- Location
- Yorks
BFU representatives had a meeting with AHDB Directors on 23/04/2023.
It was interesting, and I think we made a little bit of progress. Here's my take on how it went.....
We suggested a single assurance scheme offering wasn't helpful, particularly as the standards are relatively high for it, it tries to be all things to all markets, and non-assured imports (purchased by the same mills) immediately undermine the concept.
Was also pointed out growers for some markets are jumping through all the gold plated Red Tractor standards, and then just selling feed grains.
BFU suggested there should be different assurance options for both buyers and sellers. Currently no-one has any choice but of a single offering. We asked if the AHDB staff would go to the Sector Council and ask for certain things to be considered.
AHDB made the good suggestion of looking at other assurance schemes and how that might help the thought process. BFU followed this train of thought, and pointed to the Northern Ireland Assured Combinable Crops Scheme, which has far fewer burdensome standards compared to RT/SQC, but is readily accepted by AIC for their feed mills. Hence, there is currently space for a more basic assurance method for levy payers, and that provision does not currently exist.
BFU also pointed out that RT/SQC is basically a farmer declaration, and inspector just ticks a box to witness the declaration has occured. Hence those declarations could be made on the passport, and they are there for the buyers to see first hand - the effect is the same. And that the inspectors look at the same grain stores they inspected last year, which calls into question the frequency of inspections and membership fees.
AHDB did find the impetus to undertake some work which they wouldn't do previously. AHDB Directors Will Jackson and David Eudall previously told us all they could do was gather information and inform the debate, and they couldn't run assurance schemes etc.
We showed them Schedule 1 (below). So then they had to admit it was within their functions to operate such schemes. This doesn't appear all too satisfactory.
^^^^^ I'm not certain why they didn't offer this information previously. A suspicious mind might think it is influence of NFU, RT, AIC, UK Flour Millers and AHDB themselves and their connections to RT. AHDB clearly listen to the influences of NFU as a representation of what farmers and levy payers think (they said so), but of course NFU own the RT brand name and logo, so AHDB must understand NFU opinion possibly might not be independent. What a coincidence it would be if an organisation says it's in best interest of farmers if there is only a single assurance scheme, and do you know what, it just so happens that organisation owns the brand logo (afaik).
Competition is important, and there are laws about ensuring monopolies aren't orchestrated to exist.
A suspicious mind might also think it is because AHDB can't be bothered to do the work involved, and would rather take the easy route of letting RT do it. AHDB have gifted circa £250,000/annum to RT for a number of years.
We asked if AHDB could gather information about the lab tests undertaken on imports. What tests result are actually there? What frequency? Which parameters?
AHDB said they would endeavour to collate the information, on understanding they couldn't guarantee success, but would try. It's beauricratic at AHDB. No-one can make a decision because they've to OK it with the sector Council, have meetings, etc. I understand the reasons why, but result is snail pace decisions and progress, to point it makes it almost makes it inefficient. Not sure what the solution is to that one.
We also asked if they could, whilst collecting the lab test data, take it a step further and start the process of consulting with the mills about the lab tests which might be required for UK grain so we can access markets by similar lab test method as imports can use. AHDB''s Ken Boynes wouldn't commit to that. I don't know why he wouldn't. It's a market access method available to imports, so it's an accepted intake standard of those mills, but not currently available for UK produced grains, and surely we could have it as an option available for UK grain. So why couldn't AHDB commit to taking that simple step of finding out what might be an agreeable lab test method for UK grain? The mind boggles. It's not rocket science. Is there something they're not telling us? Are they intent on keeping RT as the ONLY assurance method? I don't know, but I do know it doesn't make any sense to not investigate/ negotiate this option.
Even if AHDB did research / negotiate a lab test method for UK growers, could we be sure the bar wouldn't be set at an unreasonably high point?.....just to discourage the use of it, and send us towards retaining RT membership. With historic connections to RT, I'm not certain how we trust AHDB's independence and resolve to work solely in interests of levy payers.
AHDB did make the valid point that if a large central store chose to assure grain via the lab test method, and the grain failed the tests, that caused a big problem. It would be for individual businesses to choose which assurance standard/method they wished to use.
Conclusion.
Sow progress, but seemed to be a renewed helpfulness, maybe because we made AHDB aware some BFU members are prepared to pay to take out farming press adverts to investigate if farmers might wish to trigger a ballot on continuation of AHDB Cereals & Oilseeds.
Have AHDB achieved anything for us over past two years? I haven't seen much evidence of achievement, or at least, they haven't informed us of any.
Steve Ridsdale
British Farming Union
It was interesting, and I think we made a little bit of progress. Here's my take on how it went.....
We suggested a single assurance scheme offering wasn't helpful, particularly as the standards are relatively high for it, it tries to be all things to all markets, and non-assured imports (purchased by the same mills) immediately undermine the concept.
