Concerned about Red Tractor collapse.

DrWazzock

Member
Arable Farmer
Location
Lincolnshire
We are already checked by govt agencies like Trading Standards, etc. That’s all that’s needed, along with our own declaration that we are abiding by current legislation (which in itself makes us liable for any problems).
There is no need to get any ‘professional’ involved, which just adds unnecessary costs. No vet, or agronomist, can certify that we are complying to any regs on farm as they aren’t there to witness it. They might advise us but it’s ultimately only us that choose whether we comply or not.

Why add ANY complication and cost? It’s not required currently for non-FA produce, which still enters the food chain perfectly safely, and it isn’t required for imported product doing the same.
If I take animals to the market or abattoir I have always had to sign a declaration that they are fit for human consumption including all withdrawals have been observed, whether or not they are RT. This for me is a signed certificate of compliance with U.K. legislation and covers the abattoir or buyer against a claim. I think that’s reasonable. It identifies myself as the responsible person. It’s basic assurance. Whether we need the vet to countersign an annual business compliance cert is debatable but as a minimum we a certificate of compliance for every batch sold, signed by the producer. It’s what non RT already does through the market entry form. I agree we don’t need RT. I agree we need as little unecesssry rubbish as possible but please can somebody explain to me what this new system is? It isn’t nothing.
 

DrWazzock

Member
Arable Farmer
Location
Lincolnshire
Whenever I sell grain I effectively sign a contract with the buyer that the grain is fit for consumption. Maybe that contract could be viewed as a declaration of compliance with U.K. legislation. So yes maybe we don’t need any schemes at all.
The only thing a vet or agronomist signature brings is a bit of an THIRD PARTY overview and verification of systems in place in your business to minimise risk right through the chain.
But if it really is acceptable to go with no third party verification at all other than a trading standards visit once every decade then maybe we don’t need the vet/agronomist verification……but I think we do on the grounds that they are a third party with the skills to make the verification in so far as such verification is worth something.
 

neilo

Member
Mixed Farmer
Location
Montgomeryshire
If I take animals to the market or abattoir I have always had to sign a declaration that they are fit for human consumption including all withdrawals have been observed, whether or not they are RT. This for me is a signed certificate of compliance with U.K. legislation and covers the abattoir or buyer against a claim. I think that’s reasonable. It identifies myself as the responsible person. It’s basic assurance. Whether we need the vet to countersign an annual business compliance cert is debatable but as a minimum we a certificate of compliance for every batch sold, signed by the producer. It’s what non RT already does through the market entry form. I agree we don’t need RT. I agree we need as little unecesssry rubbish as possible but please can somebody explain to me what this new system is? It isn’t nothing.

Exactly. We sign a simple declaration to say we are producing to legal standards and the stock is fit for human consumption. That's all that's needed now, and that's all that will be needed in the post-RT era. No need for any vet or agronomist to get involved, for which they would obviously need to charge.

If/when RT folds, the food we produce won't change, it will just fail to have a RT sticker accompanying to it. The 'new system' will just be what we do now for non-RT produce, which is what it will be. Simples.
 

neilo

Member
Mixed Farmer
Location
Montgomeryshire
Whenever I sell grain I effectively sign a contract with the buyer that the grain is fit for consumption. Maybe that contract could be viewed as a declaration of compliance with U.K. legislation. So yes maybe we don’t need any schemes at all.
The only thing a vet or agronomist signature brings is a bit of an THIRD PARTY overview and verification of systems in place in your business to minimise risk right through the chain.
But if it really is acceptable to go with no third party verification at all other than a trading standards visit once every decade then maybe we don’t need the vet/agronomist verification……but I think we do on the grounds that they are a third party with the skills to make the verification in so far as such verification is worth something.

When you sell non-RT produce now you don't require any third party verification. Why should we suddenly need it, and the costs that it would entail?

If any purchaser thinks they can add value through adding a paperwork story then that will be up to them to introduce that contract, and pay enough of a premium so that producers find it worthwhile. They already do that now, but base it on RT plus. If they wish to see all the RT hoops in their contract, then fine, let them write it in. It will be up to producers to decide if they are willing to jump through those hoops, rather than being a necessity of market access.
 

DrWazzock

Member
Arable Farmer
Location
Lincolnshire
When you sell non-RT produce now you don't require any third party verification. Why should we suddenly need it, and the costs that it would entail?

If any purchaser thinks they can add value through adding a paperwork story then that will be up to them to introduce that contract, and pay enough of a premium so that producers find it worthwhile. They already do that now, but base it on RT plus. If they wish to see all the RT hoops in their contract, then fine, let them write it in. It will be up to producers to decide if they are willing to jump through those hoops, rather than being a necessity of market access.
I really wish I could see that working. But it won’t wash with grain merchants in my experience. They need certain “assurances” to pass on to their customers especially in the EU. And it’s needs to be verified by a third party. It’s obvious that any of us could if we wished to, sign off any old rubbish as safe. That’s why third party countersignature is required from somebody.
 

neilo

Member
Mixed Farmer
Location
Montgomeryshire
I really wish I could see that working. But it won’t wash with grain merchants in my experience. They need certain “assurances” to pass on to their customers especially in the EU. And it’s needs to be verified by a third party. It’s obvious that any of us could if we wished to, sign off any old rubbish as safe. That’s why third party countersignature is required from somebody.

I'm sure grain merchants will try and keep an assurance scheme in place, as long as us muppets pay for it for them, just as AIC continue to support RT. That doesn't mean it is in any way necessary though.

