The Red Tractor ACCS referendum

[nick...]

I’ll chip in £100
nick...

 

[Feldspar]

I think some of the posters labelling a scheme that meets import standards as a “lowering of standards” need to look at it in another way, it’s not a lowering of standards, you wouldn’t be able to go out and...
Use illegal pesticides, that’s covered in law
Disregard RB209 and NVZ’s, that’s covered in legislation
Go out and kill raptors, that’s covered in law
Buy a tractor without any emission control, that’s covered in law
Spray stored grain with any insecticide you like, that’s covered by law

What you would get is a reduction in time wasting, pointless jumping through hoops to make the records look right and a reduction in the power of an organisation we fund to beat us up and that ultimately our buyers don’t place any value on, what standards did all the Ukrainian maize and wheat that merchants imported a couple of years ago that held our domestic prices down for months have on it ??

Most of those breads probably have Soya added, so it would be impossible to be RT. Which is probably a scandal in itself!

Its interesting the number of products claiming to use 100% British wheat etc. that don't use the RT, a prime example:

View attachment 933181View attachment 933182

One thing the buying public do care about is country of origin, a, because people like to buy British and support the economy, and b, there is a general consensus that we do things properly here and UK farming is done to a high standard when compared to most of the rest of the world.

So what do our loyal supermarkets do? Put union jacks on imported produce and invent cosy sounding farms as brand names even though some of what is sold under these logos is also imported, taking advantage of the goodwill and trust of the buying public

They buy on price, we produce on quality.

I've been doing some homework for my chat with the journalist (still working on it tonight).

The Republic of Ireland Borda Bia beef and lamb assurance scheme is called Sustainable Beef And Lamb Scheme. SBLAS is free to the farmer AND the processor pays an itemised extra €0.20/kg deadweight on the beef because it's FA. On a 350kg carcass that's €70.

In GB, RT have negotiated ZERO price uplift for us, AND charge us for inspection/ membership.

SBLAS cattle have to be on a FA farm for 70 days to magically get FA status. RT is 90 days.

SBLAS has 9 critical failure standards. Haven't added up how many RT Beef and Lamb critical failure standards there are - that's my next job. Suspect it will be more.

Supermarkets have been importing NZ lamb for years whilst RT have being telling us how the supermarket demands assured meat. New Zealand only started a Farm Assurance programme in June 2017, and currently only about 50% of farmers are members. So the supermarkets can't have been all that bothered about FA can they? In NZ, no requirement for their compound feed to be from an assured cereal producer.

So UK farmers are working to more onerous FA standards than imported meats which share the shelf space in the very same UK supermarkets.

So why, oh why, does the NFU and RT want to gold plate our FA standards even more. Are they trying to put us out of business.?

Clearly imported standards are quite acceptable for our supermarkets.

I've followed this thread with interest, and following the challenge set by one us to read and do the consultation before I moaned, I did just that, I sat and read it and gave my "feedback". It was pretty negative, but it was also quite clear to me that they didn't really want it, it wasn't what they wanted to hear. Genuinely I think that the only feedback that want to hear is from a retailer or processor saying "well done, keep those standards rising, cos we don't have to pay for them!"

For the third week in a row I have done or weekly shop. Taking inspiration from @Clive and his cupboard raiding I have been looking out for the RT logo. Well this week I went actively looking for it, the results were depressing but also made me quite angry.
I focused on whole or single ingredient type items, not processed things made up of several ingredients like bread. The items listed below all had a little bit of Union Jack flag on them and wording to say that they were wholly British in origin, most also had the suppliers name and County on them (Real traceability in my book) but not one had a RT logo or any mention of it.
This is a list of what I found did NOT have the RT logo.
Eggs
Milk
Potato's
Carrots
The rest of the veg section
Apples
Chicken
Pork Sausages
Beef
Lamb
Own brand Scottish Porridge Oats

As an Oat grower suppling Crewe I even managed to find some Porridge Oats in the Morning Foods branded packing and they also made no mention of RT.

Actually I couldn't find a single RT logo or any mention of Farm Assurance in the entire shop and I was actively looking for it.

The result of all this packet inspecting has made me ask two questions.

1. Why was the RT logo not on any of those things?

I was in Sainsburys, so do they have some sort of problem with RT and are not allowed to use it? Its no good asking any of the shop floor staff as they simply haven't got a clue. So if you have got to get in touch with some sort of specialist then clearly the message of what RT and its quality assurance is all about hasn't got out, despite RT having 20 years to get their house in order.

