Red Tractor non conformance

[Vader]

Sorry Mr Inspector I don’t have any grain temperature and moisture records this year but it all sold fine.

Intresting point.
I always ask why they needed as if warm and damp it goes off and can not be sold.
So its self policing in effect.

My arable inspection due in june.
Thinking how can avoid.

 

[snipe]

Well I look forward to a BFU spokesman appearing on Good Morning Britain and defending a "minimum legal standards" policy.

It doesn't matter how you spin it, it would be seen by the average consumer as push for lower standards. It would go down like a cup of cold sick. Despite all the support you seemingly have on here, other industry stakeholders would be tripping over themselves to distance themselves from such reputation damaging ideas.

I don’t think the general public would care. If they did they would be up in arms about lower standards of imports coming into the country and been mixed with home grown products, they don’t give a rats ass as long as it’s cheap. I’m not saying this is a good thing, but if it’s good enough for the goose.

 

[FarmyStu]

It's just the double standards. That's all really.

And I stand by the belief there's nothing wrong with grain grown to UK legislative standards. Gov set our food standards, and they are quite happy.

Please do say if you think food grown to the Gov standards is poisonous, because you didn't answer that question. Is it safe or not? Yes or no?

As I said, that is not what I'm saying. Although as you've raised it again, I'll add this:

If everyone stuck rigidly to the law there wouldn't be much of a problem. But not everyone does. Government agencies don't have the resources to check on everyone on anything approaching a regular basis. So do we just shrug our shoulders? No, we have assurance. Is RT good enough? I don't think so. Is it better than nothing? Yes, most definitely.

So food produced to government standards shouldn't be dangerous, but not all food is produced to these standards. If I were a buyer, RT would give me some confidence that minimum standards were being met. Although knowing what I know (and reading the admissions of document fraud on this website by BFU members) I'd want something better.

 

[DrWazzock]

I don’t think the general public would care. If they did they would be up in arms about lower standards of imports coming into the country and been mixed with home grown products, they don’t give a rats ass as long as it’s cheap. I’m not saying this is a good thing, but if it’s good enough for the goose.

There is no RT mark on my box of porridge oats. Doesn’t bother me in the slightest. I trust the manufacturer to have checked the oats for quality at intake and bought them from a country that has legal standards in place for crop production. I’m not interested in a one afternoon box ticking exercise and a silly badge. There is very little in my kitchen that actually has the RT mark on it. Last time I looked I wasn’t having a meltdown over it.

 

[DrWazzock]

As I said, that is not what I'm saying. Although as you've raised it again, I'll add this:

If everyone stuck rigidly to the law there wouldn't be much of a problem. But not everyone does. Government agencies don't have the resources to check on everyone on anything approaching a regular basis. So do we just shrug our shoulders? No, we have assurance. Is RT good enough? I don't think so. Is it better than nothing? Yes, most definitely.

So food produced to government standards shouldn't be dangerous, but not all food is produced to these standards. If I were a buyer, RT would give me some confidence that minimum standards were being met. Although knowing what I know (and reading the admissions of document fraud on this website by BFU members) I'd want something better.

The big mistake you make is that you put all your faith in written records. Just because I don’t fill in lots of records it doesn’t mean I’m an unsafe producer. Records don’t mean I’ve actually done the job. They don’t mean I haven’t done the job either. Checking and inspecting is something I do all the time on the go.
What do want us to do? Wear body cams?

 

[Grass And Grain]

New Zealand lamb is a well known brand, and only about 30% of it is produced under an assurance scheme. 3 years ago, next to none of it was. Hitting our supermarket shelves in the UK.

 

[Green oak]

I really feel for the red tractor staff. In there central office. It must be hard making rules up. That they really don’t know much about.

 

[DrWazzock]

As I said, that is not what I'm saying. Although as you've raised it again, I'll add this:

If everyone stuck rigidly to the law there wouldn't be much of a problem. But not everyone does. Government agencies don't have the resources to check on everyone on anything approaching a regular basis. So do we just shrug our shoulders? No, we have assurance. Is RT good enough? I don't think so. Is it better than nothing? Yes, most definitely.