Non-RT lamb is currently exported to the EU without issue. Thing are changing slightly in a couple of weeks, in that a farmer declaration will be needed to say that a vet 'regularly' sees the flock for the purposes of disease surveillance, but it's still only a farmer declaration (no third party verification), in order that a vet can later sign of the export shipment.
 

Renaultman

Member
Arable Farmer
Location
Darlington
If red tractor collapses I'm almost certain that end users will still need some kind of audit system, and a lot do even now. Be interesting to see where this all ends up but I certainly think we will end up with same sh1t different title.
 

MrNoo

Member
Arable Farmer
Location
Cirencester
I really wish I could see that working. But it won’t wash with grain merchants in my experience. They need certain “assurances” to pass on to their customers especially in the EU. And it’s needs to be verified by a third party. It’s obvious that any of us could if we wished to, sign off any old rubbish as safe. That’s why third party countersignature is required from somebody.

You're very blinkered, the grain trade dont require anything, the only thing they work on is price, same as the people they supply, price, if they want assurance as we have now then they will need to pay for it. You'd very soon see the need for assurance disappear overnight if they had to dip their hands into their pocket and pay for it.
But thanks to the NFU and RT the trade get assurance for nothing, so why would they want less, not that assurance actually means anything.
What did you do with your crops before RT?????
A merchant would come and sample them in store and offer you £X/t for them. This notion of yours that we need a 3rd party is just bonkers and precisely why we are in the current mess we find ourselves. We produce to legal standards (this is LAW) and yet RT invent more rules that is not law and if we dont abide and pay the money we loose 90% of our market, all dreamed up by the Non Farming Union
 

Barleymow

Member
Mixed Farmer
Location
Ipswich
20220107_122900.jpg
from the latest pig world magazine, apparently farmers are disappointed that rt has lost ahdb funding
 
You're very blinkered, the grain trade dont require anything, the only thing they work on is price, same as the people they supply, price, if they want assurance as we have now then they will need to pay for it. You'd very soon see the need for assurance disappear overnight if they had to dip their hands into their pocket and pay for it.
But thanks to the NFU and RT the trade get assurance for nothing, so why would they want less, not that assurance actually means anything.
What did you do with your crops before RT?????
A merchant would come and sample them in store and offer you £X/t for them. This notion of yours that we need a 3rd party is just bonkers and precisely why we are in the current mess we find ourselves. We produce to legal standards (this is LAW) and yet RT invent more rules that is not law and if we dont abide and pay the money we loose 90% of our market, all dreamed up by the Non Farming Union

I agree. The very nature of a "merchant" is to trade and verify quality between buyer and seller
 

Drillman

Member
Mixed Farmer
Well, they say that 4/5 of shoppers actively look out for the red tractor logo. I think they might ACTUALLY believe it too 🧐
Guilable as well as been crooks,

now that’s a new one🙈🙈

i would think it was more like 4 or 5 people out of the thousands they asked looked out for the logo and the data had a bit of magic done on it by a spin doctor before been published
 

Humble Village Farmer

Member
BASE UK Member
Location
Essex
They are RT.
The dead tractor is owned by the non farmers unions of the uk, Dairy UK, (a trade body for all the milk buyers and processors) and the British Retail Consortium (what Delilah would call the cartel).

So there you have it. What they claim to be "farmer controlled" is actually supermarket and processor controlled. There is a strong suspicion that the nfu is controlled by the same people, it's what I call the corporate food system.

It's a bit like putting a fox in charge of the chicken run or perhaps more fittingly,

a shark in charge of the swimming pool.
 

Grass And Grain

Member
Mixed Farmer
Location
Yorks
Exactly. We sign a simple declaration to say we are producing to legal standards and the stock is fit for human consumption. That's all that's needed now, and that's all that will be needed in the post-RT era. No need for any vet or agronomist to get involved, for which they would obviously need to charge.

If/when RT folds, the food we produce won't change, it will just fail to have a RT sticker accompanying to it. The 'new system' will just be what we do now for non-RT produce, which is what it will be. Simples.
Agree. Local council food services team inspect a deli, bakers, cafe etc, and pass it fit to operate. Local authority also have responsibility to check food safety on farm - which they do. If the business fails the checks, they need to correct the underperformance.

Government set our food safety rules, and they say the cafe and the farmer are fit to sell food products (y). That's all there is to it @DrWazzock . That doesn't mean to say the mill, abattoir, etc might not add their own requirements. That's fine, but we do ask for those businesses to ask no more of us British producers than they do of imports.
As long as it's optional and one firm doesn't have a monopoly I don't mind!
Funny isn't it, in regards to cereals there's RT in England and Wales, SQC in Scotland. Interesting that they stick to their own territory. Therefore no competition.

They need competition.
 

SFI - What % were you taking out of production?

  • 0 %

    Votes: 79 42.9%
  • Up to 25%

    Votes: 63 34.2%
  • 25-50%

    Votes: 30 16.3%
  • 50-75%

    Votes: 3 1.6%
  • 75-100%

    Votes: 3 1.6%
  • 100% I’ve had enough of farming!

    Votes: 6 3.3%

Red Tractor drops launch of green farming scheme amid anger from farmers

  • 1,287
  • 1
As reported in Independent


quote: “Red Tractor has confirmed it is dropping plans to launch its green farming assurance standard in April“

read the TFF thread here: https://thefarmingforum.co.uk/index.php?threads/gfc-was-to-go-ahead-now-not-going-ahead.405234/
Top