AIC Reply

[spin cycle]

I doubt it.

Assurance schemes are everywhere .. for example in sourced wood for building and power. Leccy contracts etc.

thats slightly different though because there's non assured available/traded.....here you have trade bodies co-operating to manipulate the market by insisting on two different standards for raw material based on country of origin....put it another way....if it was the other way round it would certainly violate world trade rules

 

[kiwi pom]

It covers it by passing the buck right back to the farmer.. the whole field to fork thingy
If someone goes wrong it basically comes back to who showed the most duty of care along the way.

It's actually why assurance is important.. because it would always be the famers fault otherwise, but with an assurance scheme the farmer is showing their duty of care/ due diligence and can prove it easily with that certificate.. How could the farmer be wrong, if he did everything correctly??

Funny how people don't think of it that way but you're right, farmers are covering their own arse being assured.
There's someone on here that was having problems with a member of the public, regarding animal welfare. If I remember correctly RT got involved and showed he was fully compliant and audited and stood up for him. Not sure what would have happened if he hadn't of been.

 

[wanton dwarf]

It covers it by passing the buck right back to the farmer.. the whole field to fork thingy
If someone goes wrong it basically comes back to who showed the most duty of care along the way.

It's actually why assurance is important.. because it would always be the famers fault otherwise, but with an assurance scheme the farmer is showing their duty of care/ due diligence and can prove it easily with that certificate.. How could the farmer be wrong, if he did everything correctly??

Your making things up that don't exist.

If you follow assurance it does not mean the food is even edible. In fact there doesn't have to be any food at all.

 

[Grass And Grain]

"Regarding the points in your email about the requirements of AIC schemes in relation to the supply of combinable crops to feed mills or other potential users. Specifically, there is nothing to prevent a Red Tractor assured farmer marketing their crops directly to feed mills, or any other potential user."

Well that's true. What about the unassured?

 

[SilliamWhale]

So exported still has to be RT?
So what are you saying? RT is a UK scheme which can't be applied overseas so it should be scraped in the UK?

I don't think it has to be, no.

My point is more that Red Tractor serves no useful purpose

 

[Two Tone]

Reply from AIC. Discuss.

Following on from your recent correspondence to Simon Williams and your subsequent discussion. AIC have now had a chance to consider your queries in consultation with our assurance committees.
AIC’s role in assurance is to uphold and maintain the standards of the feed and food supply chain for
cereals and feedstuffs for the benefit of our consumers and UK agriculture. Our role underpins feed and food safety for the agri-food supply chain, in which UK cereal growers have a pivotal role. We take this role very seriously and will not undermine any existing food/ feed standards in the UK. We believe and
know many farmers recognise that maintaining feed and food standards within the UK is of paramount
importance for consumer confidence, especially in the current climate of Covid and EU Exit.
On your points about the difference between the acceptance of AFS Red Tractor standards between UK
combinable crops and crops from non-UK/Eire our aim is to ensure consumer confidence in feed and food safety is maintained. It is recognised that the method of assurance can differ in some supply chains but the outcome of safe feed and food is paramount. AIC are not responsible for making or setting the standards at farm level but recognise existing farm standards are required at food retail and food service
level by all in the supply chain.
As you are aware there are no farm assurance schemes active in major grain exporting countries, but as
a result of this the first collector or shipper of the crops is required to carry out extensive sampling and
analysis of the commodities they are trading to demonstrate compliance with UK/ EU limits on pesticides,
heavy metals, mycotoxins to name three, more information can be found here “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. These rules for feed and food safety come at significant costs to the supply chain.
Regarding the points in your email about the requirements of AIC schemes in relation to the supply of
combinable crops to feed mills or other potential users. Specifically, there is nothing to prevent a Red
Tractor assured farmer marketing their crops directly to feed mills, or any other potential user.
Thank you for highlighting the text from our Feed Food Schemes list relating to imported crops. This
acceptance of a statement from a supplier dates back in excess of 15 years, when the assurance of
overseas supply chains for combinable crops was less well developed. Since then, we have encouraged and cooperated with other organisations in the international supply chain to achieve certification back to, in many cases, the point of first collection or at least the port of loading. The acceptance of a supplier statement is now outdated and having consulted with a number of large users and traders of combinable crops we will look to amend these requirements as outlined in the paragraph above.