So food produced to government standards shouldn't be dangerous, but not all food is produced to these standards. If I were a buyer, RT would give me some confidence that minimum standards were being met. Although knowing what I know (and reading the admissions of document fraud on this website by BFU members) I'd want something better.

Tell me then. Where do you think there are problems in current U.K. farming practices that affect product safety? And which of these problems aren’t already covered by government inspection agencies and legal requirements?

 

[FarmyStu]

The big mistake you make is that you put all your faith in written records. Just because I don’t fill in lots of records it doesn’t mean I’m an unsafe producer. Records don’t mean I’ve actually done the job. They don’t mean I haven’t done the job either. Checking and inspecting is something I do all the time on the go.
What do want us to do? Wear body cams?

I put very little faith in written records. But they can help.

 

[FarmyStu]

Tell me then. Where do you think there are problems in current U.K. farming practices that affect product safety? And there are such problems, which aren’t covered by government inspection agencies and legal requirements?

Medicine administration and record keeping. The law is quite clear on requirements and as far as I know, RT don't demand anything above the law. Yet take a look on many farms and you'll find out of date meds in use, needles used until they're rusty and blunt, meds laying around and not locked away (even when not in use) a total absence of any accurate records and best guesses being taken on dosage and even on which med to use. Even when there is a storage area, it's often a dilapidated old recycled cupboard in a messy, stinking outhouse. Plenty of farms do it perfectly and take it seriously. How do I ensure that my food comes from the best and not the worst? Assurance is one way IMO.

 

[Drillman]

As I said, that is not what I'm saying. Although as you've raised it again, I'll add this:

If everyone stuck rigidly to the law there wouldn't be much of a problem. But not everyone does. Government agencies don't have the resources to check on everyone on anything approaching a regular basis. So do we just shrug our shoulders? No, we have assurance. Is RT good enough? I don't think so. Is it better than nothing? Yes, most definitely.

So food produced to government standards shouldn't be dangerous, but not all food is produced to these standards. If I were a buyer, RT would give me some confidence that minimum standards were being met. Although knowing what I know (and reading the admissions of document fraud on this website by BFU members) I'd want something better.

I’m on the cusp of dropping rt beef. Once it’s done will my stamdards drop?

no of course not, I’m in the business of selling beef cattle for the best price I can get to make a living. If I don’t do it well I don’t make as much money.

the only things I won’t have to do is jump through a load of pointless hoops like recording when I last wiped the cows arse, or pay money to the assurance provider and red tractor for no financial benefit to my business.

As far as I can see, dropping rt beef is a smart business move

 

[DrWazzock]

I put very little faith in written records. But they can help.

Ultimately it comes down to trusting people. Without that we are doomed.
And as a safeguard, intake sampling and the merchants rep visiting your premises unannounced should be good enough. It was for about a century anyway.
I’ve worked with all sorts of people in industry during my career. There were some that put all their trust in records and procedures and none whatsoever in people. The problem with that was it got ever more complicated and involved, monitoring this and inspecting that, inspecting the inspector etc etc etc, the end result being they usually disappeared up their own arsehole.

 

[Grass And Grain]

As I said, that is not what I'm saying. Although as you've raised it again, I'll add this:

If everyone stuck rigidly to the law there wouldn't be much of a problem. But not everyone does. Government agencies don't have the resources to check on everyone on anything approaching a regular basis. So do we just shrug our shoulders? No, we have assurance. Is RT good enough? I don't think so. Is it better than nothing? Yes, most definitely.

So food produced to government standards shouldn't be dangerous, but not all food is produced to these standards. If I were a buyer, RT would give me some confidence that minimum standards were being met. Although knowing what I know (and reading the admissions of document fraud on this website by BFU members) I'd want something better.

Bit in bold. Not sure about that. Which BFU members?

