The Red Tractor ACCS referendum

[DrWazzock]

this image may shock some

View attachment 933854

Thank you. That’s useful. I don’t have a problem with foreign producers meeting RT requirements and gaining RT accreditation. They aren’t displaying the Union Jack so aren’t making any claims to “Britishness”.
So as I understand it if a product displays an RT logo with half a Union Jack on it, it just means that it’s emanated from an RT accredited U.K. premises / operation, even if some or possibly all of the inputs have come from abroad. I’ve no problem with that either but I’m not sure that has been widely communicated in a clear and transparent way.
Personally I think that including any sort of national provenance message into a “safety standard” is a mistake, clouds the issue etc. National provenance should be an entirely separate matter and cranky it doesn’t bother me.

 

[Clive]

Thank you. That’s useful. I don’t have a problem with foreign producers meeting RT requirements and gaining RT accreditation. They aren’t displaying the Union Jack so aren’t making any claims to “Britishness”.
So as I understand it if a product displays an RT logo with half a Union Jack on it, it just means that it’s emanated from an RT accredited U.K. premises / operation, even if some or possibly all of the inputs have come from abroad. I’ve no problem with that either but I’m not sure that has been widely communicated in a clear and transparent way.
Personally I think that including any sort of national provenance message into a “safety standard” is a mistake, clouds the issue etc. National provenance should be an entirely separate matter and cranky it doesn’t bother me.

100%

 

[DrWazzock]

My only gripe with RT is that they are by their own admittance going above legal minimum standards on things like the annual sprayer test, NRoSO register and moisture meter testing. This is costing us a considerable amount of time and money on a small farm when the all the while we are competing with imports that only have to meet U.K. minimum legal standards. We aren’t really getting a premium for the cost involved, a cost which now cannot be avoided due to RT persuading U.K. buyers to insist on this higher than minimum standard from U.K. producers, while those same buyers accept minimum legal standard products from abroad. It’s inconsistent and it’s unfair.
The scheme should be reduced to U.K. minimum legal standard while we are competing with that standard of import for no discernible premium.
As to inspections, membership fee etc, well is does provide some value being a third party assessor. Really though we pay taxes to government agencies to do that job already.
So I’d say no premium, no scheme.

 

[Breakthru]

You only have to declare 66% of any product to declare it UK be it food (3 lamb chops ??? 2 UK 1 NZ) to be classed as UK.
Early in this string @runny egg disputed quite strongly to me that @Clive and @White rabbit had achieved nothing. Does he still agree with that comment.
Well done to you both, bonfire of quangos, red tape and jobsworths underway.

 

[DrWazzock]

Let’s just have a register of producers who have signed a checklist of all the minimum U.K. legal requirements for the sector they operate in. A signed self certificate of conformity for the premises/operation under their control.
I will have sprayer tested every three years, I will make sure the operators have PA1 and 2, and meet all other applicable U.K. legal standards of production and I’ll sign a certificate of conformity to say I’m doing that. The registration number of that certificate can apply to all produce leaving my farm.
RT lite if you like. I’d be wanting a quality manual as well so I have a comprehensive list of U.K. minimum standards.
Cut out the gold plating unless you can guarantee a premium or gain us preferential treatment over foreign imports. Until you can do that I really don’t see why I should be paying to test my sprayer every year or funding NRoSO, as worthy as they might be. I run a business.

 

[manhill]

Shouldn't every RT member be entitled to an explanation of every standard, reason for its inclusion, it's risk assessment, constant review result, cost to the business in terms of materials, labour etc.? This is apart from legal standards copied and pasted from gov. Web sites. These should be communicated to all farm businesses by the Gov. anyway.
Make RT work for their money, what say youse??

 

[Farmer1001]

You only have to declare 66% of any product to declare it UK be it food (3 lamb chops ??? 2 UK 1 NZ) to be classed as UK.
Early in this string @runny egg disputed quite strongly to me that @Clive and @White rabbit had achieved nothing. Does he still agree with that comment.
Well done to you both, bonfire of quangos, red tape and jobsworths underway.

They have achieved a debate that was actually triggered by RT consultation - not by Clive forcing it. If this results in a “bonfire of quangos, red tape and jobsworths” then I’ll be surprised, but if that’s what you want then you can do it today for yourself. I did but I suspect few others will when it comes to the crunch

 

[Grass And Grain]

Drwazzock and clive have got the RT situation summed up perfectly.

 

[DrWazzock]

They have achieved a debate that was actually triggered by RT consultation - not by Clive forcing it. If this results in a “bonfire of quangos, red tape and jobsworths” then I’ll be surprised, but if that’s what you want then you can do it today for yourself. I did but I suspect few others will when it comes to the crunch

How many times does it need saying that for grain we can’t sell non assured. I have asked my merchant. They insist on RT even for exports largely and maybe because there is no alternative scheme. But maybe, just maybe if we can offer an alternative U.K. minimum standards scheme to them then we might reduce our costs while still offering some basic level of assurance. They are buying imported grain from abroad which supposedly meets U.K. min legal requirements so why not from home producers?

