The Red Tractor ACCS referendum

[Clive]

I do have enough brains to realise that if you come onto a chat room and mention that chat rooms are chat rooms and they don’t achieve much, then you are not going to make yourself flavour of the month with people in the chat room let alone the owner of the chat room. So to make myself even more unpopular I’d make a few points

1. One complaint I often hear on here is that RT bods or NFU bods don’t come on here. The fact is no ‘bods’ from any organisations come on here to post in their capacity of the office they hold. As one of the bods who used to be a NFU bod and I’m now a RT bod, I can understand why.

2. TFFers and the owner of TFF have been banging on as to how terrible Red Tractor or the NFU is for a number of years now. And yet at the same time admit they think things gets worse.

3. I’m a believer that you can get more done in the tent than outside the tent. I’ve only been in this tent 30 days.

No doubt this post will cause even more bile to be poured down on me but I’ve got quite thick skin and don’t cry myself to sleep at night because someone said something nasty about me on TFF. But I like to think my record shows I do listen to farmers. I actually think some of the points on here are well made and well researched. I’ve been looking at some of the stuff on import standards for sometime now and I continue to do so because it’s quite complex.

I would urge anyone to respond to the current consultation. For what it’s worth my advice is to keep your arguments reasoned and factually correct, don’t get personal and keep your language moderate - that way they are more likely to be listened to.

Thanks

Guy

1/ factually incorrect - unless you think DEFRA, AHDB and many other don't count as relevant agricultural organisations.......... yet again you demonstrate ignorance on this. You are in for a massive shock when the penny finally drops and you remove your blinkers

2/ yes i have felt RT has been out of control for a long time, it was why i resigned NFU membership 6 years ago - nothing new, just maybe a LOT more farmers now see what i could some time ago

 

[ajd132]

I just read this passage in a book about long term exceptionally successful businesses. In this case it’s an American insurance company that just got faced with a 20% decrease in price reductions and refunds to customers after the people of California voted for something called proposition 103. This is how the ceo of one of the insurance companies reacted to this happening.

 

[Clive]

I’ve said from the start that I’m concerned about the routine co mixing of RT assured cereals with non RT assured cereals particularly where this precludes the use of the RT logo on consumer facing products. I’m currently doing some work to better understand this issue.

As I’ve also said I can’t be bothered to reply to personal accusations I’m in some way dishonest or corrupt.

“concerned”. about something that can not be changed ? RT ate in no position to tell bakers what they can do ........ they don’t even want to use your logo !

how about instead of trying to change the impossible you do what farmers are ACTUALLY asking for and rebuild ACCS to be the SAME standard as import assurance at lowest possible cost ?

 

[Clive]

I just read this passage in a book about long term exceptionally successful businesses. In this case it’s an American insurance company that just got faced with a 20% decrease in price reductions and refunds to customers after the people of California voted for something called proposition 103. This is how the ceo of one of the insurance companies reacted to this happening.

how must it feel to be part of a company hated by its customers?

@Guy Smith has my sympathy in that respect, it can not feel at all nice

 

[ajd132]

how must it feel to be part of a company hated by its customers?

@Guy Smith has my sympathy in that respect, it can not feel at all nice

It just resonated when I read it. But it’s a positive thing IF the company that is disliked faces that fact and sorts it out.

 

[Feldspar]

I just read this passage in a book about long term exceptionally successful businesses. In this case it’s an American insurance company that just got faced with a 20% decrease in price reductions and refunds to customers after the people of California voted for something called proposition 103. This is how the ceo of one of the insurance companies reacted to this happening.

I think this is an interesting passage. It does seem, for whatever reasons, the modus operandi of RT makes too many people hate being a part of it. Not all farmers, and many will have lesser emotions, but I have heard of farmers recently being inspected who I consider to be good farmers, but who have had absolute shockers for their inspections. I think it leaves good and well intentioned farmers feeling like criminals, and it forces them to lie in order to get through the hoops.

