Red Tractor non conformance

[Drillman]

The people who fund red tractor don't want it, they get no benefit from it, it costs them time and money they are unable to leave as it's a protection racket that is probably acting illegally.
That's a lot of very good reasons to scrap it.
It doesn't matter what you think as you're not a member and don't fund it.

Like I said to @FarmyStu earlier if he wants rt he can pay for it.

I’ve no wish to have to pay for existing legislation to be gold plated with no financial benefit for me.

likewise if rt are able to negotiate me a worthwhile premium as a return for my investment in there company I’m all ears.

 

[FarmyStu]

The people who fund red tractor don't want it, they get no benefit from it, it costs them time and money they are unable to leave as it's a protection racket that is probably acting illegally.
That's a lot of very good reasons to scrap it.
It doesn't matter what you think as you're not a member and don't fund it.

I do pay for it. Every time I buy from a supermarket or company that promotes it. It's built into their costs and passed onto me.

So many on here seem to think that because assurance doesn't specifically pay them a premium, that they can see as a separate bit on their profits, that it is therefore a waste of time. Red Tractor does not exist purely as a mechanism to make more money for farmers.

But here's a fact; as long as the buyers of your product want that product assured, then you're stuck with it. You can set up your own scheme, but unless your buyers approve it (you'd think you could force your buyers to accept it, reading some of the pie in the sky comments on here) then it's pointless isn't it?

 

[Drillman]

I do pay for it. Every time I buy from a supermarket or company that promotes it. It's built into their costs and passed onto me.

So many on here seem to think that because assurance doesn't specifically pay them a premium, that they can see as a separate bit on their profits, that it is therefore a waste of time. Red Tractor does not exist purely as a mechanism to make more money for farmers.

But here's a fact; as long as the buyers of your product want that product assured, then you're stuck with it. You can set up your own scheme, but unless your buyers approve it (you'd think you could force your buyers to accept it, reading some of the pie in the sky comments on here) then it's pointless isn't it?

Our live weight cattle buyers don’t want it and won’t pay a premium.

im currently drafting a email to the assurance provider and red tractor to let them know I will no longer require there services as it adds no value

edit- the processor can build it into there costs if they wish to do so. As primary producers of global commodities we can only take the price we’re given. Assurance has been forced upon us as a extra cost for no gain.

 

[Bury the Trash]

I do pay for it. Every time I buy from a supermarket or company that promotes it. It's built into their costs and passed onto me.

So many on here seem to think that because assurance doesn't specifically pay them a premium, that they can see as a separate bit on their profits, that it is therefore a waste of time. Red Tractor does not exist purely as a mechanism to make more money for farmers.

But here's a fact; as long as the buyers of your product want that product assured, then you're stuck with it. You can set up your own scheme, but unless your buyers approve it (you'd think you could force your buyers to accept it, reading some of the pie in the sky comments on here) then it's pointless isn't it?

You are Totally wrong , you don't pay for farm assurance ,nor does any other customer.
The primary producer does.

and reading the rest of your post (most of which is mumbo chumbo just for something to say and sound clever ) its clear to me you have little knowledge on the subject.

 

[FarmyStu]

Our live weight cattle buyers don’t want it and won’t pay a premium.

im currently drafting a email to the assurance provider and red tractor to let them know I will no longer require there services as it adds no value

Excellent. I've always said if it doesn't earn you any money then best to leave. You'd be insane not to. But if you can leave, why do other livestock producers say they're "forced" into it for no extra money? You can't both be right?

 

[Drillman]

Excellent. I've always said if it doesn't earn you any money then best to leave. You'd be insane not to. But if you can leave, why do other livestock producers say they're "forced" into it for no extra money? You can't both be right?

Depends on the selling outlet and location.

I’m lucky as our Auction market has buyers who buy stock based on the quality of the animal not of the sticker on the movement form.

likewise when we buy cattle in I buy on the quality of the stock. I honestly have no idea if the people I buy from are assured or not. Not interested either to be honest as to me it don’t add value.

 

[MrNoo]

I do pay for it. Every time I buy from a supermarket or company that promotes it. It's built into their costs and passed onto me.

So many on here seem to think that because assurance doesn't specifically pay them a premium, that they can see as a separate bit on their profits, that it is therefore a waste of time. Red Tractor does not exist purely as a mechanism to make more money for farmers.

But here's a fact; as long as the buyers of your product want that product assured, then you're stuck with it. You can set up your own scheme, but unless your buyers approve it (you'd think you could force your buyers to accept it, reading some of the pie in the sky comments on here) then it's pointless isn't it?

If the idiotic NFU hadn’t offered it all for free to buyers and they had to pay extra for it (like they should) it would be dropped overnight!!
I really cannot fathom how your mind works re RT and your avid support for it.
When you farm and grow stuff and have to be assured then maybe, just maybe you will see why it is disliked so much.
I am unsure if you’re a troll, just plain thick or on the RT payroll

 

[FarmyStu]

I am unsure if you’re a troll, just plain thick or on the RT payroll

Well the fact I've regularly said I don't think RT is up to the job and provides a poor level of assurance suggests I don't get paid by them. You have to be a bit of a thicko to think I was......

 

[Drillman]

Well the fact I've regularly said I don't think RT is up to the job and provides a poor level of assurance suggests I don't get paid by them. You have to be a bit of a thicko to think I was......

Yes but you do seem to be very supportive of assurance schemes in general without grasping the fact of who’s paying for it and how it affects UK farmers market access.

 

[MrNoo]

Well the fact I've regularly said I don't think RT is up to the job and provides a poor level of assurance suggests I don't get paid by them. You have to be a bit of a thicko to think I was......