 

[Farmer1001]

How many times does it need saying that for grain we can’t sell non assured. I have asked my merchant. They insist on RT even for exports largely and maybe because there is no alternative scheme. But maybe, just maybe if we can offer an alternative U.K. minimum standards scheme to them then we might reduce our costs while still offering some basic level of assurance. They are buying imported grain from abroad which supposedly meets U.K. min legal requirements so why not from home producers?

So quitting RT is not an option for you so whats the point of all these posters saying RT will only listen when we quit, because if Brit cereal farmers are truly screwed and cant get out then its starting to smack of "they need us more than we need them" and look where that ended. The issue with the poll is it actually doesn't carry any weight in terms of threats and nor does it reflect what producers are likely to do, it asks "if an alternative was available thats better, would you quit RT" and people have said unsurprisingly said yes. If you apply that principle to any proposal then the answer will be the same - yes. But if you don't have that other option people will stay where they are. I'll post a better explanation of my concerns/questions/observations later having been a member and then quit as a member.

 

[Farmer1001]

Drwazzock and clive have got the RT situation summed up perfectly.

We can all sum up RT and probably even agree with that summary, the problem is summing up a solution, not just an "idea of a solution" but an actual crafted solution complete with what it involves inc the costs, the problems and the benefits.

 

[Clive]

They have achieved a debate that was actually triggered by RT consultation - not by Clive forcing it. If this results in a “bonfire of quangos, red tape and jobsworths” then I’ll be surprised, but if that’s what you want then you can do it today for yourself. I did but I suspect few others will when it comes to the crunch

if you look back on this forum I think various TFF users have been pushing for his debate for a long time ............

every single member who votes or contributes is pushing towards that

 

[Clive]

This thread has received over 19,000 views in 4 days

It is just one of 26 Red tractor threads running on TFF


Anyone suggesting that's of no relevance and should not be seriously considered by RT really does have their head in the sand.................. or trough !


if they get 10% of that many response to their survey I would be astounded, reality will be more like 1% I suspcet

 

[Farmer1001]

if you look back on this forum I think various TFF users have been pushing for his debate for a long time ............

every single member who votes or contributes is pushing towards that

So despite members pushing for the debate on TFF, it didnt happen until the consultation was announced!

This thread has received over 19,000 views in 4 days

It is just one of 26 Red tractor threads running on TFF


Anyone suggesting that's of no relevance and should not be seriously considered by RT really does have their head in the sand.................. or trough !


if they get 10% of that many response to their survey I would be astounded, reality will be more like 1% I suspcet

How many actual individual "visitors" have viewed the thread Clive? I fear I've looked at it 18,000 times myself!

 

[Drillman]

So despite members pushing for the debate on TFF, it didnt happen until the consultation was announced!

I’m sure if you bothered to look you would find there has been many RT debates on TFF over the years!

Theres a search facility that’s quite easy to use if you don’t believe me!

 

[Chris F]

I’m sure if you bothered to look you would find there has been many RT debates on TFF over the years!

Theres a search facility that’s quite easy to use if you don’t believe me!

A lot of people shorted in to RT - so harder to search for. But yes it's talked about a lot. The first thread I saw the consultation talked about was early/mid December.

 

[Grass And Grain]

I wonder if RT will publish the results of the farmer consultation? Or keep it hush hush for the board room only.

If you're from RT and reading this, we want all the survey comments publishing. Or are you going to hide behind GDPR or something?

 

[Wooly]

How many times does it need saying that for grain we can’t sell non assured. I have asked my merchant. They insist on RT even for exports largely and maybe because there is no alternative scheme.

I think the first grain merchant that decides to take only non FA grain only, will be in for a bumper intake.

If they decide to pay a £ a tonne less then they would make more profit and the farmer will easily save the £ a tonne in pointless paperwork and unseen costs........................ so winner, winner for all.

Just need to persuade that merchant now.

 

[tullah]

I think the first grain merchant that decides to take only non FA grain only, will be in for a bumper intake.

If they decide to pay a £ a tonne less then they would make more profit and the farmer will easily save the £ a tonne in pointless paperwork and unseen costs........................ so winner, winner for all.

Just need to persuade that merchant now.

They'd have all my business.

 

[DrWazzock]

I think the first grain merchant that decides to take only non FA grain only, will be in for a bumper intake.

If they decide to pay a £ a tonne less then they would make more profit and the farmer will easily save the £ a tonne in pointless paperwork and unseen costs........................ so winner, winner for all.

Just need to persuade that merchant now.

We will still need a scheme. A basic U.K. legal minimum scheme where we each sign and register a certificate of conformity stating that our produce complies with minimum U.K. legal standards. We each have a number that goes with our produce. So we still have traceability accountability and all those good things. What we won’t have is the RT gold plating that adds to our costs. We will have a manual of U.K. legal standards to follow. We will have a few roving random inspectors even. But we won’t have the annual sprayer test, need to gather NRoSO points or have a test certificate for the moisture meter, just for starters. None of these are legal requirements. They are gold plating.
So, you say, what if merchants continue to refuse to buy anything other than RT produce? Well, once a critical mass of producers have joined the basic scheme, they all leave RT en masse and the buyers then won’t have much choice but to buy basic standard produce. That’s what they are importing anyway. If they want RT produce they will have to pay a premium to cover the gold plating costs it entails.
A fairer more honest system all round but only achievable by producer solidarity.