- Location
- South Molton
Yes no point in bringing out a new choice if it stagnates total demand or trades consumers down. Anyone who has read my previous thoughts will know i stated very clearly that FR could deliver a net industry benefit if promoted and delivered in a responsible way, I also highlighted the challenge to "organic" to maintain their market and not lose them. But instead of our great industry learning from our colleagues in pork, chicken and eggs, British dairy has got into an argument about who is more "free range" than the other, an argument that serves no (consumer) purpose other than to satisfy the desire (of producers) to kick the sh*t out of each other again.
When it comes to "standards" the fact there is no legal definition means you can all write your own standards or all use the term on your packaging, ND claims the moral high ground as he has developed stds and made his org the self certified industry leaders, whereas Arla simply did what everyone can do in the absence of a legal definition. TBH if any retailer came out with their own brand FR option, copied and pasted the PP standards (and derogations) but applied them to 185/190 or 200 days etc then where does this leave PP? After all PP stds allow a 14 day transition period either end of the season and the ability to house in times of extreme weather... therefore 180 days simply means (in layman terms) "cows must graze for 180 days/nights/yr unless ground conditions, weather conditions or welfare make this impossible" which is pretty much the unwritten rule all grazing based producers work to but without a stated 180 day target.
But I do question the way Arla have thought this through - what happens if they fail to win back consumers or stop the loss of consumers to FR? They (Arla) have played their FR card by tagging it on the organic bottles so where would they go next? Well I dont doubt for one minute that if this happened then you would see Arla bring out their own "FR" choice, but do they then drop FR from organic or have 2 FR options that confuses consumers over the difference between FR and FR organic? Arla will then be left having to either undermine one or the other, or perhaps they take a middle ground route and promote them both side by side on the merits of each - now theres a novel idea?? What if we have Great British Milk, Great British Free Range Milk and Great British Organic Milk.
BTW - Arla havent just labelled their organic milk as FR to kill off this valuable initiative the industry could benefit from, they have slashed the price as well.
And whilst the FR argument goes on we ignore the fact the FR is a "value" but there are many many more that appeal to consumers of milk and will absolutely trade consumers up.
There is no argument over who is more free range than another. The facts stated that organic passes the minimum "free range " standard and more plus it delivers on other points that are a legal set definitions within Europe.
Free range has set out its stall against housed units, you can deny it all you like but thats your USP.
Problem is its not a USP because its not unique, Organics doesn't have one USP and thats its problem.
I applaud Arla for rebadging their organic milk as FR , well done.