Anyway, as we've learned tonight from the other thread, all RT does is check your records, which are in fact a self-declaration. Which begs the question, why a self-declaration is much different to RT inspected.

On a serious note, I think if the farmer did sign a declaration (as an alternative to RT), warranting grown to legislative standards, safe food etc. I think the farmers may be more inclined to make sure everything was done to the best of their abilities. The lorry drivers could sign off the clean grain bucket for each and every load. We sign off cleanliness of the lorry. So checks are made before each loading, by someone who's best interest is to be truthful. Farmer isn't going to sign to say lorry is clean if it's not, likewise lorry driver isn't going to sign off grain bucket if it's covered in pig slurry.

Even RT themselves are happy for a feed safety warranty/declaration to be provided for farm to farm grain trading to RT livestock farms. They don't require it to be RT.

Then there's the central store can of worms. Farmer has grain in a central store, it's a farmer owned coop store, so farmer retains ownership. Farmer fails RT audit for serious non-conformance. What happens to farmer's grain, and the other 5,000t of wheat mixed together in that shed. Answer = nothing happens. The whole lot gets loaded out as RT grain because it's too expensive to say otherwise.

Now, how good is this RT scheme? This marvellous scheme. This world beating assurance scheme which we've got to join. The one supermarkets require. The one AIC love. The one promoted by NFU.

Everyone knows of this central storage weakness. The fact it gets loaded out with an RT sticker. The fact mills, processors and supermarkets are labelling it RT when some of it has lost its RT status. It's a sham, and whilst this is going on, it's costing farmers £20 million per annum. What's the point in us all paying for RT membership when this practice is happening? Why were AHDB giving £250,000/year to a scheme which is fundamentally flawed. It doesn't take a genius to work out its all been a waste of effort.

It's so bad, I really don't want my produce to be associated with the RT brand, but I've got no choice because the mills won't but it without a sticker, even though they're going to immediately blend it with some non-assured imports.

 

[FarmyStu]

Do you see the people who provide the foam stuffing for settees setting up an assurance mark and trying to persuade the public to only buy settees with that mark on it? Of course not.

Maybe not the filling supplier, but the settee manufacturer has to do exactly that (Note the record keeping requirements!!). The point being that every industry is subject to strict rules and regs. The food production industry is never going to be any different.​

Furniture Filling Requirements​

Manufacturers and retailers need to ensure that the furniture they make or sell does not contain polyurethane foam and latex rubber. Furniture with more than one filling material needs to meet all requirements for each individual filling or the total composite needs to be tested.
Furniture should not be supplied with any upholstery composites that do not pass the cigarette test or with any permanent, loose, or stretch covers that do not pass the match test either.

Furniture Labelling Requirements​

Display labelling is required to indicate the ignition resistance of each item of furniture and needs to be attached to all new furniture at the point of sale, with the exception of mattresses, bed bases, pillows, scatter cushions, seat pads, loose covers (sold separately from the furniture) and stretch covers. The design of the display label is left entirely to the manufacturer or importer.
Furniture sold as a collection of items, such as three-piece suites or a set of dining chairs must carry the appropriate display label on each individual item. In all cases, the display label must be attached to the furniture in a prominent position so that the label is clearly visible to a potential purchaser of the furniture and the wording on both sides can be read with reasonable ease.

Permanent fire safety labels are also legally required on upholstered items and furnishings to let people know that the item complies with British Fire Safety Regulations, and as the name states, stays permanently on the furniture. Many upholstered items contain foams, fillings and other materials that could potentially be flammable and because of this, items must have set levels of fire resistance determined through a series of flammability tests.
There are two versions of this label permitted. One, known as the ‘full label’, has full details of the supplier and another, called the ‘short label’, does not show the supplier’s details. The permanent label is an information label with some standardised wording and requires additional information that is specific to the product. The main function of the permanent label is to enable ‘traceability’ back up the supply chain.
It’s important to note that the first supplier of the furniture in the UK is responsible for ensuring the finished product carries the permanent label, which must be durable, securely attached, on loose and stretch covers and on each piece of furniture sold as a collection.