2 What is the point of RT then?

In the latest self congratulating and quite frankly laughable mail shot, RT wax's lyrical how trusted and recognisable etc etc it is to our ever discerning consumers. And yet in a random visit to a supermarket of the big 3 I couldn't find a single image of the RT logo in the whole shop. However I could find hundreds of customers happily buying all that clearly poor quality, substandard non assured produce!

Truly what is the f#####g point of all this charade?

At one point I thought it might help our exports, you know, buying a quality recognisable brand and all that jazz, but as we all know, it means d##k all when the ship turn up at its destination and the intake sample says its too wet. Don't forget even a quality branded car for example gets a PDI.


Any way, rant over, time for a shower!

Strikes me nobody has decided what they want or value.

Mills don’t value standards clearly because they will happily import lower than UK standard product.

RT/NFU decide on behalf of UK farmers, mills etc that these standards (and even those set in UK law!) aren’t high enough for UK farm produce (despite being ok for everyone else) and so our farmers must be put to a competitive disadvantage. Mills and merchants are happy to oblige because they gain reduced risk, at no direct cost to them. Even with that thrown in the deal free of charge they still keep buying “lower standard” imported produce!

Talk about tying our own farmers up in knots of red tape! It’s the British disease!

One would think the “Groceries Code Adjudicator” would have a field day if it had real teeth and this was part of their remit.

These were my thoughts when I read his reply. I wouldn't say it is "untrue", but just didn't quite reflect the reality as it is on the ground.

If these end users REALLY valued assurance, they would demand it for all their produce.
If they thought it added value to their brand, they would demand it for all their produce.

NFU would like these end users to adopt assurance for all their produce. Clearly this isn't going to happen. We cannot change others, we can only change ourselves.

The net result is that if we can only change ourselves, why are we (via NFU/RT) offering to serve up UK gold plated wheat FOC when the end user is happy to buy any old standard.

Is RT/NFU scared that if they say boo to the goose, the mills will just use 100% exported produce....? I cannot see any other reason to propose things otherwise. The Voluntary Initiative is a perfect example of this "if we don't do anything, xyz will happen" type action, and Red Tractor feels almost exactly like this. I can see why @Clive likens it to the mafia and other such threats.

Who is controlling who???!

It looks to me like RT are looking to place the blame for increased regs at the door of the mills etc. (because they demand RT) as someone to hide behind. It just becomes a merry-go-round.

There is no clarity and transparency at all imo.



It's sad that we don't have a UK producer organisation with voting shareholder members. If there was an annual AGM each year that members could attend, that would speak volumes.

Even YFC manage this at all levels, with various motions voted on e.g. National Levy.

No, what @Clive has said is right, you say they want assured (why wouldnt they as it's free) but again are happy to use unassured imports mixed with assured, hardly a level playing field is it.
You seem to gloss over this fact numerous times, just by coming out with the RT line you have.
It's not fit for purpose

You are missing the point Guy , they ask for it because they get it for free.
As an industry we must stop giving away things for nothing if we are to survive in an unsubsidised world.
We aren't able to pass on additional costs on an invoice like other sectors so stop placing more demands on our time and pocket.

Red tractor keeps demanding more for nothing with every review, the NFU has a place on Red tractor board and as representative for this industry should be making sure the rules are reasonable and not unnecessarily complicated or expensive.
But it is not.
This is the farmer's grievance, why should red tractor demand more than is required by statute? and why is the NFU going along with it?

Paying my tax yesterday got me thinking....

My accountant works out how much I pay. I sign the form. Pay the tax. Many people just fill the form in themselves.

It’s a very trusting process, because HMRC doesn’t have the resources to check EVERY persons records. But if something isn’t right then an inspection may follow. This is a system that deals with many thousands of pounds worth of payments for individuals.

Same is true for HSE, EA, etc. They can go and do inspections themselves is something isn’t right.

In the grand scheme of things, with or without RT farmers are pretty low risk for a lot of things. Sadly though, that is what RT has now morphed into....a scheme that helps the government check up on farmers, and by definition suggests that farmers need checking up on. No trust. No reputation. Not “Our farmers produce the best food in the world and we are proud of them” but instead “Mr Government we’ll help you check up on those pesky farmers”. From our own farming Union no less.

Before Any more standard are added to RT I firmly believe that the NFU should get their house in order based on their “Produced to our standards” imports stance. If the government won’t listen (which they won’t but it gives NFU/RT another body but them to blame) then the default should be UK produce should meet imported standards.

