Red Tractor Officially Scrap The GFC

[Clive]

I don't think it would be a good idea to leave a vacuum for all those in the food industry with their list of wants to fill. Farmers need to protect themselves by filling the place of RT with their own scheme. For farmers , run by farmers.

i agree this is the risk / danger - if we HAVE to have any level of assurance above and beyond statutory law i think the only independent organisation that should facilitate filling that role is the AHDB and it should demand premium price over imports of lower standard first and foremost

in discussions i and others have had with them on this however they seem to think its not their remit but i think enabling the lightest touch / lowest cost and widest reaching market access is / should be front and center of their remit, it’s far more relevant than a bit of petty flawed benchmarking or market analysis

 

[RushesToo]

i agree this is the risk / danger - if we HAVE to have any level of assurance above and beyond statutory law i think the only independent organisation that should facilitate filling that role is the AHDB and it should demand premium price over imports of lower standard first and foremost

in discussions i and others have had with them on this however they seem to think its not their remit but i think enabling the lightest touch / lowest cost and widest reaching market access is / should be front and center of their remit, it’s far more relevant than a bit of petty flawed benchmarking or market analysis

There is no question that equality should lie at the heart.

Once it involves money the original aim sometimes gets lost in the greed. I can understand their hesitancy.

 

[JP1]

Victory. Social media and farmer pressure, BFU, etc. we've all come together and pressurised change.

NFU and AHDB originally backed the GFC, but changed their tune after the backlash. Tom Bradshaw and AHDB listened . Thank you.

And Farmers Weekly helped massively with excellent reporting. I subscribed a few weeks back. They've done god reporting.

"Backstabbers win".

BFU and farmers punching above their weight

British Farming Union – …securing a better future for farmers

Red Tractor axes plans for Greener Farms Commitment - Farmers Weekly

Red Tractor Assurance has announced that it is dropping controversial plans for a Greener Farms Commitment module (GFC), following feedback from farmers.

www.fwi.co.uk

Still had first week of April kept clear in my diary in case picketing was needed

Good result

 

[principal skinner]

Blenky is just an agent with no skin in the game, that’s why he wants to get on the gravy train jobs

This exactly. Six figure salary every year no doubt, whether biblical rain or drought.

 

[Clive]

Thing is, if a individuals or small groups do such things, they have a chance of a marketing edge and price premium.

Red Tractor though, is completely the wrong vehicle to use. It becomes the industry standard, and hence after a year or two it's both mandatory and boggy basic market access with no premium. In fact the whole of the RT scheme is that. We pay to have someone inspect us for things which the competent authorities would do anyway. Only difference with RT is they also compel us to do things like NRoSO and urea policing.

exactly - if he wants to try add premium via scope 3 calculations or sell offset etc there are a choice of verification tools and certification providers …….. that’s a CHOICE any farmer can make, we all know from assurance history that GFC would have become another default condition of supply in RT’s negligent hands

The concept is sound and a opportunity for farmers, I’ve made £’s from this already and will continue to do so …….. it’s just Red Tractor ( a failed premium scheme provider ) that had no place in this

 

[matthew]

Rule No 65436 of bureaucracy - if your proposals wind some people up too much and threaten to damage your very existence, withdraw them, then reintroduce them in another way under another name when all the brouhaha has died down, and those opposing it have assumed they've won and taken their eye off the ball. Ideally do it in a way that establishes the principle but imposes no costs or requirements on anyone, for now. That can come later. First job is to get the camels nose through the tent flap.

Sorry, but this sh*t isn't going away. A battle has been won, but the (very long) war continues.

Just been scrolling back a bit to try and find Christine Tacon's message on R4 - 20 /02 broadcast that GFC is not dead at all. It is a case of not if it is introduced, but when.

I didn't find a link to that little gem, but noted a quote from Tesco re their Scope 3 emissions, which are a big sticking point in their race to Net Zero. And the only way to correct this anomaly was to involve the input food chain.

That's us.