Record Keeping​

It is important for all manufacturers, importers and retailers to be able to provide evidence of compliance with the fire safety regulations when it comes to applicable upholstery and furnishings. This information includes statements from suppliers, the results of any relevant tests that have been carried out on the furniture and its components, and the correlation of records to specific items of furniture.
For retailers, there are a number of things to ensure the manufacturer or importer has provided in addition this, including name and postal address for the first supplier in the UK, date of when the item was manufactured or imported, description of the filling materials and description of the covering materials.
It’s required that manufacturers and importers retain the information for a period of five years, starting from the date on which the furniture is supplied to the retailer. Retailers then need to obtain a Certificate of Compliance to the Furniture and Furnishings (Fire Safety) Regulations 1988 from the manufacturer or supplier/importer.

 

[DrWazzock]

Medicine administration and record keeping. The law is quite clear on requirements and as far as I know, RT don't demand anything above the law. Yet take a look on many farms and you'll find out of date meds in use, needles used until they're rusty and blunt, meds laying around and not locked away (even when not in use) a total absence of any accurate records and best guesses being taken on dosage and even on which med to use. Even when there is a storage area, it's often a dilapidated old recycled cupboard in a messy, stinking outhouse. Plenty of farms do it perfectly and take it seriously. How do I ensure that my food comes from the best and not the worst? Assurance is one way IMO.

If such bad practice is still going on then what’s needed here is inspection by government agencies with real teeth and statutory powers to fine or close down businesses. RT has no such powers and particularly as in the livestock sector many producers are not RT registered.
Frankly I’d welcome more government inspections for all farmers, not constant harassment at our own expense for those of us who do stick to the rules while those who operate under the radar get away with all sorts - open burning of plastic waste etc etc. Very galling to see all that going on while we pay to have waste taken away. Worse, tge governmebt thinks it doesn’t need to bother as RT us doing the inspections for them. Well RT isn’t really doing the inspections as for one thing not every producer is registered with RT and secondly RT just don’t have the expertise to inspect the wide array competences that now fall under their umbrellas including everything from Health and Safety to NVZ requirements.
Should be same rules for all. Legal minimum standard enforced by government, backed by law and Parliament, not a made up set of gold plated rules such as annual sprayer MOT to provide income to their mates in NSTS, where legal requirement is only one test per three years.

 

[Grass And Grain]

Actually, as far as records go...when you washed the grain bucket, or services the grain elevator or disinfected the trailer - these are the sort of things people make up, because it isn't really all so important to write down the exact time you did it. What important is you actually did do it, and we're so busy doing all those good things, that we haven't time to write them down there and then. So seemingly people make it up the week before an inspection.

I think the important records do get written down correctly. I think spray records get filled in at the end of each day. Same with fert records, or at least scribbled in a notebook and then maybe transferred to official records at a later date.

I'd like to think merchants sort of profile farmers. If someone has an unsuitable grain store they can choose not to buy from that farm. I'd like to think all my important record keeping and my farming practices are as good as I can make them.

 

[ollie989898]

As I said, that is not what I'm saying. Although as you've raised it again, I'll add this:

If everyone stuck rigidly to the law there wouldn't be much of a problem. But not everyone does. Government agencies don't have the resources to check on everyone on anything approaching a regular basis. So do we just shrug our shoulders? No, we have assurance. Is RT good enough? I don't think so. Is it better than nothing? Yes, most definitely.

So food produced to government standards shouldn't be dangerous, but not all food is produced to these standards. If I were a buyer, RT would give me some confidence that minimum standards were being met. Although knowing what I know (and reading the admissions of document fraud on this website by BFU members) I'd want something better.

Please, tell me what laws are being flouted by people contributing to this thread?

There is no law which says you need to record grain temperatures. I am not aware of any deaths or hospitalisations caused by farmers supplying grain which was of low quality or poorly stored?

