Question for Red Tractor on their Facebook post

[oil barron]

Quite a different reply to the one that you stated "assured grain is never recalled" and that and that once it left the farm it is assured though the food chain.

I don’t think it ever is though. The above response was just stating how it would happen if a farmer was genuinely worried he was going to poison people.

 

[Grass And Grain]

Would you get disqualified from RT for that? Probably just a warning?

Any way, assuming you did get banned. If it has left the farmers ownership then it is safe. If it has not then it is not.

1,200 cereal farmers suspended from RT last year out of 16,500 iirc. Not non-conformances, but suspended. That's one in every 14 loaves of bread, and some of that will have come out of a central store.

In the example, the grain is still within the farmer's ownership, at the co-op central store.

So if farmer is suspended from RT, what happens to the farmer's grain and the rest of the heap?

In this instance, RT surely need to have a procedure in place?

If the grain was on farm in farmer's own store and he was suspended, he couldn't sell his grain as RT assured. That's sensible. No problem with that..

Our example is of grain from a farmer who is suspended, so exactly the same situation, but this time the grain is currently blended in a 3,000t bin. What now? Will RT say the whole 3,000t cannot now be sold as assured, or will they keep quiet and pretend there isn't a problem?

They are going to have to provide a solution, which presumably involves removing the RT status of the whole 3,000t, otherwise reputation of the scheme is surely in tatters?

 

[graham mc]

dont do facebook but could someone ask about cattle being magically red tractor after 90 days and not being fed assured feed that should stir them up

 

[oil barron]

1,200 cereal farmers suspended from RT last year out of 16,500 iirc. Not non-conformances, but suspended. That's one in every 14 loaves of bread, and some of that will have come out of a central store.

In the example, the grain is still within the farmer's ownership, at the co-op central store.

So if farmer is suspended from RT, what happens to the farmer's grain and the rest of the heap?

In this instance, RT surely need to have a procedure in place?

If the grain was on farm in farmer's own store and he was suspended, he couldn't sell his grain as RT assured. That's sensible. No problem with that..

Our example is of grain from a farmer who is suspended, so exactly the same situation, but this time the grain is currently blended in a 3,000t bin. What now? Will RT say the whole 3,000t cannot now be sold as assured, or will they keep quiet and pretend there isn't a problem?

They are going to have to provide a solution, which presumably involves removing the RT status of the whole 3,000t, otherwise reputation of the scheme is surely in tatters?

Gotcha. But when they load out normally from a coop the farmer doesn’t have to go and put his own red tractor stickers on it does he? So although he still owns the grain on paper, the coop (are they also red tractor assured?) physically own the grain.
If the same grain had gone direct to wheetabix, it wouldn’t be red tractors job to track it down and recall it. So I would think it’s the same for coop. If the farmer thinks there is a genuine risk to human health then he would have to buy the 3000 tonne

 

[tullah]

Gotcha. But when they load out normally from a coop the farmer doesn’t have to go and put his own red tractor stickers on it does he? So although he still owns the grain on paper, the coop (are they also red tractor assured?) physically own the grain.
If the same grain had gone direct to wheetabix, it wouldn’t be red tractors job to track it down and recall it. So I would think it’s the same for coop. If the farmer thinks there is a genuine risk to human health then he would have to buy the 3000 tonne

But the likes of Weetabix who purchase from central store really don't care anyway if their wheat is tickboxed or not. They know perfectly well there will be some suspended RT wheat being loaded onto their lorries at the Central store but woukd rather turn a blind eye to it.
It woukd be a good email to send off to Weetabix also stating to them that they know perfectly well what's going on. Play the whole lot of them , RT and Weetabix etc at their stupid game. The point is Weetabix know what's going on and are knowingly putting suspended non RT grain into their intakes which has failed the audit.

 

[milkloss]

I would assume it would be treated similar to antibiotic in milk that has been loaded and mixed at the plant. You’ll need insurance and there will be a protocol in your contract.

 

[An Gof]

Strikes me that sometimes there are questions it’s better not to ask

 

[Grass And Grain]

Strikes me that sometimes there are questions it’s better not to ask

Questions no-one wants to be asked.


Think the point is, when there are such gaping holes in the way the scheme works, it totally invalidates the small details and assurance standards that we all adhere to.

RT, Weetabix, etc know full well about flaws like this, as they design the scheme. AHDB have pumped millions in, for what? Something that provides no credible assurance. So it's a sham. A waste of time, money and effort. Yet supermarkets, miller's, Weetabix, NFU, AHDB, AIC etc have all backed RT.

Maybe RT will have an answer to the question. Maybe they have a good robust system in place, and bin the 3,000 tonnes. Let's see what they say.

If they don't have protocols to bin the whole 3,000 tonnes (or at least to remove the RT status on of the whole heap), then we have all being wasting our time, money and effort doing RT.

It's obvious the system is fundamentally flawed. A child could identify this. So why has everyone involved hailed RT as being such an industry leading assurance scheme that we MUST HAVE. Grain assurance has cost is £20 million per year. £20 million. £20 MILLION. We've been throwing money down the drain, or rather RT and the folk involved have had our industry waste all that cash each year.