 

[Dave645]

I actually think the AIC is the big problem, they run the majority of mills, and if they continue to state RT only then they are the stumbling block, non members of the BFU maybe haven’t seen Steve’s emails and response from them, they are acting as gate keepers of what assurance, all there mills will take.
Yet they happily import feed from all over the world if the price is right.
They just internally assure it with systems they have in place the 1 sample from a boat load way, yet this is in no way equal to RT.
So, this is the door that needs kicking down now.
But I also agree with Clive the AHDB should help a new light touch scheme get setup.
One that is ok with statutory checks for assurance, like Steve has done. So we can push the AIC to take that in appropriate cases. A scheme run by the AHDB but site visits from statutory free visits. So we are meeting uk law, should be fine but it’s not for the AIC as they want years visits and the basic scheme is not likely to offer that. As how often the council visits is up to them, every 3 years is common.

one down which is great, but plenty more to go. And if RT wants to exist then they need to make big changes.

I also think we need an end to one size fits all assurance, as that was great for those needed it gold plated, those suppling places that needed it, but feed doesn’t even need to be RT assured to be fed to RT assured animals. They told us that because they understood they couldn’t demand that because the AIC don’t actually provide that from there mills when they use imports as part of the feed mix.

So, how do we get the AIC to shift its possition?

 

[Humble Village Farmer]

But Andrew Blenkiron, director at Euston Estate in Suffolk, said he was “disappointed” by the decision.

“Given that the industry doesn’t seem to want to prove its green credentials to its customers, I fully understand the reasoning behind the Red Tractor decision,” he said.

The industry is quite ready to prove its green credentials Blenky. We just need paying to do stuff. You know, like your salary?

The real reason for the backlash against the GFC was that no farmer trusts red tractor (failed premium scheme provider). Red tractor have loaded so much extra cost and red tape onto farm businesses and farmers can't put up with any more of it.

So if the BRC wants to come up with something to help farmers on environmental action, great; show us the money . That's what this is about isn't it? The biggest obstacle is the lack of trust.

 

[Nearly]

Ive been asked to attend one up north late April event location not yet confirmed & iam not a member but my local office knows too well my thoughts on RT so would like me to go.
This will be interesting, i might get asked to leave !! (No iam not a member of the NFU) i used to be.

Let us know so we can come and watch / heckle.

 

[Andy Nash]

Just been scrolling back a bit to try and find Christine Tacon's message on R4 - 20 /02 broadcast that GFC is not dead at all. It is a case of not if it is introduced, but when.

I didn't find a link to that little gem, but noted a quote from Tesco re their Scope 3 emissions, which are a big sticking point in their race to Net Zero. And the only way to correct this anomaly was to involve the input food chain.

That's us.

Yes Tesco et al will be absolutely livid about this. Tacon was put there by the retailers to bring the GFC to the market using RT as the vehicle and She, Blenky and the rest of the board have screwed it up.
I think RT is seriously weakened by this and the multiple retailers must be considering whether to bother carrying on supporting it if it is unable to deliver the big prize. After all, most seem to have their own little assurance schemes anyway and RT doesn’t add any value to a retailers’ sales in the same way it doesn’t add value to farmers’ produce either.

In the light of the weakened state of RT, surely the time is now to kick the rest of the tables over and finish the damned thing off, once and for all?
I know resigning from it is not an option for dairy producers, unless part of a class action, but with meat riding high in the markets it is the perfect time for meat producers to pull out en masse without any financial penalty.
Hopefully, more grain producers will join us that sell unassured and help break the stranglehold that RT has on the grain market.

Many thanks are due to everyone especially Steve and the steering group in BFU and the posts publicising the dirty tricks these organisations get up to by everyone who contributed to them. Thanks for the ag press lead by @Abi Kay in publicising uncomfortable truths.

It is noted that the NFU doesn’t seem to give @Abi Kay the key officeholder interviews any more?
Is that a punishment for publishing uncomfortable truths about the conduct of the NFU?
I said publishing the TRUTH.
Is it proper that a modern democratic organisation should act in this way to journalists who seek to report on things that matter to their readers?
The NFU has clearly much to do following the end of the Batters regime. Realising who in the food chain are their core members might be a start.

 

[Nitrams]

I don't think it would be a good idea to leave a vacuum for all those in the food industry with their list of wants to fill. Farmers need to protect themselves by filling the place of RT with their own scheme. For farmers , run by farmers.

