Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New resources
Latest activity
Trending Threads
Resources
Latest reviews
Search resources
FarmTV
Farm Compare
Search
Tokens/Searches
Calendar
Upcoming Events
Members
Registered members
Current visitors
New Resources
New posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More options
Contact us
Close Menu
Forums
Farm Business
Agricultural Matters
Red tractor statement on level playing field
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="SilliamWhale" data-source="post: 7853041" data-attributes="member: 1232"><p>The flour millers statement is not true.</p><p></p><p><strong>In short, the level of control and inspection applied to imported wheat is much higher than for UK Red Tractor assured grain, and there is consequently a heavier cost burden on imports. The cost of tests and certification alone are higher than the Red Tractor membership fee, but the suppliers still have the costs of demonstrating legal compliance, insurance and record keeping required for a defence of due diligence. Red Tractor certification and inspection means that these costs are avoided by UK growers, giving them a competitive advantage. Additionally, if the Red Tractor scheme was to be wound down it is likely that in today’s marketplace multiple schemes would be established, restricting UK growers’ ability to supply different end users unless they signed up to more than one scheme, with additional administration and audit burdens as a result.</strong></p><p></p><p>In fact we don't even have any clarity on what the tests and certification are because most of us suspect they are not done. Its been a secret for a long time. If the control and standards are higher how come no one has been able to tell us what they are?</p><p></p><p>Furthermore why is it up to the Flour millers union to decide that farmers must pay a private company to be able to sell milling wheat. They are asking for legal compliance, insurance and record keeping - that is not a problem, a farmer can do this for no cost if the miller wanted it as a condition of sale but the miller should pay a premium for extra demands. The market for "assurance" should be opened up and not just the remit of one anti competitive company sitting on millions nabbed under co-ercion</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="SilliamWhale, post: 7853041, member: 1232"] The flour millers statement is not true. [B]In short, the level of control and inspection applied to imported wheat is much higher than for UK Red Tractor assured grain, and there is consequently a heavier cost burden on imports. The cost of tests and certification alone are higher than the Red Tractor membership fee, but the suppliers still have the costs of demonstrating legal compliance, insurance and record keeping required for a defence of due diligence. Red Tractor certification and inspection means that these costs are avoided by UK growers, giving them a competitive advantage. Additionally, if the Red Tractor scheme was to be wound down it is likely that in today’s marketplace multiple schemes would be established, restricting UK growers’ ability to supply different end users unless they signed up to more than one scheme, with additional administration and audit burdens as a result.[/B] In fact we don't even have any clarity on what the tests and certification are because most of us suspect they are not done. Its been a secret for a long time. If the control and standards are higher how come no one has been able to tell us what they are? Furthermore why is it up to the Flour millers union to decide that farmers must pay a private company to be able to sell milling wheat. They are asking for legal compliance, insurance and record keeping - that is not a problem, a farmer can do this for no cost if the miller wanted it as a condition of sale but the miller should pay a premium for extra demands. The market for "assurance" should be opened up and not just the remit of one anti competitive company sitting on millions nabbed under co-ercion [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Farm Business
Agricultural Matters
Red tractor statement on level playing field
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top