Farmers just want a level playing field. We will produce to whatever standard required provided the rules are the same for all.

I've just read the entire thread from beginning to end, and the above is just my bookmarks of some of the posts that seemed to get to the essence of the issue. Already most of the good points have been made. I think there is a real problem here, and I didn't expect to feel quite so strongly about it either.

Here are a few thoughts in no particular order:

- The point was made by @Steevo about mills wanting RT and mills valuing it. To differentiate between what they want and what they value, it would be interesting to see what would happen if RT said, "OK, you say this is what you want, will you pay £5/t over imported grains for stuff produced to RT standards?" If they won't, then it shows they might want RT but don't value it. But this can never happen because of the board composition – it would be turkeys voting for Christmas.

- It would be really useful to get to the bottom of exactly what standards imported grains are required to meet. @Grass And Grain has obviously been looking at this, but a full understanding of this seems important.

- We should at least be demanding no additional rules until RT demonstrates the uplift in value to our produce from the additions. I would like to see an independent review of the difference between RT and imported standards and the premium that the former attracts.

- The NFU should be taken to task for hypocrisy here. They have been championing the cause of unequal standards between imports and home-grown production, and yet they do appear to be supporting an entity which is widening the divide here. It's laudable to try and ask for imported standards to be improved, but already this isn't happening, and I am not optimistic that the big producers like Russia / Canada & the US are going to change what they're doing just to suit us.

- I can't see how change will come from within from RT. The composition of the board will not allow farmers to escape this ever tightening grip. Farming often feels like a continued sequence of failures to solve coordination problems, which results in our tiny capture of the value chain in food production (for comparison I can sell my electricity from my wind turbine for about 2/3 market price). Recent events on financial markets have been very interesting to watch. (https://yudkowsky.medium.com/r-wall...-and-the-medias-not-reporting-it-7ab507e4a038) If there really is such strong feeling against RT, we need to find a way to effectively coordinate.

- This dissatisfaction will only grow as we are exposed to the harsh winds of unsubsidised international competition. This situation was not really defensible with BPS, but without it we cannot afford to have any additional costs that do not give us additional value, although I think thought needs to be given to the inevitable criticism that will come with pushing to reduce standards. @T Hectares post did a good job of explaining a response to this: this is not actually calling for a lowering of standards.

- The RT leadership is delusional about the value of their brand and how it "helps" farmers. They really do seem to have their heads in the clouds.

- I'd want to look at it a bit more, but if there looks like being some obvious grounds, I'd be willing to contribute to an assessment of the situation by a suitably qualified expert.

- Fully agree with @Steevo's point about paying tax. This additional policing in areas that do not relate to food safety & traceability is unwarranted – mission creep is a good phrase here.

- It feels wrong to have all these different interest groups lumped together in one board. This can be seen by recognising that it would be impossible to get a proposal such as the one in my first point through even if it would be in the best interest of farmers.

 

[steveR]

45 minutes after your post, am I the only person to say I will put my hand in my pocket? I guess several will have posted private messages of support but we arent exactly putting forward a united front?

Not in RT, but there's a few bob waiting here for any funding drive to investigate and challenge the present status quo at RT/AIS etc

 

[steveR]

it could work, MB was all for WLA back a few years ago but that didn't happen
well not yet anyway

Matter of time I fear....

 

[steveR]

I feel that seeing progress on this issue could be a catalyst for change elsewhere in agriculture. If a group of farmers can work together on one issue it will show it can be done and it may snowball into other areas.

I'm no longer a "real" farmer in my eyes, red tractor makes no difference to me anymore.

But if we all looked at the bigger picture and got behind this for starters, it could be that the next issue will be one that does make a difference to me or someone else who is currently not affected by RT.

Well put.

 

[Feldspar]

Also, I might have missed it somewhere in this thread, but what does the 250k from the AHDB to RT actually do?

 

[steveR]

Also, I might have missed it somewhere in this thread, but what does the 250k from the AHDB to RT actually do?

Wages......?

 

[Drillman]

another step is for every levy payer to write to the AHDB asking them to explain and justify the £250,000 annual payment made to Red Tractor, it doesn’t fit the remit of the AHDB so ask them to explain that

i have it on VERY good authority the AHDB are looking for a reason to stop this payment so lets ALL give them one

neither Nicholas Saphir or Paul Temple are fans of Red Tractor .................

I’m not very good at writing letters, but if I were given a suitable template I would put my signature to it.

And ive had a rake about down the back of the sofa, so if a donation is required I can chip in.

