warksfarmer
Member
Exactly why the mass walk out should go ahead.
Red Tractor Officially Scrap The GFC
- Thread starter Grass And Grain
- Start date
Exactly why the mass walk out should go ahead.
Nearly
Member
- Location
- North of York
will it not all be spread by 61st March?
- Location
- Yorks
Where do we find these RT founding statements please?
Genuine question. Is it within their remit to police things? like urea spreading for example. If it's not, then as members we could hold the board to account. We're paid up member, and joined knowing the published RT remit, so why are they now doing other things?
More to the point, why do English farmers have different standards compared to Welsh to get the same RT certification. Tbh I think us English could call RT out over this difference, but fear they'd just impose it on the Welsh farmers as well.
If there's one thing AHDB could do for us, is they could runs some experiments on urea ammonia emissions for UK actual field conditions.
- Location
- Northumberland
In the .Gov company information service, under Assured Food Standards, filtered by Incorporation (the Sept 29, 2003 document).
This link probably won’t quite work so you’ll have to work back to it:
ASSURED FOOD STANDARDS filing history - Find and update company information - GOV.UK
ASSURED FOOD STANDARDS - Free company information from Companies House including registered office address, filing history, accounts, annual return, officers, charges, business activity
find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk
All very well calling for mass walk outs etc but the brc can buy imported produce and "break"the farmers. We cannot hold onto stock indefinetly even if it was affordable and I guess few could stand the financial hit. Reaction to this shambles needs to be either a new independant organisation or co operation with brc as distasteful as that might be
Report in The Grocer:
Red Tractor has confirmed it is abandoning its controversial Greener Farms Commitment module, in the wake of a furious backlash from the farming sector.
The farm assurance scheme’s board confirmed the move today. Red Tractor chair Christine Tacon apologised for the handling of the proposed retailer-backed module – which was first announced last October and prompted outrage due to Red Tractor’s failure to consult with farmers over the plans.
The proposed GFC was due to go live in April and was a voluntary, bolt-on module to core Red Tractor standards.
It had been developed to “help farmers, processors and retailers meet the growing need for all to demonstrate sustainability, but in a single, practical and consistent way”, the scheme said.
But its announcement without sufficient industry consultation, and the heavy involvement in its development of major retailers, led to claims by farmers and an array of food sector bodies that the scheme was essentially a “fait accompli”, with Red Tractor accused of “empire building”.
Further concerns were expressed over its potential to become a compulsory module in due course, with no premium paid to farmers for their work on improving on-farm sustainability, despite many already undertaking similar work.
The first review, undertaken by consultancy Campbell Tickell, found the farm assurance scheme was “sound” in February. But despite its findings, both the NFU and AHDB recommended the GFC be discontinued on 5 March.
Having taken on board the concerns of the sector, the Red Tractor [Assured Food Standards] board then agreed to ditch the module.
While the GFC had been conceived with the best of intentions, errors had been made, Tacon admitted.
“We take responsibility for those issues and are sorry. We hope that by dropping the module, we can close the door on this chapter and move forward,” she said.
“We will only be involved in future environmental standards when all constituencies across the UK food and farming chain, by sector, ask us to and with full consultation.”
Red Tractor’s AFS board also accepted the conclusions of the Campbell Tickell review of Red Tractor’s governance and confirmed its commitment to implement recommendations to improve engagement with stakeholders and scheme members.
“Whilst the review found that ‘Red Tractor governance is sound’, it also sent a clear message about the frustration farmers are feeling,” Tacon conceded.
Red Tractor would “listen more closely to our farmers. For example, it has previously found that transparency, audit burden and value are farmers’ top concerns. Significant efforts are already underway to tackle these, which you will hear more about in the next few months”, Tacon insisted.
AHDB and the UK’s main farming unions (NFU, NFU Cymru, NFU Scotland and the Ulster Farming Union) welcomed the decision to abandon the module.
“It’s also pleasing to see a commitment from Red Tractor that it will only consider future environmental standards with sector consensus and full consultation,” they added. “This is essential in rebuilding trust with farmers from across Britain, something we are pleased that Red Tractor has said is a priority and is already acting upon.”
It comes as AHDB and the unions week officially launched their industry-wide assurance review.
A review commission will be led by Dr David Llewellyn CBE, the former vice chancellor of Harper Adams University. Llewellyn’s fellow commissioners will be James Withers, former CEO of Scotland Food and drink and Mark Suthern, chair of trustees of the Farming Community Network. A fourth commissioner is yet to be appointed.
“A well-structured farm-level assurance system should be efficient, effective and economically viable for farmers and the wider food production system, while also providing confidence to retailers, other food businesses and consumers, that UK produce is among the best in the world,” Llewellyn said.
