Industry-wide Assurance Review officially launched

[TFF]

"An industry-wide review of farm to fork assurance has been officially launched with the announcement of the independent commissioners panel which will oversee the review."

Read full announcement here: https://ahdb.org.uk/news/industry-wide-assurance-review-officially-launched

The independent review has been jointly commissioned by the National Farmers Union (NFU) and AHDB, along with NFU Cymru, The Ulster Farmers Union (UFU) and NFU Scotland (NFUS), who will all form part of the Assurance Review steering group, which has overall responsibility for its delivery.

The group is now in the process of appointing four commissioners who will be responsible for setting the terms of reference and a timeline to ensure the process provides clear outcomes to the industry.

Three of the four commissioners have already been appointed, who are as follows:

• Dr David Llewellyn CBE (lead commissioner) – former Vice Chancellor of Harper Adams University
• James Withers – former Chief Executive Officer of Scotland Food and Drink
• Mark Suthern – Chairman of Trustees of the Farming Community Network (FCN)

A fourth commissioner will be confirmed in due course.

Dr Llewellyn, who worked at Harper Adams for 23 years, leading the institution as principal before later being appointed as vice chancellor, said:

“A well-structured farm-level assurance system should be efficient, effective and economically viable for farmers and the wider food production system, while also providing confidence to retailers, other food businesses and consumers, that UK produce is among the best in the world.
“The Commission’s work will include an exploration of best practice, consideration of how methods of assurance can provide value to primary producers in a fast-changing environment, and a review of the relationship between assurance and regulation. These are complex matters on which we will be seeking the views of the farming industry, and the wider supply chain, to inform our conclusions.
“I look forward to getting the review under way, and to the Commission engaging with the industry to see how the assurance system can meet the future needs of food producers while underpinning our collective aim to continue, and further develop, the delivery of a high-quality UK food system.”

The industry-wide Assurance Review is focused on repurposing assurance in a post-Brexit world. It aims to seek feedback from all farmers, crofters and growers about all farm assurance schemes with a view to revolutionising farm to fork assurance, making it truly fit for the future.

The review will examine:

• How farm assurance can deliver value back to scheme members
• How standards are developed to meet the evolving needs of members, the markets they serve, sector diversity and in appreciation of the global marketplace
• How assurance members are engaged with (including the development of standards), inspected and how technology is used in assurance now and in future
• How assurance schemes can and should fit with regulation and government schemes to best serve members

 

[neilo]

Hmm, Dr Llewellyn still appears to be coming from the viewpoint of how farm assurance can be improved, rather than whether it is even necessary or warranted…

 

[glasshouse]

Hmm, Dr Llewellyn still appears to be coming from the viewpoint of how farm assurance can be improved, rather than whether it is even necessary or warranted…

Ditch the fudging lot.
This is the perfect year to do it, lamb short, beef and pork short, wheat going to be very short. Imports will be coming in.
Total opposite of late nineties when all this shyte was cooked up

 

[spin cycle]

Hmm, Dr Llewellyn still appears to be coming from the viewpoint of how farm assurance can be improved, rather than whether it is even necessary or warranted…

that's the 'trojan horse' aspect of it....by taking part you are admitting you agree with farm assurance

this whole review was 'holed under the waterline ' by the secret 'part one"

they do not want to learn anything just repackage the 'monstrosity"

 

[Grass And Grain]

Hmm, Dr Llewellyn still appears to be coming from the viewpoint of how farm assurance can be improved, rather than whether it is even necessary or warranted…

I thought the same. Surely you'd start by looking at government/legislative authorities, their remit to inspect and ensure food production is safe.... and if the food is safe which has been inspected by this free service. Then you'll know if any additional paid for food assurance is necessary or has any value

I hope it's also going to review if/how imported produce is accepted by our buyers, and compels those buyers to accept UK produce by equivalent means.