 

[Grass And Grain]

I've just read the entire thread from beginning to end, and the above is just my bookmarks of some of the posts that seemed to get to the essence of the issue. Already most of the good points have been made. I think there is a real problem here, and I didn't expect to feel quite so strongly about it either.

Here are a few thoughts in no particular order:

- The point was made by @Steevo about mills wanting RT and mills valuing it. To differentiate between what they want and what they value, it would be interesting to see what would happen if RT said, "OK, you say this is what you want, will you pay £5/t over imported grains for stuff produced to RT standards?" If they won't, then it shows they might want RT but don't value it. But this can never happen because of the board composition – it would be turkeys voting for Christmas.

- It would be really useful to get to the bottom of exactly what standards imported grains are required to meet. @Grass And Grain has obviously been looking at this, but a full understanding of this seems important.

- We should at least be demanding no additional rules until RT demonstrates the uplift in value to our produce from the additions. I would like to see an independent review of the difference between RT and imported standards and the premium that the former attracts.

- The NFU should be taken to task for hypocrisy here. They have been championing the cause of unequal standards between imports and home-grown production, and yet they do appear to be supporting an entity which is widening the divide here. It's laudable to try and ask for imported standards to be improved, but already this isn't happening, and I am not optimistic that the big producers like Russia / Canada & the US are going to change what they're doing just to suit us.

- I can't see how change will come from within from RT. The composition of the board will not allow farmers to escape this ever tightening grip. Farming often feels like a continued sequence of failures to solve coordination problems, which results in our tiny capture of the value chain in food production (for comparison I can sell my electricity from my wind turbine for about 2/3 market price). Recent events on financial markets have been very interesting to watch. (https://yudkowsky.medium.com/r-wall...-and-the-medias-not-reporting-it-7ab507e4a038) If there really is such strong feeling against RT, we need to find a way to effectively coordinate.

- This dissatisfaction will only grow as we are exposed to the harsh winds of unsubsidised international competition. This situation was not really defensible with BPS, but without it we cannot afford to have any additional costs that do not give us additional value, although I think thought needs to be given to the inevitable criticism that will come with pushing to reduce standards. @T Hectares post did a good job of explaining a response to this: this is not actually calling for a lowering of standards.

- The RT leadership is delusional about the value of their brand and how it "helps" farmers. They really do seem to have their heads in the clouds.

- I'd want to look at it a bit more, but if there looks like being some obvious grounds, I'd be willing to contribute to an assessment of the situation by a suitably qualified expert.

- Fully agree with @Steevo's point about paying tax. This additional policing in areas that do not relate to food safety & traceability is unwarranted – mission creep is a good phrase here.

- It feels wrong to have all these different interest groups lumped together in one board. This can be seen by recognising that it would be impossible to get a proposal such as the one in my first point through even if it would be in the best interest of farmers.

Good post @Feldspar very well thought out and raised some good thoughts.

It's good to hear new and additional thoughts to the debate, in order to decide the best way forward.

We have a clear distinction made by AIC in the way they expect different contract terms for UK producers (vs rest of the world), and these different requirements seem to be based solely on the nationality of the supplying farmer. This seems a very strange requirement.

If anyone thinks I'm talking nonsense or I'm completely bonkers, just say

 

[Feldspar]

Good post @Feldspar very well thought out and raised some good thoughts.

It's good to hear new and additional thoughts to the debate, in order to decide the best way forward.

We have a clear distinction made by AIC in the way they expect different contract terms for UK producers (vs rest of the world), and these different requirements seem to be based solely on the nationality of the supplying farmer. This seems a very strange requirement.

If anyone thinks I'm talking nonsense or I'm completely bonkers, just say

You've done a good job of making the argument and doing some digging. I had a try to get into the detail of the other assurance standards this morning from your screengrab, but ended up down a bit of a dead end. Have you made any more progress?

 

[Grass And Grain]

@Feldspar I'll get back to you in half an hour and explain where the AIC document comes from, and how it links in with all the assurance schemes.

 

[legin]

Trouble with farming is we are treated as cash cows, RT, NFU, AHDB and so on. Worst part is we’ve let it happen to a certain point. Hopefully the tide is turning.

 

[An Gof]

Trouble with farming is we are treated as cash cows, RT, NFU, AHDB and so on. Worst part is we’ve let it happen to a certain point. Hopefully the tide is turning.

Well they are all in for a shock. Government has decreed that, starting this year, the “cash cows” are going on a strict, enforced, diet.

