AIC letter, Request to use 'Gatekeeper' method for assuring UK grain.

[Grass And Grain]

The following question has been put to the Agricultural Industries Confederation in an email dated 22/02/2021...



We've had farmers asking if we might put a specific question to you.

I note in your earlier correspondence the 'gatekeeper' methodology used to ensure the safety of imported crops, and how this satisfies AIC's requirements. I refer you to the following text.

"Grains and Feedstuffs in the UK – Checks and Controls”. These requirements, sometimes referred to as “gatekeeper rules” are included in the relevant AIC schemes as well as all the international schemes recognised by AIC, ensuring the safety of imported crops."

As this meets the expectations of AIC's requirements for use in the assured UK feed/food chain, we can only think it would be permissible for the principles of the 'gatekeeper' protocols to be used for the supply of whole combinable crops by any nationality of farmer from any country.

An example may be non-assured grain in a UK central storage facility, which could then be laboratory analysed for (where applicable) the relevant parameters, and then on passing the tests, be brought into the assured feed/food chain.

I wonder if you might be able to either confirm or otherwise, if UK and Eire farmers can also use the 'gatekeeper' methodology to which is currently permitted for every other country in the supply of whole combinable crops to the UK assured feed/food chain. We can then inform the farmers of your response.

Thank you for your time in considering this matter.

 

[Grass And Grain]

AIC replied. I'll slightly paraphrase their reply...


We've spoken to a number of the industry on you queries and have summarised the main points below:

1. As you are aware, AIC published our position statement on UK and imported combinable crops & feedstuffs (February 2021) and our position has not changed since that point.
2. AIC can take your points to the various assurance committees and feed/arable sector meetings over the coming months to discuss. AIC can facilitate these discussions but any decisions made will come from the industry who will be guided by their customers. This process is likely to take some time as you have raised some challenging issues.
3. As referred to before, the bulk of the UK agri-food supply chain is based on a level of farm assurance, the red tractor schemes being one of them. If some cereals growers want an alternative process, there would still have to be additional checks and balances in place, which would come at a cost to meet legislative feed and food safety requirements.

You have also mentioned about discussing our position with other organisations, that is welcomed and is made in point 3, as it is only as we work together as an agri-food supply chain then these issues can be taken forward.

 

[Levelsman]

Not quite sure what to make of this, other than 2. ........think we might want check whether the turkeys want to vote for Christmas!

 

[Doc]

3. Is inaccurate if what I’ve read on here is correct. It implies an alternative ‘assurance’ to meet legal requirement. Should be easy to draft.

 

[Grass And Grain]

3. Is inaccurate if what I’ve read on here is correct. It implies an alternative ‘assurance’ to meet legal requirement. Should be easy to draft.

I thought the same as you, it won't cost anything (over or above what we're doing now) to meet legal requirements.

 

[Andy26]

AIC replied. I'll slightly paraphrase their reply...

I'll paraphrase it even more succinctly..

AIC have zero intention in any reform of only requiring farm assurance on UK produce whilst allowing imported produce to be self certified and only assured from merchant level onwards.

100% predictable response unfortunately.

 

[Dave645]

Thank you @Grass And Grain. Keep up the good work.

It sounds like they bend to the industry, and the industry bend to retail, who see us as the golden goose we pay they gain, I hope it helps, but I still think our best bets are, a change to the structure of how RT is funded and how we get our premium, or setup a scheme of our own that they have to recognise.

I said it in the other thread, give us all a levy of £5/tonne on our wheat when we sell it, and make the scheme free to us then I will happily jump through the hoops, then make retail pay it if they insist on needing RT gold plated rules.
Same for animal farms free scheme and x amount per head premium. That comes as a levy as we sell our stock as RT assured.
This is how to make change, retail are happy because basically it’s free to them, the moment it’s not they will either drop it or fully support it, if as they say, the consumer is always right. Every company that uses a Union Jack of its label is trading on RT assurance.

