed, such as LEAF, but my understanding is you have to be LEAF and Red Tractor to trade. Maybe that is my misunderstanding though. Can anyone who is LEAF clarify that if you are, then it trumps Red Tractor?

I was surprised that we had to explain so much of this, I'm not sure how many actual farmers the AIC are exposed to. They certainly meet with NFU, AHDB, RT, but we already know how weak the RT senior team is on the Cereals side.

AIC have said they will evaluate a new light touch scheme if put to them for acceptance. This would be to run as an alternative to Red Tractor. They would give the go-ahead for its creation if it "ticks all the boxes" during their evaluation. To sum it up, change is coming and the AIC are onboard with it. Was a good meeting and one of many we will be having in the future to discuss how to bring grain assurance into the modern age.

 

[snipe]

Well done everyone involved.

 

[neilo]

Did they give any indication of what they would need to see from any assurance scheme for grain produced to uk legislative standards (as inspected by Trading Standards, RPA, etc), if anything?

 

[Steevo]

I was surprised that we had to explain so much of this, I'm not sure how many actual farmers the AIC are exposed too. They certainly meet with NFU, AHDB, RT, but we already know how weak the RT senior team is on the Cereals side.

Does make me wonder whether RPA, DEFRA, and UK Government are exactly as out of touch.....and have been kept out of touch by them thinking NFU are true to the industry and properly representative.

 

[Highashgrange]

Looking at the Assured Food Standards accounts when Red Tractor is declared the farming worlds PPI, there’s maybe £100 each for us if we are lucky. I want my 20 years worth back like I’m sure everybody else does.

 

[Treg]

Does make me wonder whethe RPA, DEFRA, and UK Government are exactly as out of touch.....and have been kept out of touch by them thinking NFU are true to the industry and properly representative.

Definitely.

 

[willyorkshire]

A group, including myself and 3 cereals farmers met with Robert Sheasby and John Kelley from the AIC on Friday afternoon.

AIC were able to take us through their role in the industry.

It was great to understand the process that a new scheme would have to go through to be accepted by AIC. It was also positive that the AIC would welcome a new scheme. This completely contradicted the AHDB statement in an FOI email, that that another scheme would not be accepted by post farmgate supply-chains. It was agreed that Red Tractor is far from perfect and it was discussed how to improve on it. Interestingly, AIC run schemes operate much more the way we think Red Tractor should. Systems run with online portals and expert assessors. The farmers disputed the AIC claim that Red Tractor was voluntary. This keeps being repeated by the trade, they are very out of touch here. Hopefully meeting more farmers will change that.

Other schemes were discussed, such as LEAF, but my understanding is you have to be LEAF and Red Tractor to trade. Maybe that is my misunderstanding though. Can anyone who is LEAF clarify that if you are, then it trumps Red Tractor?

I was surprised that we had to explain so much of this, I'm not sure how many actual farmers the AIC are exposed too. They certainly meet with NFU, AHDB, RT, but we already know how weak the RT senior team is on the Cereals side.

AIC have said they will evaluate a new light touch scheme if put to them for acceptance. This would be to run as an alternative to Red Tractor. They would give the go-ahead for its creation if it "ticks all the boxes" during their evaluation. To sum it up, change is coming and the AIC are onboard with it. Was a good meeting and one of many we will be having in the future to discuss how to bring grain assurance into the modern age.

I think you'll find that RT just means that you can complete the LEAF audit much more quickly. LEAF doesn't replace RT.

 

[Chris F]

I think you'll find that RT just means that you can complete the LEAF audit much more quickly. LEAF doesn't replace RT.

I thought that too. But they said LEAF was an alternative. Ie it was a choice between LEAF and RT for Assurance. I didn't say anything in the meeting, as wasn't sure. So thought it is worth asking on here for someone who is LEAF.

 

[teslacoils]

Looking at the Assured Food Standards accounts when Red Tractor is declared the farming worlds PPI, there’s maybe £100 each for us if we are lucky. I want my 20 years worth back like I’m sure everybody else does.

They can give my £100 to a farming charity. I'll just be glad to see them shut. And let's remember that the RT hierarchy should be prevented from sitting on other farming boards. Their cards have been well marked by their actions.