“The Commission’s work will include an exploration of best practice, consideration of how methods of assurance can provide value to primary producers in a fast-changing environment and a review of the relationship between assurance and regulation.,” he added. “These are complex matters on which we will be seeking the views of the farming industry, and the wider supply chain, to inform our conclusions.”
Red Tractor axes Greener Farms Commitment module after furious farmer backlash
Red Tractor has confirmed it is abandoning its controversial Greener Farms Commitment module, in the wake of a furious backlash from the farming sector.
The farm assurance scheme’s board confirmed the move today. Red Tractor chair Christine Tacon apologised for the handling of the proposed retailer-backed module – which was first announced last October and prompted outrage due to Red Tractor’s failure to consult with farmers over the plans.
The proposed GFC was due to go live in April and was a voluntary, bolt-on module to core Red Tractor standards.
It had been developed to “help farmers, processors and retailers meet the growing need for all to demonstrate sustainability, but in a single, practical and consistent way”, the scheme said.
But its announcement without sufficient industry consultation, and the heavy involvement in its development of major retailers, led to claims by farmers and an array of food sector bodies that the scheme was essentially a “fait accompli”, with Red Tractor accused of “empire building”.
Further concerns were expressed over its potential to become a compulsory module in due course, with no premium paid to farmers for their work on improving on-farm sustainability, despite many already undertaking similar work.
Read more: Does Red Tractor need a jump-start? Meat & poultry category report 2024
The fallout from the scheme’s announcement led the NFU to implement a review of the governance of Red Tractor – which it part owns – and a second probe, launched this week alongside AHDB, into the wider farm assurance picture in the UK, amid growing concerns over a mounting ‘audit burden’ on producers.The first review, undertaken by consultancy Campbell Tickell, found the farm assurance scheme was “sound” in February. But despite its findings, both the NFU and AHDB recommended the GFC be discontinued on 5 March.
Having taken on board the concerns of the sector, the Red Tractor [Assured Food Standards] board then agreed to ditch the module.
While the GFC had been conceived with the best of intentions, errors had been made, Tacon admitted.
“We take responsibility for those issues and are sorry. We hope that by dropping the module, we can close the door on this chapter and move forward,” she said.
“We will only be involved in future environmental standards when all constituencies across the UK food and farming chain, by sector, ask us to and with full consultation.”
Red Tractor’s AFS board also accepted the conclusions of the Campbell Tickell review of Red Tractor’s governance and confirmed its commitment to implement recommendations to improve engagement with stakeholders and scheme members.
“Whilst the review found that ‘Red Tractor governance is sound’, it also sent a clear message about the frustration farmers are feeling,” Tacon conceded.
Red Tractor CEO: ‘scheme is not here just for farmers’
“We will act now to improve our communications to farmers, including the transparency of our operations, purpose and benefits and we will strengthen our stakeholder engagement.”Red Tractor would “listen more closely to our farmers. For example, it has previously found that transparency, audit burden and value are farmers’ top concerns. Significant efforts are already underway to tackle these, which you will hear more about in the next few months”, Tacon insisted.
AHDB and the UK’s main farming unions (NFU, NFU Cymru, NFU Scotland and the Ulster Farming Union) welcomed the decision to abandon the module.
“It’s also pleasing to see a commitment from Red Tractor that it will only consider future environmental standards with sector consensus and full consultation,” they added. “This is essential in rebuilding trust with farmers from across Britain, something we are pleased that Red Tractor has said is a priority and is already acting upon.”
It comes as AHDB and the unions week officially launched their industry-wide assurance review.
A review commission will be led by Dr David Llewellyn CBE, the former vice chancellor of Harper Adams University. Llewellyn’s fellow commissioners will be James Withers, former CEO of Scotland Food and drink and Mark Suthern, chair of trustees of the Farming Community Network. A fourth commissioner is yet to be appointed.
“A well-structured farm-level assurance system should be efficient, effective and economically viable for farmers and the wider food production system, while also providing confidence to retailers, other food businesses and consumers, that UK produce is among the best in the world,” Llewellyn said.
