Is Red Tractor actually legal?

[warksfarmer]

As a cereal farmer we all have to produce crops within the rules set out by government such as crop sprayer MOT, NROSO, Safe storage of grain, fuel storage, fertiliser storage etc etc.

We’ve had EA, Natural England, Defra and Trading Stadards inspections over the last 5 years.

We then have to pay Red Tractor, to gain access to a market we were already selling into prior to Red Tractor being dreamt up by our great union the NFU, for them to come and inspect everything we have to do by law. Red Tractor is not the law, nor does it create law. It is privately owned by the NFU and has no connection to government bodies.

So is RT actually legal? It seems they have created nothing more than a protection racket where by farmers are frightened into paying them to be able to sell crops at the world market prices.

 

[Danllan]

Yes, it is - meaning no laws are broken and its method is not unlawful; but that doesn't make it moral.

It is an entirely discredited and utterly unnecessary organisation; it can not be rationally defended.

 

[milkloss]

RT is voluntary……. Or so they say.

 

[Drillman]

red tractor claim to be a voluntary organisation but without jumping through there silly gold plating hoops we don’t have access to several markets.

Therefore it isn’t voluntary.

So back to the old chestnut of a private company demanding monies to allow us to gain market access.

Legally right? I’m not sure!

The good news though is it seems the red tractor business model is failing as farmers, merchants and processors are cottoning on to there shameless behaviour.

AHDB have pulled funding, Farmers are leaving and merchants tell me rt is on a uphill battle for survival.

 

[spider mike]

It's getting a bit like that with halal accreditation for foods. All these companies facing the same excuses as we the farmers are opening up the markets etc for a princely sum and you jump through these few little hoops in the mean time

 

[Tarw Coch]

RT is voluntary……. Or so they say.

Have to sign at RT dairy inspection that I’m aware that it’s a requirement of RT dairy to be RT beef assured.
Dairy company pays for the RT dairy but I have to pay for the beef.

That sounds pretty much like it’s compulsory.
I’m totally unaware of what extra hoops I have to jump through for the beef part, none that I’m aware of, which if correct means I have to pay a fee so that they will tick a box.

 

[stroller]

RT is voluntary……. Or so they say.

So is paying the mafia

 

[Danllan]

...Legally right? I’m not sure!

The good news though is it seems the red tractor business model is failing as farmers, merchants and processors are cottoning on to there shameless behaviour.

AHDB have pulled funding, Farmers are leaving and merchants tell me rt is on a uphill battle for survival.

I can tell you for certain that it is legal, if it was not I'd have been on them like a ton of bricks! But, as I wrote earlier, that doesn't equate to it being ethical - never confuse or conflate the law with justice...

As for the rest, yep, we binned them some years ago, and I am very pleased to write that lots of others around here have done so too. As I look out of my window now, not one farm in view along the valley is any longer a member - although just to spoil that, rather irritatingly, the tack sheep on a neighbour's place are from a fellow who is with RT.

I was chatting with a manager from Dunbia the other day, and he said that even they are starting to have words with their customers - i.e. supermarkets - about RT and whether or not it is going to continue to be a necessity. We've had the same discussion for a number of years and the conclusion had been the same - yes, the customers like it. But... this year (meaning 2021 ) the shops themselves have said it is of less relevance to consumers than before.

Now, that doesn't mean anything, yet; but if, in their own research, more than one supermarket chain has come to the conclusion that RT is of declining relevance, there is only one way it's going to go, and that certainly isn't back up.

 

[Flat 10]

Yes, it is - meaning no laws are broken and its method is not unlawful; but that doesn't make it moral.

It is an entirely discredited and utterly unnecessary organisation; it can not be rationally defended.

Are you sure? How can it be legal for a company (and an association of grain processors- the AIC) to force grain farmers to be members to sell their produce? Especially when foreign grain has no such requirement?

 

[milkloss]

View attachment 1010916
Have to sign at RT dairy inspection that I’m aware that it’s a requirement of RT dairy to be RT beef assured.
Dairy company pays for the RT dairy but I have to pay for the beef.

That sounds pretty much like it’s compulsory.
I’m totally unaware of what extra hoops I have to jump through for the beef part, none that I’m aware of, which if correct means I have to pay a fee so that they will tick a box.

That always p1ssed me right off when we were milking. If you meet the rules with dairy then I can't see any further inspection and hoops required for beef. I think it's called collusion in the market.

