I would like to propose a new farm assurance scheme, all that is required is an annual review to ensure that a farm business complies with current legislation. There will be no gold plating of any legislation, just a simple check, either by uploading documents or by a farm visit.
Blue Tractor Assurance Scheme
- Thread starter Luke Cropwalker
- Start date
- Location
- Montgomeryshire
Why pay for an audit to show that we do what is legally required? The presumption should be that we all comply with the law, as is checked by various government agencies already.
There is no need for any 'assurance scheme' to prove that.
There is no need for any 'assurance scheme' to prove that.
SilliamWhale
Member
No need for a farm visit annually or a uploading documents. No need for any of it
I agree with the above posts but, do we need to differentiate between our produce and imports? Are we kidding ourselves that some sort of assurance scheme is not required? Do we need to show compliance with UK regulations, everything else just doesn't add any value? If we do audit ourselves does this mean we are externally audited less frequently?
- Location
- Essex
No. Why would we?
Everything is bought at the cheapest possible price which is normally set by imports.
Last edited:
Are we kidding ourselves if we think the trade will accept no assurance at all? Grain imports are assured by the importer under the gatekeeper protocol, whether or not we agree with that it is a fact. If we accept that some sort of assurance is required then lets design our own simple, light touch scheme.
- Location
- Lincolnshire
I’ve said from the start that there is a general requirement nowadays especially if supplying into EU markets that we have assessed and taken steps to reduce risks to food safety at all stages of the supply process. Just testing the end result for rat sh!t or mycotoxin levels isn’t good enough, (though why it’s good enough for imports is a very hot question!) For cereal growers that entails pesticide application planning and records, grain storage strategies and records and mycotoxin risk assessments. I’ve never been unhappy about that and accepted it was audited by RT as it made a real contribution to food safety. What I wasn’t happy about with RT was the way their remit mushroomed into other areas like health and safety which are nothing to do with food safety and the final straw for me is the expansion into environmental capital.
So yes I agree with you. Essentially we need third party inspection and audit that our hazard analysis and reduction strategies are in place and working. But I’d also ask why imports aren’t subject to anything like that kind of scrutiny. This kind of debate should be at the heart of the RT review but I’ll bet it’s being swept under the carpet regarding non assured imports. Duplicitous and scandalous in my view.
Yeah lets confuse the uncaring public a bit more, all they care about is £££ not about the care ,dedication and dare I say Love we put into our product, they sleep well while we make sure the have eggs and bacon for breakfast milk in their tea / coffee cornflakes..
NO NO NO and NO , commodity products are just that and the ex farm value always be set by import opportunity cost whether we like it or not and whether red tractor likes it or not (PROVEN FACT ) . Anything that increases our costs unnecessarily reduces our competitiveness and ability to carry on .
Why cant this be accepted by the industry ? We may not be richer but quality of life would improve for most .
Most Farms sell commodities (wholesale) with prices set by World Markets only way to 'add value ' is to set up youre own retail outlet ,(ie farm shop )then the quality standards will be your own of course,any come back will come directly to you .
but Surely you knew this already
Last edited:
- Location
- Lincolnshire
I’d agree we can’t go back to 1980. But would it be possible for government agencies and local authorities alone to perform the inspections and audits to ensure we’d done base level risk assessment and mitigation? Probably. Every cafe in the high street is inspected and scored by local EA. They don’t have a trade body doing it for them as we do.
So fundamentally we don’t need a special scheme unless a customer is willing to pay a premium for “extras”.
Last edited:
- Location
- Montgomeryshire
Gatekeeper doesn't give any provenance other than to say that it comes up to a minimum standard, nothing to do with the hoops that RT combinables currently insist on.
IF there is a market for anything further than the, already highly regulated, UK legal requirements, then buyers can stipulate that, audit it, and pay enough of a premium to make it worthwhile producers doing it.
Supermarkets already do that for those on their dedicated producer contracts, over and above RT.
Unless the customer is willing to pay all costs of being a member and a premium (ie profit) on top.
anything else and its broken calculator time /subsidise by other method as usual time that is so common and the downfall of the whole shooting match.
- Location
- Lincolnshire
So no we don’t need a “scheme”. All the NFU should be doing is helping us do what’s necessary to pass local government inspection.
Anybody who does propose a “more than legal minimum” scheme needs to make sure there is a premium for it before starting out. That’s what went wrong with RT. We ended up providing more than legal minimum for nothing.
Anybody who does propose a “more than legal minimum” scheme needs to make sure there is a premium for it before starting out. That’s what went wrong with RT. We ended up providing more than legal minimum for nothing.
- Location
- North Yorkshire
Exactly innocent until proven guilty not vice versa
davidroberts30
Member
- Location
- pembrokeshire
Is this scheme the same as cattle assurance
I get farm assurance then every Slaughter house I supply do audits as well so what's the point
I get farm assurance then every Slaughter house I supply do audits as well so what's the point
Sorry if this comes across wrong, but lots of whinging and not many solutions. We are where we are with farm assurance, what would everyone accept? I will accept adhering to UK standards, is an external, independent body required to inspect the above? If so whom should that be?
what a wanky phrase.
No, we don't need another assurance scheme. As i have posted on another thread we already have one with far more clout than red tractor. Food Standards Scotland did their audit earlier this year, two weeks after we had our Sqc/Qms inspection. It took about half an hour with a look at grain facilities and the cattle and a inspection of basic necessary paperwork. Parting words "we'll be back in five years time". anyone not up to standard would be inspected more often. Didn't cost a penny either. That should be more than enough to satisfy anyone.