RT is meaningless and protects no one. Actual laws are in place to protect people. Trading standards/EHO, the EA and HSE will inspect farms if they have reason to and God help anyone who is found to have breached the law. Food hygiene rules, in particular, though relatively simple, can result in imprisonment if they are breached seriously.

RT is nothing more than a paper exercise. Consumers don't know what it is and retailers don't care- they have their own marketing ploys they can attach to produce and what is more, some of these hand the producer a premium for entering the arrangement and supplying what is then marketed as a premium product.

 

[DrWazzock]

Maybe not the filling supplier, but the settee manufacturer has to do exactly that (Note the record keeping requirements!!). The point being that every industry is subject to strict rules and regs. The food production industry is never going to be any different.​

Furniture Filling Requirements​

Manufacturers and retailers need to ensure that the furniture they make or sell does not contain polyurethane foam and latex rubber. Furniture with more than one filling material needs to meet all requirements for each individual filling or the total composite needs to be tested.
Furniture should not be supplied with any upholstery composites that do not pass the cigarette test or with any permanent, loose, or stretch covers that do not pass the match test either.

Furniture Labelling Requirements​

Display labelling is required to indicate the ignition resistance of each item of furniture and needs to be attached to all new furniture at the point of sale, with the exception of mattresses, bed bases, pillows, scatter cushions, seat pads, loose covers (sold separately from the furniture) and stretch covers. The design of the display label is left entirely to the manufacturer or importer.
Furniture sold as a collection of items, such as three-piece suites or a set of dining chairs must carry the appropriate display label on each individual item. In all cases, the display label must be attached to the furniture in a prominent position so that the label is clearly visible to a potential purchaser of the furniture and the wording on both sides can be read with reasonable ease.

Permanent fire safety labels are also legally required on upholstered items and furnishings to let people know that the item complies with British Fire Safety Regulations, and as the name states, stays permanently on the furniture. Many upholstered items contain foams, fillings and other materials that could potentially be flammable and because of this, items must have set levels of fire resistance determined through a series of flammability tests.
There are two versions of this label permitted. One, known as the ‘full label’, has full details of the supplier and another, called the ‘short label’, does not show the supplier’s details. The permanent label is an information label with some standardised wording and requires additional information that is specific to the product. The main function of the permanent label is to enable ‘traceability’ back up the supply chain.
It’s important to note that the first supplier of the furniture in the UK is responsible for ensuring the finished product carries the permanent label, which must be durable, securely attached, on loose and stretch covers and on each piece of furniture sold as a collection.

Record Keeping​

It is important for all manufacturers, importers and retailers to be able to provide evidence of compliance with the fire safety regulations when it comes to applicable upholstery and furnishings. This information includes statements from suppliers, the results of any relevant tests that have been carried out on the furniture and its components, and the correlation of records to specific items of furniture.
For retailers, there are a number of things to ensure the manufacturer or importer has provided in addition this, including name and postal address for the first supplier in the UK, date of when the item was manufactured or imported, description of the filling materials and description of the covering materials.
It’s required that manufacturers and importers retain the information for a period of five years, starting from the date on which the furniture is supplied to the retailer. Retailers then need to obtain a Certificate of Compliance to the Furniture and Furnishings (Fire Safety) Regulations 1988 from the manufacturer or supplier/importer.

Correct. But the point I’m making is that the foam suppliers haven’t set up a “voluntary assurance scheme” where they pay to be inspected to check they are filling in their own records. No settee comes with a label to say that’s it’s foam supplier is a member of such an assurance scheme. It comes with a label to explain its degree of fire resistance which is something quite different. It’s a statutory legal requirement, not a “voluntary” industry run and policed scheme.

 

[ollie989898]

Actually, as far as records go...when you washed the grain bucket, or services the grain elevator or disinfected the trailer - these are the sort of things people make up, because it isn't really all so important to write down the exact time you did it. What important is you actually did do it, and we're so busy doing all those good things, that we haven't time to write them down there and then. So seemingly people make it up the week before an inspection.