In terms of your central request to remove the requirement for assured UK and Irish crops, AIC strongly
believe that this would be a serious retrograde step having successfully developed a farm to fork supply
chain with each link independently certified to robust standards. AIC believe that the work of RTA, TASCC,
FEMAS and UFAS participants in maintaining, improving and complying with these standards has
benefitted the entire supply chain through reduced risk of food and feed safety incidents, and helping to
provide certified companies with a due diligence defence in case of any challenges. We understand that
many downstream users of your product (grains and seed) require assurance which AFS Red Tractor
provides.
I am aware that this response may not answer all of your concerns, however, as stated AIC only form one part of the agri-food supply chain. We, in turn respond to our customer requirements higher up the chain.
A large market share of UK retailers and food service organisations support the use of the Red Tractor
schemes, not only in combinable crops but across all of the major agricultural sectors of the UK. These
schemes are voluntary and farmers can choose whether to be part of this assurance chain or not.
You have raised some important issues around trading requirements in the UK and globally and I am sure
the debate will continue in this area.
Yours sincerely,

What an utterly demeaning, full of babble, ridiculous and insulting to anyone’s intelligence, piece of utter tosh of a reply that is!
It has done them far more harm than any good at all.

 

[Bramble]

It covers it by passing the buck right back to the farmer.. the whole field to fork thingy
If someone goes wrong it basically comes back to who showed the most duty of care along the way.

It's actually why assurance is important.. because it would always be the famers fault otherwise, but with an assurance scheme the farmer is showing their duty of care/ due diligence and can prove it easily with that certificate.. How could the farmer be wrong, if he did everything correctly??

If assurance is supposed to cover field to fork how come there was horsemeat in my lasagne??? I'm surprised Red Tractors answer wasnt to put in a requirement that all livestock farmers go on a training course to identify various farm animals

 

[steveR]

"benefitted the entire supply chain" except us the producers.
Lip service, wishy washy typical spiel one would expect, they will just all pass the buck in one big merry go round, same with NFU, RT and anyone else involved in the scam.
I see the AHDB vote is in and they have voted against the Horticultural Levy.

Oh Good

 

[deleted user 436632456]

Your making things up that don't exist.

If you follow assurance it does not mean the food is even edible. In fact there doesn't have to be any food at all.

I'm an free man today (not joking) because of assurance (waste management related) and I still begrudge paying them there 5 figure sum per annum.

You are right though, the sad reality is that farm assurance has very little to do with the quality of the farmer or food.

If assurance is supposed to cover field to fork how come there was horsemeat in my lasagne??? I'm surprised Red Tractors answer wasnt to put in a requirement that all livestock farmers go on a training course to identify various farm animals

That was more the processors fault related than the famers fault, and if they had went to the farmer, the farmer would be able to show them all their livestock movements as per regulations (a duty of care)

I would keep that training course idea to yourself.. you might give them ideas

I can just see an inspector going over a movement record and asking the farmer was UK555/8899 a horse? And How does he know that it wasn't a horse??
And I'm just thinking... What if the bullock identified as a horse?? Soo many questions

 

[snipe]

@Grass And Grain . Is there a name or email to the letter that I could reply to as their response has raised a few more questions

 

[Farmer T]

The AIC will not help us. Why would they?

As mentioned they get free policing of the trade and don’t have to do anything. They get a seat on the RT crops board as well.

A very high up person at the AIC had the misfortune to sit next to me at OFC a few years ago! I talked about reforming the RT to help give feedback to farmers. He couldn’t of cared less. I emailed him twice after and he couldn’t be bothered to reply.

Make no mistake- the only people who are going to get change are farmers, and farmers on mass.

 

[kiwi pom]

I don't think it has to be, no.

My point is more that Red Tractor serves no useful purpose

Maybe not to you, although it does give you access to more buyers but it is useful for processors and retailers. They use it to show the people they buy off, farm to a standard and are regularly audited, so if there's a problem somewhere they can show they were trying to be responsible. This works in reverse for the farmers.
If you have a contract with someone you might have different terms, some dairy processors want RT+ more hoops. But you might be able to do a direct deal with someone that doesn't want it.
If you're growing a crop for the open market and want the maximum number of buyers, which seems to be what most farmers in the UK do, then you're probably going to have to show them, you've ticked all the boxes.
Better one scheme than each buyer having different requirements surely?
If you're exporting you'll probably find each country has different rules.

 

[Levelsman]

What an utterly demeaning, full of babble, ridiculous and insulting to anyone’s intelligence, piece of utter tosh of a reply that is!
It has done them far more harm than any good at all.

Ahh, so the Gravy Train is fully Assured!!