I still have a lot to read on other countries' Quality Assurance Standards and the bodies that administer them, but a few points I have noticed so far are that some bodies do not require 100% of the requirements to be met. In other schemes there seems to be inspections every few years. In yet other schemes there are different tiers of assurance / traceability. I think there might be some mileage in this. Maybe RT ought to introduce a lower and higher tier with the higher tier being more like we have now, and the lower tier being set at the standards required for imports (if indeed these are lower). It would be very interesting to see the price premium that the higher tier gave relative to the lower tier.

 

[Feldspar]

Can someone also enlighten me about the history of the various assurance schemes that no longer exist? I remember we were part of Genesis back in the day. Was this taken over by RT? It seems that at least we should have more than one option of assurance scheme to pick. I think the lack of competition here is unhealthy.

 

[Clive]

I think this is an interesting passage. It does seem, for whatever reasons, the modus operandi of RT makes too many people hate being a part of it. Not all farmers, and many will have lesser emotions, but I have heard of farmers recently being inspected who I consider to be good farmers, but who have had absolute shockers for their inspections. I think it leaves good and well intentioned farmers feeling like criminals, and it forces them to lie in order to get through the hoops.

I still have a lot to read on other countries' Quality Assurance Standards and the bodies that administer them, but a few points I have noticed so far are that some bodies do not require 100% of the requirements to be met, which means if you have genuinely forgotten to record the odd small thing, then it doesn't result in a letter saying you will be suspended from the scheme. In other schemes there seems to be inspections every few years. In yet other schemes there are different tiers of assurance / traceability. I think there might be some mileage in this. Maybe RT ought to introduce a lower and higher tier with the higher tier being more like we have now, and the lower tier being set at the standards required for imports (if indeed these are lower). It would be very interesting to see the price premium that the higher tier gave relative to the lower tier.

i wonder for how many farmers that have left the industry in the last 20 years the kind of unnecessary red tape burden from the likes of Red Tractor was a contributing factor ?

noone becomes a farmer so they can fill in daft forms and be interrogated by people who know less about food production than they do !

 

[Feldspar]

i wonder for how many farmers that have left the industry in the last 20 years the kind of unnecessary red tape burden from the likes of Red Tractor was a contributing factor ?

noone becomes a farmer so they can fill in daft forms and be interrogated by people who know less about food production than they do !

I don't know. I also don't want to be overly dramatic and say that complying with Red Tractor makes farming impossible. I do say though, having read the latest suggested additions to the rules, that these new additions would place significant extra costs on my business to comply. We have taken hundreds and hundreds of hectares out of production over the last 3 years because of the margins we forecast (didn't quite forecast £200+/ t though). Reading the proposed changes to RT does not fill me with great enthusiasm to return that area to production. I'll keep land in stewardship and rent barns out with far less hassle than growing crops and for more money. That's where this heads, with the gradual or more sudden decline of UK agriculture.

Also, more specifically, I think what these changes will do, in a small way, and incrementally, is to slowly disadvantage the smaller business who face higher compliance costs relative to turnover. The same I think is partially true for the environmental schemes which again are cheaper and easier to navigate for larger farms. I think we'll see with the stiffer competition we're likely to face the increasing loss of small farms, and I think these RT changes will only hasten that trend.

 

[Clive]

I don't know. I also don't want to be overly dramatic and say that complying with Red Tractor makes farming impossible. I do say though, having read the latest suggested additions to the rules, that these new additions would place significant extra costs on my business to comply.

I think what these changes will do, in a small way, and incrementally, is to slowly disadvantage the smaller business who face's higher compliance costs relative to turnover. The same I think is partially true for the environmental schemes which again are cheaper and easier to navigate for larger farms. I think we'll see with the stiffer competition we're likely to face the increasing loss of small farms, and I think these RT changes will only hasten that trend.

passing RT is not hard - especially if you are happy to lie or be guided by the inspector with your answers ............. (elephant in the room right there @Guy Smith !)

but i’m sure its not the reason ANY farmer enjoys his job or wanted to farm in the first place. Being honest its the kind of stupidity that even makes me question my desire to farm

 

[Stephen E]

So let’s assume that the millers agree to stop comixing imported grains with RT grains and bag it separately with the RT logo on. Would we be paid a premium and would shoppers pay a premium for it?

 

[SilliamWhale]

I find the denigration of "just a chat room" a bit odd.