 

[Grass And Grain]

that's the 'trojan horse' aspect of it....by taking part you are admitting you agree with farm assurance

this whole review was 'holed under the waterline ' by the secret 'part one"

they do not want to learn anything just repackage the 'monstrosity"

That press release doesn't read well does it?

It reads like they've already concluded assurance is necessary, and only intend to fiddle about with it.

We ought to publish what aims we think the review should have.

 

[glasshouse]

I thought the same. Surely you'd start by looking at government/legislative authorities, their remit to inspect and ensure food production is safe.... and if the food is safe which has been inspected by this free service. Then you'll know if any additional paid for food assurance is necessary or has any value

I hope it's also going to review if/how imported produce is accepted by our buyers, and compels those buyers to accept UK produce by equivalent means.

Why bother??
We managed fine before
This all came about after IMPORTED barley was found to be contaminated with lead.
Sod all to do with uk farmers

 

[Muddyroads]

Interesting that there’s no mention of the end consumer.

 

[Raider112]

If we are to have assurance it has to be accepted that those who fund it are the ones to benefit.
If the producers are paying for it they obviously need a premium otherwise it's a protection racket and prosecutions should follow.
If the retailers are the only ones to benefit from it, obviously they have to pay for it.
That is common sense, no need to discuss anything else.

 

[Flatland guy]

There is no farm to fork assurance . FULL STOP

Anything other is just utter fantasy.

Once the product leaves the farm gate no farmer /producer has control of the commodity/product all the other parts of the chain either process it/use as an ingredient etc and currently they have no assurance and never will. The bit that does make me smile is when some product has bought the license to use the RT logo on their product it only covers one or two ingredients max not the often 10-15 as listed in the ingredients so it is hardly worthwhile unless all ingredients are realistically. It would be like a tractor manufacture repeating their product is fully assured and upon investigating it is only the pistons in the engine, only one component out of many!!

 

[Grass And Grain]

No mention of monopoly.

For the purposes of the below text, I'll presume that assurance is going to continue to help required (if it is or isn't I'll leave for a different post).

Previously there's been this NFU/AHDB led belief there should only be a single assurance scheme. I can see the reasoning behind this thought, but I also think this is partly what's got us into this mess.

If most produce is RT, and a retailer or processor accepts RT, then they've got as much choice of produce as they like. They can tell me they don't want my beef because I want too much money for it, and go and get all they want from other RT farmers.

^^^ do we want this structure?

Would it be better to have multiple schemes, then Tesco can only credibly get beef from Tesco scheme farmers.

When train drivers ask for more salary and go on strike, and it takes 12-24 mths to get your driving qualifications, then rail companies can't just go elsewhere and get more train drivers next week. Hence train drivers often get their desired salary increases, and I guess this is why train drivers get better pay than bus drivers, who get better pay than cleaners (can teach them the job in a few minutes, and there's lots of staff available). Farmers appear to be like cleaners.

We ought to be asking the assurance review commissioners if they recommend a single assurance brand/company, or if there should be multiple schemes/competition, and what are they going to do about it.

 

[Grass And Grain]

• How assurance schemes can and should fit with regulation and government schemes to best serve members

I mean, it's OK asking the above question, but the question doesn't go deep enough.

I'm interested to know where all the non-assured produce is going, if the buyers are happy with it, if it's safe food and how does its safety record compare to RT assured (actual cases).

We also need to know if AHDB and NFU are prepared to work to get UK grain accepted by mills if it is "assured" by same method as imported grain.

Same for pork. If UK pork is assured to exact same standards as Danish Crown, will Tesco buy it?

We need to pin AHDB down, and find out what they think about only having RT as an assurance provider. So they agree with this, or should steps be taken to ensure there's healthy choice and competition, and will AHDB help with this.

 

[Flatland guy]

We ought to be asking the assurance review commissioners if they recommend a single assurance brand/company, or if there should be multiple schemes/competition, and what are they going to do about it.