 

[SilliamWhale]

I've just read the entire thread from beginning to end, and the above is just my bookmarks of some of the posts that seemed to get to the essence of the issue. Already most of the good points have been made. I think there is a real problem here, and I didn't expect to feel quite so strongly about it either.

Here are a few thoughts in no particular order:

- The point was made by @Steevo about mills wanting RT and mills valuing it. To differentiate between what they want and what they value, it would be interesting to see what would happen if RT said, "OK, you say this is what you want, will you pay £5/t over imported grains for stuff produced to RT standards?" If they won't, then it shows they might want RT but don't value it. But this can never happen because of the board composition – it would be turkeys voting for Christmas.

- It would be really useful to get to the bottom of exactly what standards imported grains are required to meet. @Grass And Grain has obviously been looking at this, but a full understanding of this seems important.

- We should at least be demanding no additional rules until RT demonstrates the uplift in value to our produce from the additions. I would like to see an independent review of the difference between RT and imported standards and the premium that the former attracts.

- The NFU should be taken to task for hypocrisy here. They have been championing the cause of unequal standards between imports and home-grown production, and yet they do appear to be supporting an entity which is widening the divide here. It's laudable to try and ask for imported standards to be improved, but already this isn't happening, and I am not optimistic that the big producers like Russia / Canada & the US are going to change what they're doing just to suit us.

- I can't see how change will come from within from RT. The composition of the board will not allow farmers to escape this ever tightening grip. Farming often feels like a continued sequence of failures to solve coordination problems, which results in our tiny capture of the value chain in food production (for comparison I can sell my electricity from my wind turbine for about 2/3 market price). Recent events on financial markets have been very interesting to watch. (https://yudkowsky.medium.com/r-wall...-and-the-medias-not-reporting-it-7ab507e4a038) If there really is such strong feeling against RT, we need to find a way to effectively coordinate.

- This dissatisfaction will only grow as we are exposed to the harsh winds of unsubsidised international competition. This situation was not really defensible with BPS, but without it we cannot afford to have any additional costs that do not give us additional value, although I think thought needs to be given to the inevitable criticism that will come with pushing to reduce standards. @T Hectares post did a good job of explaining a response to this: this is not actually calling for a lowering of standards.

- The RT leadership is delusional about the value of their brand and how it "helps" farmers. They really do seem to have their heads in the clouds.

- I'd want to look at it a bit more, but if there looks like being some obvious grounds, I'd be willing to contribute to an assessment of the situation by a suitably qualified expert.

- Fully agree with @Steevo's point about paying tax. This additional policing in areas that do not relate to food safety & traceability is unwarranted – mission creep is a good phrase here.

- It feels wrong to have all these different interest groups lumped together in one board. This can be seen by recognising that it would be impossible to get a proposal such as the one in my first point through even if it would be in the best interest of farmers.

We'll put you down for £1000 then is it?

 

[Grass And Grain]

@Feldspar

https://www.agindustries.org.uk/resource/ufas-2020-version-2--april-2021.html

So, the above document is the AIC UFAS standards. This is the assurance standard the feed mills have to comply with. So this is just for grain supply to feed mills, but presumably there is another scheme/standards for the flour mills and oilseed crushers - not sure what that one is called. No doubt the same rules will apply

Look at page 21, section 3.1. It basically says that all the combinables and suppliers must be assured. But the devil is in the detail.

Now, at the end of clause 3.1 there's a link to the current list of recognised assurance schemes. This is the link...

Feed / Food Supplier schemes recognised by AIC

Feed / Food1 Supplier schemes recognised by AIC - Issue 12

www.agindustries.org.uk

It's the table on page 3 of that document where they differentiate between the standards required for grain from UK farmers vs rest of world farmers.

Here's the screenshot of page 3 that I posted earlier in the thread.

UK farmer has to be assured at the farm level. Rest of world grain only needs to be assured from point of first collection. i.e. it magically gets a sticker when loaded onto a lorry or a boat.

I think we've got something here that we xan challenge.

 

[principal skinner]

The plot thickens......

Donation here ready and waiting.

 

[Feldspar]

We'll put you down for £1000 then is it?

I'd pay more than that if I thought there was something worth going after using the right person. I think getting a very clear understanding of the difference between imported standards and RT is a key first step.