I think the opportunity is to come up with an assurance scheme that fits the legal framework the supermarkets etc have made to the cop26 or net zero commitments. If we can capture the benefits they are trying to steal in our own assurance scheme, then we can sell this to them at a pre determined premium. If the corporates are legally bound to make these commitments and we dont allow it to be forceably taken from us, we could monetise it and attempt to keep control of it

 

[matthew]

This is a screen grab from The Grocer magazine, published last november. The piece quotes Dave Lewis, ex Tesco, but now steering the WWF. With us in his sights.

note the first paragraph - that Scope 3 emissions were accounting for 94% of boxes not ticked on retailer food chain Net Zero ambitions.

Answer? steal them from farmers.

GFC - Grab Farmers Carbon.

 

[delilah]

This is a screen grab from The Grocer magazine, published last november. The piece quotes Dave Lerwia, ex Tesco, but now steering the WWF. With us in his sights.

note the first paragraph - that Scope 3 emissions were accounting for 94% of boxes not ticked on retailer food chain Net Zero ambitions.

Answer? steal them from farmers.

GFC - Grab Farmers Carbon.

View attachment 1171441

Which is why this isn't a RT issue. RT just happened to be the vehicle of choice for the cartel to make farmers carry the can for their emissions. RT have let them down, so they will now pursue other means.

 

[Andy Nash]

Which is why this isn't a RT issue. RT just happened to be the vehicle of choice for the cartel to make farmers carry the can for their emissions. RT have let them down, so they will now pursue other means.

Hence RT are suddenly looking rather irrelevant and pointless to the retailers, and now is the time for producer boycotts. I cant Imagine Blenkiron surviving this; Every time he opens his mouth he inflames farmers, and Tacon was put in there with one job to do.
Best to get rid of the whole thing before RT 2.0 appears repackaged, “We’ve listened, we’ve changed”, and anybody is tempted to believe the ‘new’ message.

 

[matthew]

Hence RT are suddenly looking rather irrelevant and pointless to the retailers, and now is the time for producer boycotts. I cant Imagine Blenkiron surviving this; Every time he opens his mouth he inflames farmers, and Tacon was put in there with one job to do.
Best to get rid of the whole thing before RT 2.0 appears repackaged, “We’ve listened, we’ve changed”, and anybody is tempted to believe the ‘new’ message.

A case of ‘if their lips are moving, they’re lying’.

 

[Clive]

So if the BRC wants to come up with something to help farmers on environmental action, great; show us the money . That's what this is about isn't it? The biggest obstacle is the lack of trust.

BRC wanted farmers to pay for it and then give them the value of the data to their retailers and processors paymasters


Over £250,000 of farmers money has been wasted by Red Tractor on something that even they now acknowledge was misguided …….. Management provide that guidance

that needs accountability / acceptance of responsibility by management, Jim Mosley bad Christine Tacon must now resign or be fired by the AFS board

 

[Grass And Grain]

I actually think the AIC is the big problem, they run the majority of mills, and if they continue to state RT only then they are the stumbling block, non members of the BFU maybe haven’t seen Steve’s emails and response from them, they are acting as gate keepers of what assurance, all there mills will take.
Yet they happily import feed from all over the world if the price is right.
They just internally assure it with systems they have in place the 1 sample from a boat load way, yet this is in no way equal to RT.
So, this is the door that needs kicking down now.
But I also agree with Clive the AHDB should help a new light touch scheme get setup.
One that is ok with statutory checks for assurance, like Steve has done. So we can push the AIC to take that in appropriate cases. A scheme run by the AHDB but site visits from statutory free visits. So we are meeting uk law, should be fine but it’s not for the AIC as they want years visits and the basic scheme is not likely to offer that. As how often the council visits is up to them, every 3 years is common.

one down which is great, but plenty more to go. And if RT wants to exist then they need to make big changes.

I also think we need an end to one size fits all assurance, as that was great for those needed it gold plated, those suppling places that needed it, but feed doesn’t even need to be RT assured to be fed to RT assured animals. They told us that because they understood they couldn’t demand that because the AIC don’t actually provide that from there mills when they use imports as part of the feed mix.

So, how do we get the AIC to shift its possition?

The more I think about AIC, the more I suspect that although I'm sure they want to support RT and SQC along with getting best due diligence they can for grain inputs into mills, it's actually the AIC grain merchant and storage members who are the bugbear.