I think the important records do get written down correctly. I think spray records get filled in at the end of each day. Same with fert records, or at least scribbled in a notebook and then maybe transferred to official records at a later date.

I'd like to think merchants sort of profile farmers. If someone has an unsuitable grain store they can choose not to buy from that farm. I'd like to think all my important record keeping and my farming practices are as good as I can make them.

No one is going to die if you washed the bucket or didn't. Disinfect a trailer- come off it, what about the birds carpping in the crop for days or weeks before the combine gets into the crop? Heck, we have all seen mice in fields, I bet some of them get hoovered up by the combine from time to time and get thrashed around across the grain before being discarded, are you all doing routine salmonella tests for every trailer load?

It's a fudging nonsense. The way red tractor approach grain you'd think farmers were actually handling and selling tuna salads.

 

[ollie989898]

Maybe not the filling supplier, but the settee manufacturer has to do exactly that (Note the record keeping requirements!!). The point being that every industry is subject to strict rules and regs. The food production industry is never going to be any different.​

Furniture Filling Requirements​

Manufacturers and retailers need to ensure that the furniture they make or sell does not contain polyurethane foam and latex rubber. Furniture with more than one filling material needs to meet all requirements for each individual filling or the total composite needs to be tested.
Furniture should not be supplied with any upholstery composites that do not pass the cigarette test or with any permanent, loose, or stretch covers that do not pass the match test either.

Furniture Labelling Requirements​

Display labelling is required to indicate the ignition resistance of each item of furniture and needs to be attached to all new furniture at the point of sale, with the exception of mattresses, bed bases, pillows, scatter cushions, seat pads, loose covers (sold separately from the furniture) and stretch covers. The design of the display label is left entirely to the manufacturer or importer.
Furniture sold as a collection of items, such as three-piece suites or a set of dining chairs must carry the appropriate display label on each individual item. In all cases, the display label must be attached to the furniture in a prominent position so that the label is clearly visible to a potential purchaser of the furniture and the wording on both sides can be read with reasonable ease.

Permanent fire safety labels are also legally required on upholstered items and furnishings to let people know that the item complies with British Fire Safety Regulations, and as the name states, stays permanently on the furniture. Many upholstered items contain foams, fillings and other materials that could potentially be flammable and because of this, items must have set levels of fire resistance determined through a series of flammability tests.
There are two versions of this label permitted. One, known as the ‘full label’, has full details of the supplier and another, called the ‘short label’, does not show the supplier’s details. The permanent label is an information label with some standardised wording and requires additional information that is specific to the product. The main function of the permanent label is to enable ‘traceability’ back up the supply chain.
It’s important to note that the first supplier of the furniture in the UK is responsible for ensuring the finished product carries the permanent label, which must be durable, securely attached, on loose and stretch covers and on each piece of furniture sold as a collection.

Record Keeping​

It is important for all manufacturers, importers and retailers to be able to provide evidence of compliance with the fire safety regulations when it comes to applicable upholstery and furnishings. This information includes statements from suppliers, the results of any relevant tests that have been carried out on the furniture and its components, and the correlation of records to specific items of furniture.
For retailers, there are a number of things to ensure the manufacturer or importer has provided in addition this, including name and postal address for the first supplier in the UK, date of when the item was manufactured or imported, description of the filling materials and description of the covering materials.
It’s required that manufacturers and importers retain the information for a period of five years, starting from the date on which the furniture is supplied to the retailer. Retailers then need to obtain a Certificate of Compliance to the Furniture and Furnishings (Fire Safety) Regulations 1988 from the manufacturer or supplier/importer.

Anyone involved in food production is ALREADY regulated and fall within the remit of trading standards and food hygiene laws. If you sell something into the food chain and people get poisoned, they will investigate, send samples to laboratories and track down the offending product and take legal action against whoever they find to blame, employee, manager or business they care not. This is backed by law, real deal, not hocus pocus ones you can settle with a few entries in a diary.