 

[Clive]

it's a protection racket pure and simple, I first posted that on TFF nearly a decade ago, Guy Smith laughed as did others .............. oh how things change

It has no competitors and that is unhealthy, the NFU created this situation where a private company without competition has such control over an entire industry, the AHDB helped - both now have a responsibility ton help fix it


Is it legal ? .......... a group of us have taken high level legal advice about this, it skirts VERY much on the edge of competition law and there have been a few notable climb downs and changes since they have been aware farmers are looking more closely at the legality and detail. There is potentially a case to answer we are advised but taking that forward would be extremely expensive .......... the NFU could easy fund such action if minded however ............ but pigs will fly first !

 

[Tarw Coch]

That always p1ssed me right off when we were milking. If you meet the rules with dairy then I can't see any further inspection and hoops required for beef. I think it's called collusion in the market.

I don’t have an extra inspection for beef, it’s all done as part of the dairy inspection.
I’m not aware of any extra hoops either, the only thing I have to do extra is write a cheque

It sounds like money for nothing

 

[Jackov Altraids]

it's a protection racket pure and simple, I first posted that on TFF nearly a decade ago, Guy Smith laughed as did others .............. oh how things change

It has no competitors and that is unhealthy, the NFU created this situation where a private company without competition has such control over an entire industry, the AHDB helped - both now have a responsibility ton help fix it


Is it legal ? .......... a group of us have taken high level legal advice about this, it skirts VERY much on the edge of competition law and there have been a few notable climb downs and changes since they have been aware farmers are looking more closely at the legality and detail. There is potentially a case to answer we are advised but taking that forward would be extremely expensive .......... the NFU could easy fund such action if minded however ............ but pigs will fly first !

I think that if we had 'VAR', replays would show that RT had their foot 'over the line' a few times.
A recent one is making it compulsory to follow your herd/ flock health plan.
You have to be registered to a particular vet.
You have to pay them to produce a plan which relies on your input.
You are now obliged to pay them to perform any tasks they see fit to recommend......

 

[Grass And Grain]

View attachment 1010916
Have to sign at RT dairy inspection that I’m aware that it’s a requirement of RT dairy to be RT beef assured.
Dairy company pays for the RT dairy but I have to pay for the beef.

That sounds pretty much like it’s compulsory.
I’m totally unaware of what extra hoops I have to jump through for the beef part, none that I’m aware of, which if correct means I have to pay a fee so that they will tick a box.

I thought it was against competition law to make someone purchase product B if they also wanted product A...

 

[Grass And Grain]

@Tarw Coch don't know if it's illegal or not, but the demand for tying beef assurance to dairy assurance doesn't sit well against that competition law.

The CMA would know. Wonder how they would view it?

 

[Tarw Coch]

I thought it was against competition law to make someone purchase product B if they also wanted product A...

View attachment 1011082

Technically I didn’t purchase product A, dairy farm assurance as my milk buyer payed but that meant I needed to purchase product B ,

Not that I really wanted product A in the first place, i was a dairy farmer long before RT assurance came about but it’s a closed shop now,

 

[Tarw Coch]

@Tarw Coch don't know if it's illegal or not, but the demand for tying beef assurance to dairy assurance doesn't sit well against that competition law.

The CMA would know. Wonder how they would view it?

As has been said many times on this forum, if farmers had a union that truly represented their interests they would investigate this sort of thing.

 

[Grass And Grain]

It looks as though that particular practice does need investigating.

It even stipulates RT beef assurance, as opposed to beef assurance from a different provider.

As has been said many times on this forum, if farmers had a union that truly represented their interests they would investigate this sort of thing.

As part owners and founders of RT, they'd be investigating themselves.

 

[ploughman1963]

View attachment 1010916
Have to sign at RT dairy inspection that I’m aware that it’s a requirement of RT dairy to be RT beef assured.
Dairy company pays for the RT dairy but I have to pay for the beef.

That sounds pretty much like it’s compulsory.
I’m totally unaware of what extra hoops I have to jump through for the beef part, none that I’m aware of, which if correct means I have to pay a fee so that they will tick a box.

Not the case! Challenge them - although they dont like it - all you need is 'minor beef' which is automatically tagged onto your dairy RT assurance and covers you for calves and culls. I know this is right - we havent had beef assurance (with RT approval) for 5 years or more now.

 

[Tarw Coch]

Not the case! Challenge them - although they dont like it - all you need is 'minor beef' which is automatically tagged onto your dairy RT assurance and covers you for calves and culls. I know this is right - we havent had beef assurance (with RT approval) for 5 years or more now.

I’m not doubting you, but if that is the case, why are they still presenting farmers with a piece of paper to sign saying that they do need RT beef assurance, from what you say, they’re obviously well aware of it but don’t like being charged about it.

This sounds very similar to PPI, although as the number of potential claims would be small in comparison so I can’t see slolucitors queuing to take them on, however it is a point that a union representing farmers interests ought to be taking up with them.