Unfortunately the five unions/AHDB are all members/owners of Assured Food Standards and as 'members (under section 2.8 in the Article of Association) have to endorse the philosophy and objectives of the Company and his owns aims and objectives are consistent with those'. So it doesn't matter what the review says it will have to be consistent with Assured food Standards(RT) objectives(section 3 of the original incorporation) otherwise they will be effectively dismissed from the membership. Another interesting fact I wasn't aware of is in the event of Assured food standards being wound up the six owner/members are NOT entitled to any share of the company property /money at date of winding up it has to be given/transferred to another body etc with similar aims(Clause 10 of the memorandum of article association and mentioned in clause 27 of the latest Article of association). It really was a stitch up from the start!! And to think AHDB were giving Assured food standards 250K each year when they had got reserves and they knew upon winding up the would not get a penny.

And now all the reviews are being funded by the farming union members and AHDB all of whom are funding from payers that could not be RT subscribers still makes me boil. Interesting the BRC are not funding any reviews into RT and the Company itself is not using its own reserves to defend/ reinforce its position against its objectives. Something is drastically wrong.

 

[Barleymow]

• How assurance schemes can and should fit with regulation and government schemes to best serve members

I mean, it's OK asking the above question, but the question doesn't go deep enough.

I'm interested to know where all the non-assured produce is going, if the buyers are happy with it, if it's safe food and how does its safety record compare to RT assured (actual cases).

We also need to know if AHDB and NFU are prepared to work to get UK grain accepted by mills if it is "assured" by same method as imported grain.

Same for pork. If UK pork is assured to exact same standards as Danish Crown, will Tesco buy it?

We need to pin AHDB down, and find out what they think about only having RT as an assurance provider. So they agree with this, or should steps be taken to ensure there's healthy choice and competition, and will AHDB help with this.

Tesco did their own audit here for pigs ,his criteria that the farm and pigs were presentable enough to bring his mother round .They obviously don't mind gm soya and non rt straw neither do rspca or rt

 

[ski]

I have thought for quite a few years now, after seeing it so many times, all reviews, consultations, and similar exercises are road maps for where we are going and the review part is 'how we get there'. it is hidden in plain sight:
The review will examine:

• How farm assurance can deliver value back to scheme members
• How standards are developed to meet the evolving needs of members, the markets they serve, sector diversity and in appreciation of the global marketplace
• How assurance members are engaged with (including the development of standards), inspected and how technology is used in assurance now and in future
• How assurance schemes can and should fit with regulation and government schemes to best serve member

Conducted by industry insiders who have built their careers by playing this game and know the rules well. Increasing 'assurance' is an indicator of decreasing trust within a system, it is a logical consequence of decreasing trust as the relationships between the parties become more distant.

 

[Bury the Trash]

Why bother??
We managed fine before
This all came about after IMPORTED barley was found to be contaminated with lead.
Sod all to do with uk farmers

It was contaminated Rice Bran
...........that and a few other things that farmers also didn't cause /have part of

post bse caused a hell of a tough time with cattle (and sheep ) why should farmers have had to try and sort that lot out? why did the nfu decide to add another layer of hassle and cost onto its members and all the non members as well?
we are talking more than 25 yrs ago now and nothing has changed in their and others attitude ,

 

[Barleymow]

Horse meat wasn't caused by farmers either

 

[sjt01]

Horse meat wasn't caused by farmers either

I was listening to The Food Programme on BBC R4 last week, on about contamination and dilution of herbs and spices to make them cheaper. Some of the adulterated samples came from BRC and SALSA accredited suppliers. If stuff can get past BRC accreditation (which makes RT look like the kindergarten version), then what hope is there that RT can be of any use to anyone.

 

[SilliamWhale]

So we still have a situation where the owners are reviewing their own performance and in this case its how to make sure that the assurance company they own is doing the job for them?

It will be worse than Camel Tickles because they are not asking the right questions.

I thought it was an independent review?

 

[DaveGrohl]

Is this the "second review" or is it a completely different review alongside?