Who pays the into the levy scheme that pays us, all those retailers and mills that love assurance schemes that say RT is invaluable and is required, or the government form a new food and feed tax every tonne or animal head purchased requiring RT type assurance has to pay a fixed amount into the levy, that pays us. to give us uk suppliers, the premium long promised never received.
I think we will find very quickly what they need to be assured and what level that assurance needs to be, and on what.
I can bet feed wheat, feed barley are dropped like a stone from RT assurance requirements at mills, and they would happily co assure our wheat, and barley just as they do imports for free with no on farm paper work or levy on them.
I think it will be harder for them to escape for animals and milling wheat so they will likely keep paying the levy.

The assurance and retail industry want RT type assurance then let them worry how it’s paid for. If they don’t want to pay and are happy with basic assurance that the mills magic of of a hat, that’s equivalent to imports, then I am sure they will soon have a free to them scheme up and approved with the powers at bee, that does just that.

Money talks far more than farmer upset.

 

[Dave645]

To sum up the AIC in there own words. https://www.agindustries.org.uk/about-aic.html

What is AIC?
The Agricultural Industries Confederation (AIC) is the agrisupply industry’s leading trade association. Formed in October 2003 by a merger of three trade associations, AIC has over 230 Members in the agrisupply trade and represents £8 billion turnover at farmgate.

The trade association represents several sectors within the agrisupply industry including: Animal Feed; Crop Protection and Agronomy; Fertilisers; Grain and Oilseed; Seed.

AIC works on behalf of its Members by: Lobbying policy makers and stakeholders; Delivering information; Providing Trade Assurance; Offering technical support.

Who do we represent?
AIC Members represent the agrisupply industry which provides inputs into the agricultural and farming sectors. The sectors and % representation is shown below:

Animal Feed 90 %
Crops Protection and Agronomy 90 %
Distributors Fertilisers 95 %
Grain and Oilseeds 90 %
Seed 80 %
The voice of the agrisupply industry
By listening to various groups of companies within AIC, the Confederation has become the voice of the agrisupply industry.

AIC Member companies are fully involved in the working and communication process which ensures that AIC is the leading representative force in these sectors.

AIC Aims
AIC promotes the benefits of modern commercial agriculture in the UK and supports collaboration throughout the foodchain.


Ok non of that is the farmer, all of that is, those that sit with there feet on the necks of farmers, or vampires that are trying to suck every last drop of blood from our necks.
Basically it’s worse than I thought
This is the worst bit
Crops Protection and Agronomy 90 %
Distributors Fertilisers 95 %
Grain and Oilseeds 90 %
Seed 80 %
The voice of the agrisupply industry

Now it make sense it’s a protection racket they make rules that protect the players they represent, RT is the means to enforce those protections. Where you can get seed from, same for fert, they don’t want you to import your own chemicals.
AIC are not working for use they work for retail. There job is making sure that retail get what they want.

 

[Hesstondriver]

" will be guided by their customers"

tail wagging dog springs to mind

 

[homefarm]

Getting change through AIC will be hard work and may need legal intervention and therefore would take many years.
Our best hope is a new simple scheme running along side RT through AHDB.

Any news from AHDB yet?

Should we be asking for an update on their position?

 

[teslacoils]

Ideally, needs a few samples of "gatekeeper" grain from Ukraine running through an independent UK lab, finding residues of banned UK Chems heading for a named end user, then leaking to the Guardian.

 

[teslacoils]

Anyone run a lorry that can certify grain in this way? Care to show us what this gatekeeper paperwork is? Or do they want to pick up a load of my corn, declare it as Ukrainian, and deliver it in using that method?

 

[ploughman1963]

I thought the same as you, it won't cost anything (over or above what we're doing now) to meet legal requirements.

Thats how I read it.

 

[Grass And Grain]

Getting change through AIC will be hard work and may need legal intervention and therefore would take many years.
Our best hope is a new simple scheme running along side RT through AHDB.

Any news from AHDB yet?

Should we be asking for an update on their position?

Just chased Martin from AHDB, and he got back to me with a quick reply. I'll be able to update with more info in a few days, AHDB are going to give me more detail then.

I don't know for cetain yet, but think AHDB are doing something, but it will take time to consult with end users etc. and to think through all the ramifications.

So far pleased we involved AHDB, they will be listened to by all the relevant bodies more so than some little farmer from Yorkshire!

I'd like change immediately, but can see how it won't happen overnight.

