Red tractor stakeholder survey on governance

[Andy Nash]

The reporters and trade press will focus on the quick wins and posts but if Abi and partners took this on-board it's a good one for medium term trawling and then holding to account

I wonder if all this deception and duplicity has the legs for a massive expose like the Post Office scandal.
It is known that sub post masters have taken their own lives.
Likewise, farmers have taken their own lives over RT. I don’t know anyone personally who has, but I know someone who was so traumatised by a RT inspection that he is selling his cows because his mental health is so poor he dare not risk going through another one.
Another farm, the most immaculate farm I’ve ever seen, retired early because of RT.
Another customer, who is a small milk producer, had a terrible time last month is convinced that RT is trying to get rid of small farmers.
This is the human cost of RT.

 

[Badshot]

Asda, is not owned by Wal-Mart two Pakistani men own it as far as I know restarted working garages.

Ah, yes, you're right, they bought it. I remember seeing the story on that a few years back.
Thank you for correcting me.

 

[tullah]

Is fertiliser that is used to grow crops RT assured ?

And the wholesome field mice on the ears .

 

[neilo]

That would be whole life assurance?



Prosper de Mulder were rendering across the EU and lowered those temperatures in all of them.
The problem appeared to be with ingestion by calves rather than adult cattle. There was no maternal transmission. And the 30 month rule was supposed to roll forward year on year as the mills were cleaned up and single species only. (SEAC)

The only thing about BSE unique to the UK was the reporting process. One animal, full compensation, no restriction on produce sales. The UK was supposed to lead the research and ‘member states would follow’. (EU draft - and yes, I do have it!)

Yes, WLA. It is daft to argue that an animal can suddenly becoming ‘assured’ by spending 90 days on an assured holding, while cereals have to spend their whole life under that label, imo.
IF RT assurance was worth a damn, then it must surely apply to the whole life of the animal?
I realise that p*ssed off all those store producers that have evaded the job this far, hence the pitch forks, but it does make a farce of the system and shows what a load of bollox it all is. Either assured or not, surely?

On the BSE, our experience would concur with the ingestion by young stock theory. Almost all of ours were from one cohort, reared as calves on one batch of calf rearing nuts, from a company that maintained that they didn’t use M&B through that time (later admitted).
None of this became clear until after the event though, and multiple measures had to be put in place to rebuild confidence in British Beef. Assurance, as it was then, was but one of those.

 

[JP1]

Fascinating X / Twitter thread

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1743029284791283757

 

[gone up the hill]

Yes, WLA. It is daft to argue that an animal can suddenly becoming ‘assured’ by spending 90 days on an assured holding, while cereals have to spend their whole life under that label, imo.
IF RT assurance was worth a damn, then it must surely apply to the whole life of the animal?
I realise that p*ssed off all those store producers that have evaded the job this far, hence the pitch forks, but it does make a farce of the system and shows what a load of bollox it all is. Either assured or not, surely?

On the BSE, our experience would concur with the ingestion by young stock theory. Almost all of ours were from one cohort, reared as calves on one batch of calf rearing nuts, from a company that maintained that they didn’t use M&B through that time (later admitted).
None of this became clear until after the event though, and multiple measures had to be put in place to rebuild confidence in British Beef. Assurance, as it was then, was but one of those.

You really are a NFU/RT lets destroy UK AG lover arent you Neilo!

WLA is nothing more than a licence to farm.

You claim that you are anti RT yet support/call for more/stricter RT rules...

Best thing you could do Neilo is take a long holiday and visit somewhere like the USA where over there the large feedlots have no idea what state the cattle they buy come from let alone what farm and which cow is the mother!! but hey in your NFU fairyland lets heap more costs/ red tape/ rules and drive even more farmers out of the UK farming industry to be replaced by imports from over seas farmers with far less rules red/ tape we have now let alone the higher ones you want us to have!!

Do you support current UK organic farm rules for livestock Neilo??....

 

[Jsmith2211]

Whether you like it or not, I don't think RT is going anywhere. What we might be able to do though is to reform it (BFU, off you go). Even Tom Bradshaw was suggesting changing it. I think a large scale reform of RT, massively reducing it's size and scope could be on the cards. Simple fact is people know the RT brand, and therefore markets want to buy it and that isn't going to change. We can fill in all the surveys we like, moan a lot on forums facebook twitter etc, but the public and the buyers still want assured produce, and RT is what they know to look for. Something needs to be done about imports dodging it, but that can be done by increasing the standards for imports rather than "lowering" our own, as that is how the scrapping of RT would be seen. To be quite honest it doesnt matter if that is true or not, that's what people think and you wont change it. If some kind of assurance could be set up for imports and RT was scaled back a long way in it's overbearingness, it's paperwork and therefore on stress and mental health impacts on farmers surely that is the ideal outcome for everyone? We get an assurance scheme that works, the NFU and RT both get to walk away and the supermarkets and customers can keep buying "superior" assured products. The alternative is (as the chap from asda said) that there will still be assurance schemes, just they will be done by the buyer. You'll end up with tesco assured, asda assured etc - which could (and I expect probably would) be worse than RT. You think RT don't listen to feedback... try a supermarket! It's in our interest as an industry to have a nationalised assurance scheme, even if it is only needed for those selling to supermarkets and other similar buyers. I know a lot of people will disagree, but it isnt about if we as farmers want to be assured, its about what the buyers will force upon us if we don't have "our own" assurance scheme.

Fascinating X / Twitter thread

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1743029284791283757

How do you see the whole thread? Can only see one post.

 

[JP1]

Whether you like it or not, I don't think RT is going anywhere. What we might be able to do though is to reform it (BFU, off you go). Even Tom Bradshaw was suggesting changing it. I think a large scale reform of RT, massively reducing it's size and scope could be on the cards. Simple fact is people know the RT brand, and therefore markets want to buy it and that isn't going to change. We can fill in all the surveys we like, moan a lot on forums facebook twitter etc, but the public and the buyers still want assured produce, and RT is what they know to look for. Something needs to be done about imports dodging it, but that can be done by increasing the standards for imports rather than "lowering" our own, as that is how the scrapping of RT would be seen. To be quite honest it doesnt matter if that is true or not, that's what people think and you wont change it. If some kind of assurance could be set up for imports and RT was scaled back a long way in it's overbearingness, it's paperwork and therefore on stress and mental health impacts on farmers surely that is the ideal outcome for everyone? We get an assurance scheme that works, the NFU and RT both get to walk away and the supermarkets and customers can keep buying "superior" assured products. The alternative is (as the chap from asda said) that there will still be assurance schemes, just they will be done by the buyer. You'll end up with tesco assured, asda assured etc - which could (and I expect probably would) be worse than RT. You think RT don't listen to feedback... try a supermarket! It's in our interest as an industry to have a nationalised assurance scheme, even if it is only needed for those selling to supermarkets and other similar buyers. I know a lot of people will disagree, but it isnt about if we as farmers want to be assured, its about what the buyers will force upon us if we don't have "our own" assurance scheme.


How do you see the whole thread? Can only see one post.

I’ll try again . Sorry

 

[JP1]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1743026815562551461

 

[JP1]

Whether you like it or not, I don't think RT is going anywhere. What we might be able to do though is to reform it (BFU, off you go). Even Tom Bradshaw was suggesting changing it. I think a large scale reform of RT, massively reducing it's size and scope could be on the cards. Simple fact is people know the RT brand, and therefore markets want to buy it and that isn't going to change. We can fill in all the surveys we like, moan a lot on forums facebook twitter etc, but the public and the buyers still want assured produce, and RT is what they know to look for. Something needs to be done about imports dodging it, but that can be done by increasing the standards for imports rather than "lowering" our own, as that is how the scrapping of RT would be seen. To be quite honest it doesnt matter if that is true or not, that's what people think and you wont change it. If some kind of assurance could be set up for imports and RT was scaled back a long way in it's overbearingness, it's paperwork and therefore on stress and mental health impacts on farmers surely that is the ideal outcome for everyone? We get an assurance scheme that works, the NFU and RT both get to walk away and the supermarkets and customers can keep buying "superior" assured products. The alternative is (as the chap from asda said) that there will still be assurance schemes, just they will be done by the buyer. You'll end up with tesco assured, asda assured etc - which could (and I expect probably would) be worse than RT. You think RT don't listen to feedback... try a supermarket! It's in our interest as an industry to have a nationalised assurance scheme, even if it is only needed for those selling to supermarkets and other similar buyers. I know a lot of people will disagree, but it isnt about if we as farmers want to be assured, its about what the buyers will force upon us if we don't have "our own" assurance scheme.


How do you see the whole thread? Can only see one post.

I disagree

I spent many hours responding to the DEFRA food labelling consultation

It’s my strong belief all consumers want is clear labelling which should include country flag of origin and other things discussed elsewhere

Consumers can then have CHOICE based on informed knowledge and knowing UK produced food meets legal standards

The UK Gov aided by BRC and others have so far kept imports unchallenged on similar standards

 

[neilo]

You really are a NFU/RT lets destroy UK AG lover arent you Neilo!

WLA is nothing more than a licence to farm.

You claim that you are anti RT yet support/call for more/stricter RT rules...

Best thing you could do Neilo is take a long holiday and visit somewhere like the USA where over there the large feedlots have no idea what state the cattle they buy come from let alone what farm and which cow is the mother!! but hey in your NFU fairyland lets heap more costs/ red tape/ rules and drive even more farmers out of the UK farming industry to be replaced by imports from over seas farmers with far less rules red/ tape we have now let alone the higher ones you want us to have!!

Do you support current UK organic farm rules for livestock Neilo??....

Oh dear, have you been on the Devonshire wibble juice again?

IF fa has any value at all (and, as stated repeatedly, I don’t believe it does) it is clearly nonsense to pretend that animals can magically become ‘assured’ by virtue of living on an assured holding for 90 days. How can anyone defend that? They are either assured or not.

That would be like non-assured grain going into Central storage, then being sold out as FA after a period sat in store. That is patently nonsensical.

 

[Andy Nash]

Whether you like it or not, I don't think RT is going anywhere. What we might be able to do though is to reform it (BFU, off you go). Even Tom Bradshaw was suggesting changing it. I think a large scale reform of RT, massively reducing it's size and scope could be on the cards. Simple fact is people know the RT brand, and therefore markets want to buy it and that isn't going to change. We can fill in all the surveys we like, moan a lot on forums facebook twitter etc, but the public and the buyers still want assured produce, and RT is what they know to look for. Something needs to be done about imports dodging it, but that can be done by increasing the standards for imports rather than "lowering" our own, as that is how the scrapping of RT would be seen. To be quite honest it doesnt matter if that is true or not, that's what people think and you wont change it. If some kind of assurance could be set up for imports and RT was scaled back a long way in it's overbearingness, it's paperwork and therefore on stress and mental health impacts on farmers surely that is the ideal outcome for everyone? We get an assurance scheme that works, the NFU and RT both get to walk away and the supermarkets and customers can keep buying "superior" assured products. The alternative is (as the chap from asda said) that there will still be assurance schemes, just they will be done by the buyer. You'll end up with tesco assured, asda assured etc - which could (and I expect probably would) be worse than RT. You think RT don't listen to feedback... try a supermarket! It's in our interest as an industry to have a nationalised assurance scheme, even if it is only needed for those selling to supermarkets and other similar buyers. I know a lot of people will disagree, but it isnt about if we as farmers want to be assured, its about what the buyers will force upon us if we don't have "our own" assurance scheme.

I don’t believe that the claims that red tractor assured is demanded by shoppers. The union flag yes.
If the buyers want to price themselves out of the market by running their own assurance schemes, so be it.

 

[J 1177]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1743026815562551461

 

[tullah]

Whether you like it or not, I don't think RT is going anywhere. What we might be able to do though is to reform it (BFU, off you go). Even Tom Bradshaw was suggesting changing it. I think a large scale reform of RT, massively reducing it's size and scope could be on the cards. Simple fact is people know the RT brand, and therefore markets want to buy it and that isn't going to change. We can fill in all the surveys we like, moan a lot on forums facebook twitter etc, but the public and the buyers still want assured produce, and RT is what they know to look for. Something needs to be done about imports dodging it, but that can be done by increasing the standards for imports rather than "lowering" our own, as that is how the scrapping of RT would be seen. To be quite honest it doesnt matter if that is true or not, that's what people think and you wont change it. If some kind of assurance could be set up for imports and RT was scaled back a long way in it's overbearingness, it's paperwork and therefore on stress and mental health impacts on farmers surely that is the ideal outcome for everyone? We get an assurance scheme that works, the NFU and RT both get to walk away and the supermarkets and customers can keep buying "superior" assured products. The alternative is (as the chap from asda said) that there will still be assurance schemes, just they will be done by the buyer. You'll end up with tesco assured, asda assured etc - which could (and I expect probably would) be worse than RT. You think RT don't listen to feedback... try a supermarket! It's in our interest as an industry to have a nationalised assurance scheme, even if it is only needed for those selling to supermarkets and other similar buyers. I know a lot of people will disagree, but it isnt about if we as farmers want to be assured, its about what the buyers will force upon us if we don't have "our own" assurance scheme.


How do you see the whole thread? Can only see one post.

But as imports are very acceptable now what's the point of as you say upping the standards of imports assurance. That's creating assurance for assurance sake . Surely that defeats the object of equal to imports. Give BFU support and we can stand our ground.

 

[neilo]

Whether you like it or not, I don't think RT is going anywhere. What we might be able to do though is to reform it (BFU, off you go). Even Tom Bradshaw was suggesting changing it. I think a large scale reform of RT, massively reducing it's size and scope could be on the cards. Simple fact is people know the RT brand, and therefore markets want to buy it and that isn't going to change. We can fill in all the surveys we like, moan a lot on forums facebook twitter etc, but the public and the buyers still want assured produce, and RT is what they know to look for. Something needs to be done about imports dodging it, but that can be done by increasing the standards for imports rather than "lowering" our own, as that is how the scrapping of RT would be seen. To be quite honest it doesnt matter if that is true or not, that's what people think and you wont change it. If some kind of assurance could be set up for imports and RT was scaled back a long way in it's overbearingness, it's paperwork and therefore on stress and mental health impacts on farmers surely that is the ideal outcome for everyone? We get an assurance scheme that works, the NFU and RT both get to walk away and the supermarkets and customers can keep buying "superior" assured products. The alternative is (as the chap from asda said) that there will still be assurance schemes, just they will be done by the buyer. You'll end up with tesco assured, asda assured etc - which could (and I expect probably would) be worse than RT. You think RT don't listen to feedback... try a supermarket! It's in our interest as an industry to have a nationalised assurance scheme, even if it is only needed for those selling to supermarkets and other similar buyers. I know a lot of people will disagree, but it isnt about if we as farmers want to be assured, its about what the buyers will force upon us if we don't have "our own" assurance scheme.


How do you see the whole thread? Can only see one post.

The supermarkets already do conduct their own audits, which are in addition to, and in excess of, RT. When I was selling dw I was audited by Scotbeef (for ASDA) and by Tesco. Both were basically duplicating RT, with a few bits added for good measure.

I know from others that Waitrose, M&S and Sainsbury’s all lay additional auditing on their dedicated producers groups (think GFC Plus), so all that’s already happening, despite RT.

Let them carry on doing so, that’s fine, so long as they are paying a premium to those groups for doing so. What w3 do not need is RT forcing that on all of us for no premium.

 

[gone up the hill]

Oh dear, have you been on the Devonshire wibble juice again?

IF fa has any value at all (and, as stated repeatedly, I don’t believe it does) it is clearly nonsense to pretend that animals can magically become ‘assured’ by virtue of living on an assured holding for 90 days. How can anyone defend that? They are either assured or not.

That would be like non-assured grain going into Central storage, then being sold out as FA after a period sat in store. That is patently nonsensical.

Why are you so anti British farmers for Neilo??

Because everything you now post is pro NFU lets make UK farming unviable V non assured/ low standard imports bollox!

WLA is both a licence to farm and totally unworkable!

If they try to introduce WLA it will only drive even more farmers away from being assured!

Look beyond your own farm gate and look at the low standards abroad that we have to compete with on price Neilo.

Oh and funny how you never responded to my question about UK organic standards.........................