Yes, I’m just a simple farmer thankfully.

 

[theboytheboy]

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.

Pretty sure the issue is not that we are subject to the rules, regs and record keeping.....it's that imports are not subject to the same.

 

[MrNoo]

Pretty sure the issue is not that we are subject to the rules, regs and record keeping.....it's that imports are not subject to the same.

He’s had it explained to him numerous numerous times and yet he still fails to understand the issues hence my questioning his status as a troll but apparently he’s not.
I don’t even know what he does.
What do you do then Stu

 

[Raider112]

I do pay for it. Every time I buy from a supermarket or company that promotes it. It's built into their costs and passed onto me.

So many on here seem to think that because assurance doesn't specifically pay them a premium, that they can see as a separate bit on their profits, that it is therefore a waste of time. Red Tractor does not exist purely as a mechanism to make more money for farmers.

But here's a fact; as long as the buyers of your product want that product assured, then you're stuck with it. You can set up your own scheme, but unless your buyers approve it (you'd think you could force your buyers to accept it, reading some of the pie in the sky comments on here) then it's pointless isn't it?

Well if you are paying for it and we are paying for it and none of us see any benefit to it then it's a bigger firkin rip off than I ever thought it was.

 

[FarmyStu]

He’s had it explained to him numerous numerous times and yet he still fails to understand the issues hence my questioning his status as a troll but apparently he’s not.
I don’t even know what he does.
What do you do then Stu

I think I get asked this more than anyone else!!! I always answer as well. As I said a few days ago, I'm pretty much retired aside from a bit of farm work every now and then when the mood takes me.

 

[MrNoo]

I think I get asked this more than anyone else!!! I always answer as well. As I said a few days ago, I'm pretty much retired aside from a bit of farm work every now and then when the mood takes me.

So your inspecting days are over then!

 

[FarmyStu]

So your inspecting days are over then!

My sheep inspecting days were over years ago. That had nothing to do with assurance though. But it is where I saw literally thousands of farms, some brilliant, most good, but a good percentage poor with some of these being shockingly bad.

I believe assurance can help differentiate between these farms.

 

[Humble Village Farmer]

How very enlightening.

 

[tullah]

You are Totally wrong , you don't pay for farm assurance ,nor does any other customer.
The primary producer does.

and reading the rest of your post (most of which is mumbo chumbo just for something to say and sound clever ) its clear to me you have little knowledge on the subject.

Just a student

 

[Bruce Almighty]

Safety is paramount. Anything that prevents accidents on farm has to be a priority

A green tractor for organic has been mentioned.
That is completely unnecessary.

Mental health is very important.

The extra stress anxiety etc created by the bull sh!t that goes with a Red Tractor Audit should be recognised.

Sometimes some inspectors are guilty of bullying.

Several years ago Red Tractor was acceptable, but as we all know they have to dream up some new standards every year. Mass balance for example - what is the point?

 

[Dave645]

My sheep inspecting days were over years ago. That had nothing to do with assurance though. But it is where I saw literally thousands of farms, some brilliant, most good, but a good percentage poor with some of these being shockingly bad.

I believe assurance can help differentiate between these farms.

assurance is not the correct form of policing farms you may think need to be under extra scrutiny, the poor or shockingly bad as you call them, at a guess they are not assured.
so why inflict it on the hundreds of good farmers, when systems are in place for importers to bypass assurance but still force us to compete on price with them.

the uk law is far higher on standards than most importers, farm level assurance hardly exists outside the uk, yet most people are happy to buy those products.
retail love assurance because its free for them the only time they pay and its not to farmers is if they use the RT logo, and the money goes to RT.
RT is win, win for retail lose, lose for farmers.

that and multiple governing bodies have powers to enter farms and enforce uk law, so why inflict an ever growing rules in assurance schemes that has little to nothing to do with improving food standards. all the new rules do is increase there marketing value for retail. but in reality non of the extra money filters down to the farmer.

farm level assurance that does exist outside of the uk , normally only requires some basic paper work that are basically just declarations, the rest is done by merchants wanting to ship product into the uk.

the problem is that retail lead institutions like AIC and other flour millers now have free added value and the power to make it virtually mandatory at the uk farm level, but continue to import the same products from anywhere they want in the world, even with zero farm level assurance and still class it as assured in the uk market under rules they set.

the fact these totally opposite level or assurance can sit in the same shed and be called equal, makes uk assurance and so called premium a marketing scam.
if 1 aggregated sample from a 60,000 tonne boat load of wheat can make up for all the paper work of RT farm level assurance requires from uk farmers why have RT assurance why demand it from uk farmers to put wheat in the same shed to go into the same bag of flour?
the why is because its free, who turns down free, especially when uk farmers own union is part running it.

RT is the biggest con in farming in the uk.

every uk law has agency's that are mandated to inspect and police uk farms, for free or at least zero cost to the farmer if they are not found in break of the law.

i will agree unless we get power we cannot shift the system back to a fair level, we hoped the AHDB would help but that seems like you said to the power retail have they want assurance so they don't want to shift position and give up the gravy train. what we have to do is make the argument for a level playing field, that can done in many ways, one way would be to insist on RT assurance for all imports but they will never get that from all there suppliers so that leaves only 2 options separate RT crops from imports handle them totally separately, or allow uk farms to not have farm level assurance a be blocked from there stores.

how do we force a level playing field, we have to stand together, and make our case, it would be great to get all uk farmers to stop being members of rt or refuse to put there stickers on passports for a 3 month period, in protest but we would need a union that isn't advocating for RT to get that.