Ideally, needs a few samples of "gatekeeper" grain from Ukraine running through an independent UK lab, finding residues of banned UK Chems heading for a named end user, then leaking to the Guardian.

I agree. Our livestock boys (and arable men) ought to be having it tested. If it fails for residues not licensed in UK, reject the lot. I really do believe either NFU, farmers or AHDB should be looking at this. Atrazine in maize anyone.

 

[teslacoils]

It may be that overseas grain is just as good as ours. But I don't see why we can't have it certified in the same way. Suspect that, as end user has paid for 25000t, and same end user samples it at intake, that there is little leeway to send it back / make claims.

 

[Humble Village Farmer]

AIC replied. I'll slightly paraphrase their reply...


We've spoken to a number of the industry on you queries and have summarised the main points below:

1. As you are aware, AIC published our position statement on UK and imported combinable crops & feedstuffs (February 2021) and our position has not changed since that point.
2. AIC can take your points to the various assurance committees and feed/arable sector meetings over the coming months to discuss. AIC can facilitate these discussions but any decisions made will come from the industry who will be guided by their customers. This process is likely to take some time as you have raised some challenging issues.
3. As referred to before, the bulk of the UK agri-food supply chain is based on a level of farm assurance, the red tractor schemes being one of them. If some cereals growers want an alternative process, there would still have to be additional checks and balances in place, which would come at a cost to meet legislative feed and food safety requirements.

You have also mentioned about discussing our position with other organisations, that is welcomed and is made in point 3, as it is only as we work together as an agri-food supply chain then these issues can be taken forward.

Paragraph 2, "we can take your points to the various bodies over the coming months." - Don't expect us to do anything like send an email or make a phone call. Over the coming months you'll be busy and will hopefully forget all about this.

Paragraph 3 is a lie. "there would still have to be additional checks and balances in place, which would come at a cost to meet legislative feed and food safety requirements"

What legislative feed and food safety requirements are they referring to ? This implies that RT carries out checks and balances which means farm assured grain (in this case) meets legislative food safety requirements. Like what exactly? It's just a clear attempt to exaggerate their claims. There's no evidence of any such checks ("and balances" wtfh does that mean???) either on home produced or imports. We're just mug enough to have been sucked into paying for their cars and holidays. Meanwhile they think up a few more boxes for the inspector to tick while we make him cups of tea at a cost of £100 to £200 an hour.

If you think it's worth engaging with this lot (I don't, they will obstruct and delay relentlessly), then I would find out what meetings they are referring to in the coming months and ask why these meetings do not include farmer representation, and could that change for a start.

Ahdb will at least take us seriously, let's see what comes of that.

Failing that, ordinary small claims would soon have a impact on these various companies' policies. The law takes everyone seriously and only considers facts not exaggerated claims.

 

[steveR]

This process is likely to take some time as you have raised some challenging issues.

No sh1T Sherlock!!!

JUst what is so challenging though...?

 

[Humble Village Farmer]

No sh1T Sherlock!!!

JUst what is so challenging though...?

The fact that their income stream is under threat...

 

[SilliamWhale]

No sh1T Sherlock!!!

JUst what is so challenging though...?

There is nothing challenging about any of it. Jim Mosely tied himself into knots about how challenging it all is too. Its not, its very simple

 

[SilliamWhale]

Just chased Martin from AHDB, and he got back to me with a quick reply. I'll be able to update with more info in a few days, AHDB are going to give me more detail then.

I don't know for cetain yet, but think AHDB are doing something, but it will take time to consult with end users etc. and to think through all the ramifications.

So far pleased we involved AHDB, they will be listened to by all the relevant bodies more so than some little farmer from Yorkshire!

I'd like change immediately, but can see how it won't happen overnight.


I agree. Our livestock boys (and arable men) ought to be having it tested. If it fails for residues not licensed in UK, reject the lot. I really do believe either NFU, farmers or AHDB should be looking at this. Atrazine in maize anyone.

Thanks for that. I wonder what direction the AHDB will take. If they cosy up to the AIC and ignore our valid concerns then I would certainly be lobbying for change at the next vote for them. NFU are a waste of time on it all.