Is Red Tractor actually legal?

[Will Blackburn]

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

View attachment 1011082

Technically the beef assurance was available through another provider with another inspection. No choice on RT though.

 

[ploughman1963]

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.

You have a PM

 

[Grass And Grain]

Seems to be a disconnect between what the rules are, and what NSF have told @Tarw Coch ?

Don't know enough about this, so don't know what "minor beef" is. What you might have to do over and above RT dairy assurance? Presumably dairy assurance is reasonably robust with vet med checks etc. What else could be required for beef?

Do you have to pay extra to be in the beef or minor beef scheme?

Maybe of you are taking the calves right through to slaughter, then RT dairy make you take out RT beef? Seems like bullying.

 

[Andrew]

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?

I would say the product RT are ‘selling’ is legal as it is on the fave of it a voluntary scheme.
If it’s legal for the mills to demand it, that’s another matter - and nothing to do with RT unfortunately.

 

[Flat 10]

I would say the product RT are ‘selling’ is legal as it is on the fave of it a voluntary scheme.
If it’s legal for the mills to demand it, that’s another matter - and nothing to do with RT unfortunately.

Yes that was rather what I was getting at. My wife used to work at a supermarket and she was prevented from meeting with other supermarkets to discuss common standards for animal welfare for example, even if it was in the interest for farmers for the standards to be identical. As it wasn't legal for them to meet and seen as an abuse of the buying power of supermarkets. A point of view I can understand. However there seems to be nothing preventing all the grain buyers collaborating as the AIC to set common standards. How this isn't an abuse of power I don't know, as by making RT mandatory they get it for free but don't insist on an equivalent scheme for imports. The industry is bent.

 

[Grass And Grain]

Yes that was rather what I was getting at. My wife used to work at a supermarket and she was prevented from meeting with other supermarkets to discuss common standards for animal welfare for example, even if it was in the interest for farmers for the standards to be identical. As it wasn't legal for them to meet and seen as an abuse of the buying power of supermarkets. A point of view I can understand. However there seems to be nothing preventing all the grain buyers collaborating as the AIC to set common standards. How this isn't an abuse of power I don't know, as by making RT mandatory they get it for free but don't insist on an equivalent scheme for imports. The industry is bent.

...and sort of structured so we can't stop it from adding more and more standards. Between RT, AIC, mills, supermarkets etc they've all worked together to make sure we're all compelled to purchase RT assurance.

Positive actions now to work to get alternatives and rein back the power of RT.

Problem is they've got a near monopoly. Imagine if there was only one single company who sold seed wheat, or only one dairy feed supplier. They'd have control and start throwing their weight about to the disadvantage of others. That's how I think of RT's market dominance.

We can break that dominance by offering competition. So I think we must do so. If the structure of RT boards had been different, then we may not have felt the need to push back so hard.

Think as you said in a DM @Flat 10 , some things have got a bit silly and ott in this campaign (maybe I'm a bit at fault by teasing RT on Facebook about central stores. Although their system is flawed, and means grain from suspended farmer's can end up with a RT label on it, which is poor). Anyway, think you and a couple of others have put us back on track to work in a positive manner to get change.

Meeting yesterday with AHDB went well.

 

[Flat 10]

Thank you for your efforts

 

[Happy at it]

Thanks for your efforts on challenging RT @Grass And Grain. Doing a bit of reading up on then scheme, would this publication on the red tractor twitter page make any sense to an arable farmer How can jim mosely say that rt "back the principle for all UK growers to be free to choose which market they access". In what way could they say their existence help with that?

 

[Jackov Altraids]

View attachment 1011175

Thanks for your efforts on challenging RT @Grass And Grain. Doing a bit of reading up on then scheme, would this publication on the red thier twitter page male any sense to an arable farmer How can jim mosely say that rt "back the principle for all UK growers to be free to choose which market they access". In what way could they say their existence help with that?

Please note the 'sleight of hand',

They specifically say there should be a level playing field, FOR LIVESTOCK FEED.

Why don't they support a level playing field with imported grain for any use?

 

[Grass And Grain]

View attachment 1011175

Thanks for your efforts on challenging RT @Grass And Grain. Doing a bit of reading up on then scheme, would this publication on the red thier twitter page male any sense to an arable farmer How can jim mosely say that rt "back the principle for all UK growers to be free to choose which market they access". In what way could they say their existence help with that?

Could you help me find that tweet? What date was it, or a link to it? I'm guessing 13th December, but I can't find it.

It's rather contradictory isn't it (RT saying they back the concept of non-assured grain going for livestock feed), when they promote their scheme to feed mills .

Quite an amazing press release from a grain assurance company, but that's what happens when you have double standards - you get in a muddle. They're quite happy using non-assured imports in animal feed, but insisted UK produced was RT assured. They were bound to fall flat on their face.

They do actually allow farm to farm non-assured grain for feeding to beef, sheep, dairy. But not to pig and poultry. Wonder why . Someone might suggest grain volume and keeping everyone locked into paying RT fees.

That's the next thing to ask them, if they back non-assured for livestock feed, then they can change their rules immediately and accept non-assured for pig and poultry farm to farm trading.

We're slowly working on grinding the system down. If they'd just stuck with the original sensible scheme rules of 20 years ago, we'd of all kept quiet.

They've thrown their weight about, and got fatter and heavier each year, meaning they've had even more weight to throw about. Like a school bully feeding off their own self-confidence.

Eventually, the bullied will have had enough.