Was also pointed out growers for some markets are jumping through all the gold plated Red Tractor standards, and then just selling feed grains.
BFU suggested there should be different assurance options for both buyers and sellers. Currently no-one has any choice but of a single offering. We asked if the AHDB staff would go to the Sector Council and ask for certain things to be considered.
- Find out what lab tests are done on imported grains. Actual results. Frequency of testing. Sampling methods employed.
- Negotiate a lab test standard for UK grain which takes into account the legislative standards of UK produced gain, hence do we need some of the tests required of imports, could some tests be negated by use of mycotoxin risk assessment for example, and there may be different requirements for different markets.
- Explore the concept of offering assurance declarations on the passport, possibly backed up by a system of verification (e.g. document uploads).
- Consider introduction of a more basic food assurance option than currently available to English, Scottish and Welsh growers (not dissimilar to the Northern Ireland scheme, which is accepted by the AIC).
- Retention of existing premium schemes such as RT/SQC to satisfy requirements of processors who are prepared to pay the price premium for such a standard.
AHDB made the good suggestion of looking at other assurance schemes and how that might help the thought process. BFU followed this train of thought, and pointed to the Northern Ireland Assured Combinable Crops Scheme, which has far fewer burdensome standards compared to RT/SQC, but is readily accepted by AIC for their feed mills. Hence, there is currently space for a more basic assurance method for levy payers, and that provision does not currently exist.
BFU also pointed out that RT/SQC is basically a farmer declaration, and inspector just ticks a box to witness the declaration has occured. Hence those declarations could be made on the passport, and they are there for the buyers to see first hand - the effect is the same. And that the inspectors look at the same grain stores they inspected last year, which calls into question the frequency of inspections and membership fees.
AHDB did find the impetus to undertake some work which they wouldn't do previously. AHDB Directors Will Jackson and David Eudall previously told us all they could do was gather information and inform the debate, and they couldn't run assurance schemes etc.
We showed them Schedule 1 (below). So then they had to admit it was within their functions to operate such schemes. This doesn't appear all too satisfactory.
^^^^^ I'm not certain why they didn't offer this information previously. A suspicious mind might think it is influence of NFU, RT, AIC, UK Flour Millers and AHDB themselves and their connections to RT. AHDB clearly listen to the influences of NFU as a representation of what farmers and levy payers think (they said so), but of course NFU own the RT brand name and logo, so AHDB must understand NFU opinion possibly might not be independent. What a coincidence it would be if an organisation says it's in best interest of farmers if there is only a single assurance scheme, and do you know what, it just so happens that organisation owns the brand logo (afaik).
Competition is important, and there are laws about ensuring monopolies aren't orchestrated to exist.
A suspicious mind might also think it is because AHDB can't be bothered to do the work involved, and would rather take the easy route of letting RT do it. AHDB have gifted circa £250,000/annum to RT for a number of years.
We asked if AHDB could gather information about the lab tests undertaken on imports. What tests result are actually there? What frequency? Which parameters?
AHDB said they would endeavour to collate the information, on understanding they couldn't guarantee success, but would try. It's beauricratic at AHDB. No-one can make a decision because they've to OK it with the sector Council, have meetings, etc. I understand the reasons why, but result is snail pace decisions and progress, to point it makes it almost makes it inefficient. Not sure what the solution is to that one.
We also asked if they could, whilst collecting the lab test data, take it a step further and start the process of consulting with the mills about the lab tests which might be required for UK grain so we can access markets by similar lab test method as imports can use. AHDB''s Ken Boynes wouldn't commit to that. I don't know why he wouldn't. It's a market access method available to imports, so it's an accepted intake standard of those mills, but not currently available for UK produced grains, and surely we could have it as an option available for UK grain. So why couldn't AHDB commit to taking that simple step of finding out what might be an agreeable lab test method for UK grain? The mind boggles. It's not rocket science. Is there something they're not telling us? Are they intent on keeping RT as the ONLY assurance method? I don't know, but I do know it doesn't make any sense to not investigate/ negotiate this option.
Even if AHDB did research / negotiate a lab test method for UK growers, could we be sure the bar wouldn't be set at an unreasonably high point?.....just to discourage the use of it, and send us towards retaining RT membership. With historic connections to RT, I'm not certain how we trust AHDB's independence and resolve to work solely in interests of levy payers.
AHDB did make the valid point that if a large central store chose to assure grain via the lab test method, and the grain failed the tests, that caused a big problem. It would be for individual businesses to choose which assurance standard/method they wished to use.
Conclusion.
Sow progress, but seemed to be a renewed helpfulness, maybe because we made AHDB aware some BFU members are prepared to pay to take out farming press adverts to investigate if farmers might wish to trigger a ballot on continuation of AHDB Cereals & Oilseeds.
Have AHDB achieved anything for us over past two years? I haven't seen much evidence of achievement, or at least, they haven't informed us of any.
Steve Ridsdale
British Farming Union
Last edited:
