At least she admits her view on RT has splintered the sector
Red tractor stakeholder survey on governance
- Thread starter ajd132
- Start date
Minette Batters has not addressed the corrupt illegal activity of AIC. She has not addressed the presumably illegal activity of mixing non farm assured imported produce with UK farm assured produce and selling it under the RT label as farm assured. She has not addressed farmers need to be on a economic level playing field with imported produce that is produced to a lower and cheaper standard that uses pesticides banned under UK law and don't have costly farm assurance schemes etc. and therefore UK farmers should not be coerced into any costly farm assurance scheme and instead be allowed to sell on the free market without being in any scheme. She has not addressed the elites lies about net zero and livestock methane emissions designed to destroy farming. Batters has done a disservice as to what women can achieve probably because she has been getting lucrative backhanders from elsewhere instead of supporting farming.
Last edited:
wanton dwarf
Member
I got the "BBB" treatment some time ago, not the Farmers led Political Party in the Netherlands but "Blocked By Batters" for having the audacity to question Red Tractor
Not sure who this is
Yes and AIC saying imported produce same legal standards as UK produce when imports are using banned pesticides. I suspect AIC and Batters and co are giving out disinformation rather than misinformation!
I got the "BBB" treatment some time ago, not the Farmers led Political Party in the Netherlands but "Blocked By Batters" for having the audacity to question Red Tractor
Not sure who this is
You are perfectly correct, we will have a uphill struggle to get all of this mess sorted out as I think the new review has been designed to advoid most of these issues.
- Location
- Yorks
AIC might have messed up here.
(I know maybe not relevant to your seed. Well maybe it is), but AIC UFAS mills say RT/SQC/N I Scheme. However, AIC Contract used by merchants simply says must be farm assured. We could start a new assurance scheme, then sell to a merchant and be quite within their rules. No doubt they'd get wise to it quite quickly.
Guess we need to wait for assurance reviews to be completed, but starting a new scheme isn't out of the question. Shouldn't be necessary for grain, but still doesn't mean to say mills will play ball.
Looks like NFU are working for someone else like BRC, not farmers. Unless there is change from NFU then the stage is set for BFU. Local MPs next.
wanton dwarf
Member
Would think they'd also have a no leg to stand on if they disputed an inspection being to a lower standard than RT
Ultimately the legal body responsible for food standards is HMG not a private company thrown a bung
We don't need another assurance scheme. We already have one in the form of Food Standards Scotland. We was inspected by them 12 months ago just 2 weeks after our sqc inspection and passed with flying colours. They wanted a look around and checked a minimal amount of paperwork. It took half an hour to do and cost me nothing. They will next visit in 5yrs time. Had SQC/QMS inspection again yesterday, took 2.5 hours! If FSS say we're up to the required standard being the government department, that should be better than any red tractor/ SQC box ticking scheme. A certificate off them should be all we need to prove we are assured to the required standard.
So did I
I got the "BBB" treatment some time ago, not the Farmers led Political Party in the Netherlands but "Blocked By Batters" for having the audacity to question Red Tractor
Not sure who this is
View attachment 1160591
Fiveospades
Member
- Location
- Norfolk Broads
I have told neighbouring farmers that RT and the NFU are no good to us anymore and they just shrug their shoulders and carry on regardless. They just want to do their own thing and keep their heads down . It is sad that business men cannot see what is potentially round the corner. They will be the first to moan when it all goes pearshaped.
- Location
- Yorks
I fully agree, Food Standards farm inspections are all we need, and are trusted by consumers, just like we all trust 1-5 Food Hygiene Ratings in shop windows.
I'm trying to get FS inspection past AIC at the moment. I imagine they'll say "no", but they are really going to struggle to justify their stance.
It will not be possible to go forward with no scheme at all ,to endorse the safety of the food we produce in this country. It would be foolish to withdraw from the current schemes and leave a vacuum for the food industry to fill. They will keep chipping away at us if we have no industry standards. Farmers must have their own scheme in place that fits their needs and also fits national regulations.
Division will play right into the hands of the food industry and we will have a much worse situation than we have currently with red tractor.
Division will play right into the hands of the food industry and we will have a much worse situation than we have currently with red tractor.
Read my post above! There is a scheme. It is the Food Standards Agency. We don't need anything else. They check we are doing everything legally. Just as they do with cafes and suchlike. There's no such thing as red cafe to allow them to trade.
We could have a rating system too. 1 could demand a premium!! Good luck with getting the AIC to accept FS. there can be no reason not to.
Farms produce food that the population consumes. Processors and retailers simply add value. Without farm produce they would have to use non-FA imported produce.
Food H&S is aimed at direct sales so AIC will say that what farms produce isn't readily consumable by the public and therefore isn't food YET. They will do this because of usual reasons.
I just googled "How is food defined legally?"
And got a lot of slippery vagueness.
Best of luck.
Was right with you till the last bit, have you any evidence of that ?
Not everyone has the pleasure of living in Scotland. I don't come under any of the bodies you mention. My argument is if we had our own farmers scheme we should be able to control better the situation in terms of standards and cost.
If the FSA inspection had been acceptable years ago it would have been adopted in stead of RT. It does the job, I agree, but what industry wants is a brand. Best have your own Brand.
If the FSA inspection had been acceptable years ago it would have been adopted in stead of RT. It does the job, I agree, but what industry wants is a brand. Best have your own Brand.
Food standards. Local authority inspect only occasionly because the risk factor is low rt, ufu, look on us as a poor quality of producers as if we need to be looked at with a big brother attitude if there were problems in production LA, would be round on a regular basis and only rt, nfu, have to keep the money flowing. With the beginning of rt, most know it was nothing to do with farmers but the generation to the mid thirty some do not know the truth about bse, even in agricultural comunaties
gone up the hill
Member
- Location
- Devon
That is called back tracking after she went way too far on X the other night!
And the reason she has done it at the end of being on the NFU top team for 10 years is because whoever she will be getting her next highly paid job from have made it clear to her that she went to far on X / the way she has handled the farce over this GFC issue very badly and if she does not pull back a bit they will not be able to employ her!
The current mess with RT is largely the fault of Minette Batters, she has not listened to anyone that disagreed with her views over RT and has just did / supported what she personally wanted to see happen.
NFU is meant to represent the views of its members and not just the few at the top which is quite clearly the latter is what has happened under Minette's time as president!