 

[Henarar]

That would be like non-assured grain going into Central storage, then being sold out as FA after a period sat in store

No it would not.
Non assured grain going in to a central store and then out as FA would be like non FA beef going in to a cold store and out as FA.
Try again and this time get the comparison right, you may suprise yourself

 

[Jsmith2211]

The supermarkets already do conduct their own audits, which are in addition to, and in excess of, RT. When I was selling dw I was audited by Scotbeef (for ASDA) and by Tesco. Both were basically duplicating RT, with a few bits added for good measure.

I know from others that Waitrose, M&S and Sainsbury’s all lay additional auditing on their dedicated producers groups (think GFC Plus), so all that’s already happening, despite RT.

Let them carry on doing so, that’s fine, so long as they are paying a premium to those groups for doing so. What w3 do not need is RT forcing that on all of us for no premium.

That is very interesting. But I don't think it is the case for all of them. certainly isnt the case in the arable sector, but I could see the big merchants setting their own schemes up. I don't feel I can comment much more about the supermarket's schemes as I dont know much about them (at least im honest enough to admit when I dont know something unlike some!) but I would expect there is plenty of room for them to get a lot more heavy handed and expensive...

But as imports are very acceptable now what's the point of as you say upping the standards of imports assurance. That's creating assurance for assurance sake . Surely that defeats the object of equal to imports. Give BFU support and we can stand our ground.

My point is that if we make imports have to conform to our standards, and have some proof of that then the price of the imports ought to rise. Some would just flat out be refused as they dont meet the grade, others would probably increase in price relative to home grown due to extra standards having to be met. Et voila, level playing field of provably high standards, meaning we are equal with the imports.

A simple, low cost assurance scheme, which is if im not mistaken what RT was to start with, is no bad thing in my mind. Gives everyone a bit of peace of mind, and gives a scapegoat if anything goes wrong. Should be cheap to be a member of, easy to be a member of (perhaps only a visit every few years, a lot less paperwork etc). It is definitely doable.

I wander if perhaps the current state of RT has tarnished the appetite of many for any kind of scheme at all? Just have to be objective with it and think what would we get instead if we didnt have our own industry led FA, and be honest that it could be a lot lot worse. Just because someone that you dont particually like said something doesnt make it untrue!

 

[neilo]

Why are you so anti British farmers for Neilo??

Because everything you now post is pro NFU lets make UK farming unviable V non assured/ low standard imports bollox!

WLA is both a licence to farm and totally unworkable!

If they try to introduce WLA it will only drive even more farmers away from being assured!

Look beyond your own farm gate and look at the low standards abroad that we have to compete with on price Neilo.

Oh and funny how you never responded to my question about UK organic standards.........................

In what way, in your deluded mind, am I in any way ‘anti British farmers’?

I am in no way supportive of NFU’s position on RT, and never have been. I do however continue to applaud the NFU Cymru team in their engagement with RPW in shaping our future ag policy. I make no apologies for that whatsoever, least of all to you.

If WLA drives more farmers away from RT, then so much the better. However, to pretend that an animal can somehow become assured by spending 90 days on an RT holding is clearly a nonsense, surely even to someone of seemingly limited intellect. How on Earth can anyone suggest otherwise? An animal is either assured or not, period. Whether that assurance provides any value is an entirely different argument.

As to your question on UK organic standards, why would I comment? I don’t profess to know anything about UK organic standards, why would I? I’m not an organic producer, or have any intention of becoming one at the moment.

 

[Jsmith2211]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1743026815562551461

Very interesting. "The fundamental question is not the greener tractor commitment" Well for one its the GFC not the GTC... but I think that is the fundamental question is it not? Sounds like she's almost trying to play down how bad the GFC will be, which is worrying.
"I am beyond frustrated by the continued leaks I keep having to respond to" - Im not surprised. They don't paint the NFU, CT etc in a good light because these reviews are not transparent and are being done behind closed doors. If the review process was CLEARLY explained, and was transparent with what was happening all of this shitstorm could've been avoided.
"I have given 10 years of my life to this industry" (etc). I'm not sure what to say to that bit if im honest. Personally I don't think it comes across that well, like she's trying to say we are all ungrateful sods who ought to be more thankful for all she's done. She's done a lot of good, I know many on this forum will disagree but I think overall she's been a good leader of the NFU. But trying to make out like criticism of her is basically just insulting how hard she has worked for us etc... i'm not a fan of it myself. Theres a lot more in there but thats just the points that stuck out to me