 

[Drillman]

Please note the 'sleight of hand',

They specifically say there should be a level playing field, FOR LIVESTOCK FEED.

Why don't they support a level playing field with imported grain for any use?

Because if they supported all unassured grain it’s the same as saying please turn the gravy tap off.

 

[Happy at it]

Could you help me find that tweet? What date was it, or a link to it? I'm guessing 13th December, but I can't find it.

It's rather contradictory isn't it (RT saying they back the concept of non-assured grain going for livestock feed), when they promote their scheme to feed mills .

Quite an amazing press release from a grain assurance company, but that's what happens when you have double standards - you get in a muddle. They're quite happy using non-assured imports in animal feed, but insisted UK produced was RT assured. They were bound to fall flat on their face.

They do actually allow farm to farm non-assured grain for feeding to beef, sheep, dairy. But not to pig and poultry. Wonder why . Someone might suggest grain volume and keeping everyone locked into paying RT fees.

That's the next thing to ask them, if they back non-assured for livestock feed, then they can change their rules immediately and accept non-assured for pig and poultry farm to farm trading.

We're slowly working on grinding the system down. If they'd just stuck with the original sensible scheme rules of 20 years ago, we'd of all kept quiet.

They've thrown their weight about, and got fatter and heavier each year, meaning they've had even more weight to throw about. Like a school bully feeding off their own self-confidence.

Eventually, the bullied will have had enough.

Apologies. Its from a red tractor farmers twitter page on 23rd November, but links to a publication from the RT website.

 

[Jackov Altraids]

Because if they supported all unassured grain it’s the same as saying please turn the gravy tap off.

They have been so concerned about protecting their current privileged position that they have completely failed to consider reforming which would benefit us all.

They should be promoting all British produce with an explanation as to why there is a premium for RT produce because of the extra costs and standards.
They should be telling buyers what premiums are required for the standards they wish to be checked.
What is possibly illegal with its current formation, is how the all the other parts of the supply chain are conspiring together,using RT to extract the maximum benefit from the primary producer. It is collusion.

 

[Drillman]

They have been so concerned about protecting their current privileged position that they have completely failed to consider reforming which would benefit us all.

They should be promoting all British produce with an explanation as to why there is a premium for RT produce because of the extra costs and standards.
They should be telling buyers what premiums are required for the standards they wish to be checked.
What is possibly illegal with its current formation, is how the all the other parts of the supply chain are conspiring together,using RT to extract the maximum benefit from the primary producer. It is collusion.

Yep fully agree, rt have spent an awful lot of time and money telling us there marvellous but not given a single thought about explaining why they think there marvellous

 

[DrWazzock]

They are are soles. I don’t waste time complying in earnest any more. I have got obtaining NRoSO points, certificates, records etc down to a fine art. I can churn out any amount of fictitious bulls**t I need to pass nowadays. I’m squeaky clean. Mr Perfect Paper Farmer, thanks to vast experience of doing the same paper rubbish in British industry. That’s what it’s all about isn’t it? A stupid game of let’s pretend that it’s all OK if we write everything down. What a bunch of morons.
Now I’ll get on and fix that spool valve. Something that actually matters.

 

[DrWazzock]

My old man experienced this same sort of thing in the RAF. An aeroplane crashed on the runway and when they were trying to put it out they noticed the water pressure was a bit on the low side. Anyway they got the aircrew out before it exploded. So no harm done. Dad said to the chief, “didn’t we ought to mention the low water flow in the log.” “For god sake no,”said the chief.” If you do that they will spend a million updating the pipe work and you mark my words this station will close in two years. “ And sure enough it did, without a further crash landing but a million saved. That’s why the chief called the station log the “book of lies” but those sort of folk saved the country millions and kept the job running. Sadly they’ve all gone now, replaced by woke jobsworths and clipboards only too happy to spend other peoples money and throttle them in red tape.

 

[Humble Village Farmer]

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.

There's nothing illegal about the dead tractor because it's voluntary.

It's less clear whether buyers insisting on it is legal when they are buying imported which has no assurance. Pretty sure that is restrictive practice (applying different conditions to similar products).

If there's ever a court case over this, it's the mills and merchants who will take the rap. If that comes just as they are suffering a drop in trade due to falling farm incomes (bps), it could finish some of them.

 

[Tarw Coch]

They do actually allow farm to farm non-assured grain for feeding to beef, sheep, dairy. But not to pig and poultry. Wonder why . Someone might suggest grain volume and keeping everyone locked into paying RT fees.

Well bugger me, I didn’t know that.
I was allways under the impression that RT inspected livestock farms had to buy all feed from a RT accredited source, the only non RT feed allowed being that which had been through the magic feed mills which cones out the other side RT accredited.
They certainly kept that one quiet.

 

[Tarw Coch]

There's nothing illegal about the dead tractor because it's voluntary.

Is it?

I was a dairy farmer long before RT was founded.
Now every milk buyer requires RT .
So the only two choices are be RT assured or get out.

 

[Danllan]

There's nothing illegal about the dead tractor because it's voluntary.

It's less clear whether buyers insisting on it is legal when they are buying imported which has no assurance. Pretty sure that is restrictive practice (applying different conditions to similar products).

If there's ever a court case over this, it's the mills and merchants who will take the rap. If that comes just as they are suffering a drop in trade due to falling farm incomes (bps), it could finish some of them.

Perfectly clear, they can insist on whatever they want in contract between parties; if the other party doesn't like that term, they don't have to sign. I can't see any chance of a 'legal' challenge, it's a complete non starter.