 

[ollie989898]

Food safety is very important.

If RT know a member has been suspended for a food safety non-conformance, and the grain has gone to central store, then RT need to have a system in place to deal with the situation and that bulk of grain. Otherwise we're all wasting our time with RT assurance. The written H&S policy, writing down when I filled the rodent bait stations up, writing down what time I washed the grain bucket, stickers on the side of my grain trailer, farm environmental policy etc. have all just been a whole lot of fluffy cotton wool to make it look like it's a world-class assurance scheme. It's only a good use of our time and money if it does actually provide food safety assurance.

Red tractor in reality don't touch much on food safety, indeed the issue of food safety would clearly fall within the purview of trading standards and environmental health/food standards/food hygiene. As we have noted from other threads both arable and dairy farmers (and beef, sheep or poultry/pigs) would find themselves within the remit of these organisations. Of course they can also get you prosecuted if you break the law.

 

[principal skinner]

Last nights confirmation that anything cereal or flour based contains 100% assured grains

 

[Grass And Grain]

Last nights confirmation that anything cereal or flour based contains 100% assured grains

I've a feeling their own made up rules let them use 5% of non-assured ingredients, and still use the RT logo

 

[principal skinner]

I've a feeling their own made up rules let them use 5% of non-assured ingredients, and still use the RT logo

But I asked if it was 100%……..

 

[Drillman]

I've a feeling their own made up rules let them use 5% of non-assured ingredients, and still use the RT logo

But I asked if it was 100%……..

There will be an ‘ah but’…..

 

[Grass And Grain]

Update.

Well they haven't deleted my question. Neither have they answered it. Seem to have ignored it, and hope we forget about it.

 

[Timbo]

Update.

Well they haven't deleted my question. Neither have they answered it. Seem to have ignored it, and hope we forget about it.

Give em a nudge

 

[Drillman]

Update.

Well they haven't deleted my question. Neither have they answered it. Seem to have ignored it, and hope we forget about it.

Probably scratching there heads wondering what the hell to do about it!

it’s a polite and reasonable question asked by someone they know won’t go away so can’t be deleted but obviously not something they can rustle an answer up using the standard scripts.

 

[Flat 10]

Questions no-one wants to be asked.


Think the point is, when there are such gaping holes in the way the scheme works, it totally invalidates the small details and assurance standards that we all adhere to.

RT, Weetabix, etc know full well about flaws like this, as they design the scheme. AHDB have pumped millions in, for what? Something that provides no credible assurance. So it's a sham. A waste of time, money and effort. Yet supermarkets, miller's, Weetabix, NFU, AHDB, AIC etc have all backed RT.

Maybe RT will have an answer to the question. Maybe they have a good robust system in place, and bin the 3,000 tonnes. Let's see what they say.

If they don't have protocols to bin the whole 3,000 tonnes (or at least to remove the RT status on of the whole heap), then we have all being wasting our time, money and effort doing RT.

It's obvious the system is fundamentally flawed. A child could identify this. So why has everyone involved hailed RT as being such an industry leading assurance scheme that we MUST HAVE. Grain assurance has cost is £20 million per year. £20 million. £20 MILLION. We've been throwing money down the drain, or rather RT and the folk involved have had our industry waste all that cash each year.

I know where you are coming from but I feel that its something of a red herring TBH and you are going off at at a tangent. UK grown cereals are safe to eat regardless if they are RT assured or not. RT adds absolutely nothing apart from cost to the grower for zero benefit to them. We know its a sham while it lets imported GM soya be fed to RT livestock, there's holes everywhere in the scheme and I appreciate your tactic is to point these out in attempt to weaken them but I feel its counter productive. I'd publicly question the legality of the RT protection racket on faceache myself. This has them worried.

 

[theboytheboy]

I wonder if Weetabix would answer the question if you asked them?

 

[snarling bee]

That's why I don't use a central store. I'd rather my grain not be contaminated by someone else's, likewise why should someone else suffer my carp mixed with theirs.

 

[Grass And Grain]

I know where you are coming from but I feel that its something of a red herring TBH and you are going off at at a tangent. UK grown cereals are safe to eat regardless if they are RT assured or not. RT adds absolutely nothing apart from cost to the grower for zero benefit to them. We know its a sham while it lets imported GM soya be fed to RT livestock, there's holes everywhere in the scheme and I appreciate your tactic is to point these out in attempt to weaken them but I feel its counter productive. I'd publicly question the legality of the RT protection racket on faceache myself. This has them worried.

No system is going to be perfect, although the way RT works with central stores does seem particularly hopeless.

It is a tangent, but one which does ask questions as to why RT has been hailed as essential by mills, retailers, NFU etc when clearly it's nolt only poor at assuring anything, but also knowingly sweeping things under the carpet.

Still, it was a bit of fun really, asking a question like that.

Anyway, more serious work going on this week. Trying to make some positive steps to fix the problem (instead of teasing RT on Facebook)