 

[tullah]

They can give my £100 to a farming charity. I'll just be glad to see them shut. And let's remember that the RT hierarchy should be prevented from sitting on other farming boards. Their cards have been well marked by their actions.

I will never knowingly do business with any company that has bods on its board or in its employ who are ex RT or have been connected in any way with the fraud.

 

[farenheit]

Replace RT with Leaf? What difference would that make?

 

[teslacoils]

They think they have to approve of a new scheme. Really. The power balance is shifting. Now to get some farmer share holdings in these mills.

 

[neilo]

Isn't LEAF more to do with proving that you are farming 'environmentally', rather than anything to do with food safety?

 

[Chris F]

Replace RT with Leaf? What difference would that make?

That wasn’t what was suggested, more that a farmer has a choice currently and could be in Leaf.

 

[Chris F]

Did they give any indication of what they would need to see from any assurance scheme for grain produced to uk legislative standards (as inspected by Trading Standards, RPA, etc), if anything?

We asked what was the “recipe” for a scheme they would accept. This bit was a bit wholly, as nothing like that exists. But we can put can put any scheme to them and then they will assess it for aceptability.

 

[Farma Parma]

3/4 of what RT demand is just a tick box excercise & it wants binned then we will embrace something just simpler.
We are the start of the food chain who actually gain the least out of it.
MASS BALANCE is one of them nonscene parts added in recently.
Heard a good one yest off one of my neighbours the local council wants too see his Carbon Audit to get on the Snow Ploughing contractors list.
you really couldnt make this up & want too see his business accounts to see if he is finanacially sound.

 

[neilo]

We asked what was the “recipe” for a scheme they would accept. This bit was a bit wholly, as nothing like that exists. But we can put can put any scheme to them and then they will assess it for aceptability.

Surely they must be able to give an indication as to what is supposedly unacceptable about non-assured (ie: produced only to uk legislative standards)?

IF they insist there has to be some kind of ‘assurance’ scheme at all, then it needs only to cover those things they say they need to see, nothing more and no gold plating.

If there is nothing they ‘need’ then they can’t justify requiring any scheme stickers at all.

If they require more auditing, over and above that performed by Trading Standards or DEFRA, to ensure we are meeting legal requirements, then it’s relatively simple to audit for those annually (or whatever period they need to satisfy their curiosity).

No need to add in requirements for annual sprayer mot’s (3 yearly is perfectly adequate as a check we are doing our jobs), gaining arbitrary points for NROSO, etc.

 

[Pigless]

We asked what was the “recipe” for a scheme they would accept. This bit was a bit wholly, as nothing like that exists. But we can put can put any scheme to them and then they will assess it for aceptability.

I thought the purpose was to ask why they would not accept a self declaration of the type red tractor had told @Grass And Grain last week they would accept and it's just AIC stopping it in feed mills?
Doesn't sound as if they have grasped the need to level up or down standards with imports

 

[steveR]

Isn't LEAF more to do with proving that you are farming 'environmentally', rather than anything to do with food safety?

I thought the same, Linking Evironment And the Farm as I recall...

 

[Chris F]

Surely they must be able to give an indication as to what is supposedly unacceptable about non-assured (ie: produced only to uk legislative standards)?

IF they insist there has to be some kind of ‘assurance’ scheme at all, then it needs only to cover those things they say they need to see, nothing more and no gold plating.

If there is nothing they ‘need’ then they can’t justify requiring any scheme stickers at all.

If they require more auditing, over and above that performed by Trading Standards or DEFRA, to ensure we are meeting legal requirements, then it’s relatively simple to audit for those annually (or whatever period they need to satisfy their curiosity).

No need to add in requirements for annual sprayer mot’s (3 yearly is perfectly adequate as a check we are doing our jobs), gaining arbitrary points for NROSO, etc.

No we pushed hard in this. There is no recipe. As it has to go through a number of working groups to deem it acceptable. Of course there are other schemes already. And everything would depend on whether it was for feed or human consumption.

We will be putting a tiered scheme to them. They will then give us feedback. There will be some back and forth I would imagine. But that’s why there will be more meetings. AIC had some good ideas, that’s why meeting was so useful.