@Feldspar

https://www.agindustries.org.uk/resource/ufas-2020-version-2--april-2021.html

So, the above document is the AIC UFAS standards. This is the assurance standard the feed mills have to comply with. So this is just for grain supply to feed mills, but presumably there is another scheme/standards for the flour mills and oilseed crushers - not sure what that one is called. No doubt the same rules will apply

Look at page 21, section 3.1. It basically says that all the combinables and suppliers must be assured. But the devil is in the detail.

Now, at the end of clause 3.1 there's a link to the current list of recognised assurance schemes. This is the link...

Feed / Food Supplier schemes recognised by AIC

Feed / Food1 Supplier schemes recognised by AIC - Issue 12

www.agindustries.org.uk

It's the table on page 3 of that document where they differentiate between the standards required for grain from UK farmers vs rest of world farmers.

Here's the screenshot of page 3 that I posted earlier in the thread.

View attachment 937738

UK farmer has to be assured at the farm level. Rest of world grain only needs to be assured from point of first collection. i.e. it magically gets a sticker when loaded onto a lorry or a boat.

I think we've got something here that we xan challenge.

Yup, that was the bit of yours I read earlier. I tried searching for things like "EFISC-GTP" earlier but didn't turn up the equivalent of RT standards. I'm part way through reading this linked to GMP+ B3 which looks a little more like some elements of RT: https://gmpplus.org/media/obnbnx05/gmp-b3-en-20160401.pdf.

 

[Clive]

I've just read the entire thread from beginning to end, and the above is just my bookmarks of some of the posts that seemed to get to the essence of the issue. Already most of the good points have been made. I think there is a real problem here, and I didn't expect to feel quite so strongly about it either.

Here are a few thoughts in no particular order:

- The point was made by @Steevo about mills wanting RT and mills valuing it. To differentiate between what they want and what they value, it would be interesting to see what would happen if RT said, "OK, you say this is what you want, will you pay £5/t over imported grains for stuff produced to RT standards?" If they won't, then it shows they might want RT but don't value it. But this can never happen because of the board composition – it would be turkeys voting for Christmas.

- It would be really useful to get to the bottom of exactly what standards imported grains are required to meet. @Grass And Grain has obviously been looking at this, but a full understanding of this seems important.

- We should at least be demanding no additional rules until RT demonstrates the uplift in value to our produce from the additions. I would like to see an independent review of the difference between RT and imported standards and the premium that the former attracts.

- The NFU should be taken to task for hypocrisy here. They have been championing the cause of unequal standards between imports and home-grown production, and yet they do appear to be supporting an entity which is widening the divide here. It's laudable to try and ask for imported standards to be improved, but already this isn't happening, and I am not optimistic that the big producers like Russia / Canada & the US are going to change what they're doing just to suit us.

- I can't see how change will come from within from RT. The composition of the board will not allow farmers to escape this ever tightening grip. Farming often feels like a continued sequence of failures to solve coordination problems, which results in our tiny capture of the value chain in food production (for comparison I can sell my electricity from my wind turbine for about 2/3 market price). Recent events on financial markets have been very interesting to watch. (https://yudkowsky.medium.com/r-wall...-and-the-medias-not-reporting-it-7ab507e4a038) If there really is such strong feeling against RT, we need to find a way to effectively coordinate.

- This dissatisfaction will only grow as we are exposed to the harsh winds of unsubsidised international competition. This situation was not really defensible with BPS, but without it we cannot afford to have any additional costs that do not give us additional value, although I think thought needs to be given to the inevitable criticism that will come with pushing to reduce standards. @T Hectares post did a good job of explaining a response to this: this is not actually calling for a lowering of standards.

- The RT leadership is delusional about the value of their brand and how it "helps" farmers. They really do seem to have their heads in the clouds.

- I'd want to look at it a bit more, but if there looks like being some obvious grounds, I'd be willing to contribute to an assessment of the situation by a suitably qualified expert.

- Fully agree with @Steevo's point about paying tax. This additional policing in areas that do not relate to food safety & traceability is unwarranted – mission creep is a good phrase here.

- It feels wrong to have all these different interest groups lumped together in one board. This can be seen by recognising that it would be impossible to get a proposal such as the one in my first point through even if it would be in the best interest of farmers.

good summary

your point about the “short squeeze” is a veey good one and @Guy Smith may want to reconsider who exctly “those in positions of influence “ are these days

 

[Drillman]

Careful what you say chaps, RT are reading this....

don’t want you giving them ideas!

 

[Feldspar]

Been doing a bit more reading on this. I think we would be foolish to assume that all our imports are produced to lower standards. This really does need checking in detail before the rest of the arguments work.

Just been reading the attached.