 

[Grass And Grain]

@Grass And Grain . Is there a name or email to the letter that I could reply to as their response has raised a few more questions

Easy snipe, easy. Let's think about this, and send a single response. We'll work on in over the next few days.

If you (or anyone else) has any pertinent points. Jot them down on this thread, then we can pick the best bits. That sound a reasonable idea?

 

[redsloe]

It's an absolute cop out.
Unfortunately it will always be so while we remain in deadlock. I can't resign my membership otherwise no slaughterhouse will take my fats in a couple weeks time. I can't afford to wait for momentum to make a difference. AIC and everyone else knows this and that's part of the problem.

The other problem is, let's face it, it's completely farmer funded. Food businesses have to pay for the 'honour' of putting a red tractor label on their packaging. No wonder no one can find any of them in the supermarkets!

It's a win win, keep the farmers paying so they don't have to and meanwhile stick a British flag on, makes them look like they are supporting British assurance schemes when actually they're not.

 

[SilliamWhale]

Maybe not to you, although it does give you access to more buyers but it is useful for processors and retailers. They use it to show the people they buy off, farm to a standard and are regularly audited, so if there's a problem somewhere they can show they were trying to be responsible. This works in reverse for the farmers.
If you have a contract with someone you might have different terms, some dairy processors want RT+ more hoops. But you might be able to do a direct deal with someone that doesn't want it.
If you're growing a crop for the open market and want the maximum number of buyers, which seems to be what most farmers in the UK do, then you're probably going to have to show them, you've ticked all the boxes.
Better one scheme than each buyer having different requirements surely?
If you're exporting you'll probably find each country has different rules.

But as I keep saying to you. Imports dont have these "standards" and yet RT want to keep ratcheting up ours. The mills I sell to take imported unassured.

I think its an unethical stance

 

[tepapa]

Better one scheme than each buyer having different requirements surely?

Heard this said a few times.
My take on it is if e.g Tesco only have 2000 Tesco assured farms but need an extra 1000 carcasses that week where do they get them from if their assured farms can't supply?. You can be sure the shelves won't be empty. So they'll import or buy Tesco unassured to fill the void. Where as currently they can just go to the live market and fill up as most are assured. I can see increased prices If buyers had individual assurance schemes. And any schemes with silly rules won't have many members unless they pay well for them.

 

[Against_the_grain]

Maybe not to you, although it does give you access to more buyers but it is useful for processors and retailers. They use it to show the people they buy off, farm to a standard and are regularly audited, so if there's a problem somewhere they can show they were trying to be responsible. This works in reverse for the farmers.
If you have a contract with someone you might have different terms, some dairy processors want RT+ more hoops. But you might be able to do a direct deal with someone that doesn't want it.
If you're growing a crop for the open market and want the maximum number of buyers, which seems to be what most farmers in the UK do, then you're probably going to have to show them, you've ticked all the boxes.
Better one scheme than each buyer having different requirements surely?
If you're exporting you'll probably find each country has different rules.

The point is that UK mills (for example) are specifying RT only assured grain from domestic producers, yet when they buy it in from abroad because its cheaper/no domestic supply, then there is no requirement for any meaningful assurance standards. THATS THE PROBLEM. Having some type of assurance is a good thing as has been mentioned. Its the double standards that are the issue...Neonics/GMetc..

 

[tullah]

The point is that UK mills (for example) are specifying RT only assured grain from domestic producers, yet when they buy it in from abroad because its cheaper/no domestic supply, then there is no requirement for any meaningful assurance standards. THATS THE PROBLEM. Having some type of assurance is a good thing as has been mentioned. Its the double standards that are the issue...Neonics/GMetc..

Yes. So logic dictates that in RTs eyes there should be no problem with our wheat being certified in exactly the same way as imported...no less and no more.
WHY CANT WE HAVE A LOGICAL REPLY FROM THESE PEOPLE. instead of whole lot of lawyers waffle and confusion.
Its so straightforward there's nothing to be confused about. A ten year old would understand that.

 

[Levelsman]

The point is that UK mills (for example) are specifying RT only assured grain from domestic producers, yet when they buy it in from abroad because its cheaper/no domestic supply, then there is no requirement for any meaningful assurance standards. THATS THE PROBLEM. Having some type of assurance is a good thing as has been mentioned. Its the double standards that are the issue...Neonics/GMetc..

And if we take this one stage further, where importer only takes exporters 'certification' as to crop treatments and further down the line 'someone' finds traces of neonics etc in RT certified loaf of bread, which producer will get the blame - domestic or imported? You are only allowed one guess!