“The Commission’s work will include an exploration of best practice, consideration of how methods of assurance can provide value to primary producers in a fast-changing environment and a review of the relationship between assurance and regulation.,” he added. “These are complex matters on which we will be seeking the views of the farming industry, and the wider supply chain, to inform our conclusions.”
matthew
Member
- Location
- Cornwall, SW England
From Christine Tacon, today:
| Dear Red Tractor Member, |
| In this edition of Member Matters, we address the cancellation of the Greener Farms Commitment and the important updates regarding new rules on urea use and our licensing activities. Last week we announced that we are dropping the Greener Farms Commitment module (GFC), following feedback from Red Tractor members. The module was developed to help farmers such as you, processors and retailers meet the growing need for all to demonstrate sustainability, but in a single, practical and consistent way. However, having taken on board the concerns about the impact the GFC would have on many farmers across the UK, the AFS Board of Red Tractor have agreed to discontinue the module. While the module had been conceived with the best of intentions, errors had been made. We take responsibility for those issues and are sorry. We hope that by dropping the module, we can close the door on this chapter and move forward. We will only be involved in future environmental standards when all constituencies across the UK food and farming chain, by sector, ask us to and with full consultation. The Board also accepted the conclusions of the Campbell Tickell review of Red Tractor's governance and confirmed its commitment to implement all the recommendations. Whilst the review found that ‘Red Tractor governance is sound’, it also sent a clear message about the frustration many of you are feeling. We will act now to improve our communications to you, including the transparency of our operations, purpose and benefits and we will strengthen our stakeholder engagement. We will listen more closely to you. For example, Red Tractor has previously found that transparency, audit burden and value are farmers’ top concerns with Red Tractor. Significant efforts are already underway to tackle these, which you will hear more about in the next few months. Dive into Member Matters: 
click here to download a PDF version of Member Matters Best wishes, Christine Tacon, Red Tractor Chair |
Love the bit stating the the GFC was developed to 'help farmers'. Rubbish. It was a leg up to the processors and retailers to help them meet their Scope 3 emissions target. Nothing more, nothing less, and as Dave Lewis told The Grocer mag in november, they (processors / retailers) may need government legislation to help achieve this aim. |
- Location
- north lincs
"we were doing it for your own good" "what would you do without us" is all I got from that. British farmers are the least trustworthy in the world, that's why we need rt to keep an eye on them. Everyone else is ok to sell their wares her tho, I'm sure they are fine.
SilliamWhale
Member
Remember not to trust Red Tractor one iota.
They will be try to be bac
They will be try to be bac
George Dunn of the TFA should be one of the commissioners. That man speaks more sense than anyone else outside of the BFU by a long way.
- Location
- Essex
Also Phil Stocker of the NSA
I've heard good things now you mention it.
SilliamWhale
Member
Yes or Phil Stocker. A pragmatic sceptical observer.
The problem with some of the appointees is the feeling they have been selected for having a stock view hasnt David Llewellyn already said that assurance is necessary or something like that?
I have known Phil Stocker for fifty years was at college at the same time as he was. A very sound practical person who would make a very good commissioner. He has my full support.
- Location
- Essex
Maybe, but they will only want drones and yes men to "review" farm assurance, which must be protected at all costs.
That one standard is same or lower standard as imported food, simples.
Yes, it's illegal for AIC governed UFAS mills and BRC members to demand UK farm assured food while rejecting UK trade assured food produced legally under UK law despite buying imported trade assured food if that, often produced illegally under UK law.
While the majority of farmers are illegally forced against their will into farm assurance level schemes, you can forget about premiums. The farmer must have the legal right to choose how to sell their produce, whether farm assured, trade assured, possibly no assurance or sell direct to consumer. Only then will there be any chance of a premium for farm assurance level. However Batters has said BRC members won't pay a premium, why would they pay a premium when they can import food cheaply.
Tough luck on the mills and merchants when you must legally accept UK trade assured produce when you import trade assured produce. Most mills and merchants probably aren't going to put up with this and so will ditch AIC UFAS.
RT, AIC and BRC members don't want the illegal forcing of farmers into farm assured schemes to stop because it's all about the money. It's a a good start stalling GFC, but we must fight for our legal right to sell our food how we see fit which includes no discount for UK food compared to imported food prices. In the absence of legal advice, it's common sense it's wrong, we must not be forced into RT which equates to ever decreasing farm income and ever increasing workload, nor forced into WWF,GFC and other BRC members agendas.
I don't see why we can't sell our produce with the disappearance of RT and AIC, we managed before they came into being. I don't trust RT or AIC, they invent their own food standards, you've pointed out it's 600:1 dilution rate in imported grain and therefore it's fixed, you wouldn't think that from this AIC video, meticulous quality standards my arse
AIC and probably BRC members, are overdoing the quality standards, probably lying, to dissuade UK farmers selling at imported trade assured standard rather than farm assured standard. RT and AIC are like excessive red tape in health and safety, hitting business profits and damaging the economy, while trying to invent they have a real purpose despite the fact we managed without them beforehand. AIC and RT truly are jobs for the boys, purely after the money.
The battle is won when we have the choice at will, to dip in and out of the various routes to sell our produce.
Precisely
Precisely. Our priority is to have the legal right to choose how we sell our produce without being forced into anything.