They really will not want to be segregating crops. Two stores instead of one for each commodity (although they seem to manage with Gatekeeper imports). And no way of making a quick buck by blending wheat from the feed pile with some other to get it away for biscuit or low grade milling. Same with malting.

So I recon the AIC member merchants and stores are the problem, but they can't insist farmers don't have a choice of assurance scheme just to suit their storage needs. That's their problem.

We've the assurance review and some encouraging sounds coming from the NFU, so let's be patient. However, we won't let AIC get away with it. If they won't accept a less burdensome import equivalence scheme, then we'll play them at their own game. We'll start a new assurance scheme which AIC can't refuse. We will NOT have mutual recognition of RT. Then the merchants can't put it all in one store, so they'll end up with the same problem, which will serve them right.

 

[Grass And Grain]

BRC wanted farmers to pay for it and then give them the value of the data to their retailers and processors paymasters


Over £250,000 of farmers money has been wasted by Red Tractor on something that even they now acknowledge was misguided …….. Management provide that guidance

that needs accountability / acceptance of responsibility by management, Jim Mosley bad Christine Tacon must now resign or be fired by the AFS board

Remember when we got the £250,000 annual AHDB to RT bungs stopped, then shortly afterwards RT increased the farmer licence fee from £30 to £40. That's £10 for 46,000 farmers = £460,000/annun, yet the only needed £250k to cover the AHDB money.

Now we know why they wanted the cash. They got us farmers to pay for the GFC development. Then botched it all up. Arguably because they kept it a secret and didn't consult from the beginning.

I'd hold the whole RT board responsible for that, but particularly Tacon and possibly Jim. They were running the show and spaffed near on £300,000 of RT money through mismanagement. End of the day farmers will pick up the tab for it.

Fairest way to get some of the money back is to get rid of the salaries for Chair and CEO.

 

[Clive]

Remember when we got the £250,000 annual AHDB to RT bungs stopped, then shortly afterwards RT increased the farmer licence fee from £30 to £40. That's £10 for 46,000 farmers = £460,000/annun, yet the only needed £250k to cover the AHDB money.

Now we know why they wanted the cash. They got us farmers to pay for the GFC development. Then botched it all up. Arguably because they kept it a secret and didn't consult from the beginning.

I'd hold the whole RT board responsible for that, but particularly Tacon and possibly Jim. They were running the show and spaffed near on £300,000 of RT money through mismanagement. End of the day farmers will pick up the tab for it.

Fairest way to get some of the money back is to get rid of the salaries for Chair and CEO.

in any corporate or public company they would be toast

both need to go - it’s an absolute scandal what they have presided over and been paid (significantly) for

 

[homefarm]

The more I think about AIC, the more I suspect that although I'm sure they want to support RT and SQC along with getting best due diligence they can for grain inputs into mills, it's actually the AIC grain merchant and storage members who are the bugbear.

They really will not want to be segregating crops. Two stores instead of one for each commodity (although they seem to manage with Gatekeeper imports). And no way of making a quick buck by blending wheat from the feed pile with some other to get it away for biscuit or low grade milling. Same with malting.

So I recon the AIC member merchants and stores are the problem, but they can't insist farmers don't have a choice of assurance scheme just to suit their storage needs. That's their problem.

We've the assurance review and some encouraging sounds coming from the NFU, so let's be patient. However, we won't let AIC get away with it. If they won't accept a less burdensome import equivalence scheme, then we'll play them at their own game. We'll start a new assurance scheme which AIC can't refuse. We will NOT have mutual recognition of RT. Then the merchants can't put it all in one store, so they'll end up with the same problem, which will serve them right.

The trade will always want one standard for grain otherwise grain trading becomes a logistical nightmare, it is why they insist on RT for everything even when it is not necessary.
I am sure they would be happy with no assurance or a passport declaration so long as it was excepted by the majority of customers.
Anything more than the niche Warburtons weetabix contracts becomes unworkable with the climatic variations affecting quality etc. and would make it impossible to supply to customers spec.
Remember supply is more important than price to the end user without supply they have nothing to sell.
All most end users want is that the opposition pays the same price as them and why no one will pay a premium for assurance.