I think Guy is a little behind the curve there, as if meeting behind closed doors (stuffed with "experts"), with biscuits and nice a filly taking the minutes is somehow more superior to being able to ask the same question to a range of people in a democratic and wide ranging way who will be equally authorative on the topic. Feedback is knowledge, and knowledge informs better decision making. Its quite clear that many of those people funding Red Tractor (farmers) are not happy with the duplicitousness of it.

I mean its almost turning away from the technology, that continues to dominate our lives. Ultimately, utilising technology allows you to canvass a range of opinions and it is more democratic, so people who have more of voice and coalesce their views. Even Farmers Weekly comment is only a print out version of what we write here.

Events like Groundswell would never have taken off if it wasn't for collabarative thinking on this forum. DPJ foundation wouldn't have swelled in their awareness if it wasn't for Facebook etc. These are the tools of our trade nowadays. Just like email, zoom etc.

Red Tractor are so out of touch with their employers (us!). Their strength is that their customers (us) are incredibly fragmented at the moment and we are under duress to concede to them at the moment because we either people have left it to the NFU to represent them (ergo much frustration) who appear to have a conflict of interest.

 

[Humble Village Farmer]

I’ve said from the start that I’m concerned about the routine co mixing of RT assured cereals with non RT assured cereals particularly where this precludes the use of the RT logo on consumer facing products. I’m currently doing some work to better understand this issue.

As I’ve also said I can’t be bothered to reply to personal accusations I’m in some way dishonest or corrupt.

Not sure if this was aimed at me?

 

[Agrivator]

Farm assurance started in the late 80s. FASL (Farm Assured Scotch Lamb) was the first.

If all the paperwork and booklets, produced for the various schemes since then in the whole of GB, was piled up in a heap, how high would it reach?

The Mafia and other racketeers are far more environmentally friendly - they just use small notebooks.

 

[Worsall]

I’ve said from the start that I’m concerned about the routine co mixing of RT assured cereals with non RT assured cereals particularly where this precludes the use of the RT logo on consumer facing products. I’m currently doing some work to better understand this issue.

As I’ve also said I can’t be bothered to reply to personal accusations I’m in some way dishonest or corrupt.

Unbelievable, "doing work to understand the issue"!!! The issue is pure and simple, deception to the public and ripping us off.

 

[ajd132]

The nfu should have nothing to do with this consultation. Isn’t it a conflict of interest as they are shareholders in RT?

 

[SilliamWhale]

The nfu should have nothing to do with this consultation. Isn’t it a conflict of interest as they are shareholders in RT?

Yes it is a conflict of interest. And furthermore the optics are muddy.

 

[legin]

I don't know. I also don't want to be overly dramatic and say that complying with Red Tractor makes farming impossible. I do say though, having read the latest suggested additions to the rules, that these new additions would place significant extra costs on my business to comply. We have taken hundreds and hundreds of hectares out of production over the last 3 years because of the margins we forecast (didn't quite forecast £200+/ t though). Reading the proposed changes to RT does not fill me with great enthusiasm to return that area to production. I'll keep land in stewardship and rent barns out with far less hassle than growing crops and for more money. That's where this heads, with the gradual or more sudden decline of UK agriculture.

Also, more specifically, I think what these changes will do, in a small way, and incrementally, is to slowly disadvantage the smaller business who face higher compliance costs relative to turnover. The same I think is partially true for the environmental schemes which again are cheaper and easier to navigate for larger farms. I think we'll see with the stiffer competition we're likely to face the increasing loss of small farms, and I think these RT changes will only hasten that trend.

We are a small business and perhaps the long term goal is to get rid of us.

 

[An Gof]

We are a small business and perhaps the long term goal is to get rid of us.

I remember one “influential” and well known cereal farmer telling me that he welcomed a ratcheting up of RT standards as it made it more difficult for smaller producers and thereby created more contract farming opportunities for him.

 

[Steevo]

I remember one “influential” and well known cereal farmer telling me that he welcomed a ratcheting up of RT standards as it made it more difficult for smaller producers and thereby created more contract farming opportunities for him.

Be careful what you wish for is the phrase that springs to mind.

One day he'll find that his business is so interlinked with a supermarket that when they say jump he will have no choice.