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
The Red Tractor ACCS referendum
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="FarmyStu" data-source="post: 7443822" data-attributes="member: 806"><p>I'm not doing it for fun but I'm not on a mission either. I just have an opinion and a few spare minutes to type it out. I'm not a devotee of Red Tractor, but have no problem with assurance as a good thing. I think RT is too easy to pass due to lax inspections in many cases. I've been on farm for a few RT inspections and the inspectors have been too keen to get inside to look at paperwork rather than having a good look around the livestock and buildings.</p><p></p><p>I don't think anything produced to UK legal standards needs a scheme. That was what others have suggested. I think it's daft. Who would NOT tick the box saying "produced to minimum legal standards"??? But don't kid yourself that "produced to legal minimum standards" is some sort of assurance. It's exactly what it says it is. The minimum legal. And without some sort of regular check, some will produce to standards lower than that, as they do now. In fact we know that some produce to lower than legal standards despite being RT. But overall I'd guess this happens more with non RT farmers than it does with them. (That's not to say that there aren't some very high quality producers who aren't RT, as I know there are).</p><p></p><p>Imports have to be "assured" not "farm assured". Some are obviously produced to lower standards than our own legal produce, let alone RT produce. If mixed with our own RT stuff, it retains assured status, but not RT status. Not ideal, but only RT grain is RT. Once mixed it is no longer RT or sold as such. Some on here seem to want a race to the bottom, to be able to produce to foreign standards. In my opinion, this is simply not a runner. Your customers don't want it and if the public got wind of such a reduction in UK standards, done at the behest of UK farmers, the reputational damage to UK ag would be immense IMO.</p><p></p><p>I do sometimes detect a bit of a luddite attitude to some pf the posts on here. "Assurance used to be ok but now it's gone too far". "I just want to be left alone to farm as I always have". Things change and they always will. Complaining is human nature but to really believe that you can turn back the clock to "the good old days" is delusional.</p><p></p><p>I keep reading on here that people don't want to lower standards, but just to match those of imports, If you believe that, then I'd ask this: If a 1000 consumers were polled on the following question:</p><p></p><p>There is a push by some RT assured farmers to change sprayer testing from once a year, to once very 3 years. Would this A. Raise standards B. Maintain standards C. Lower standards.</p><p></p><p>Where, in all honesty, do you think the consensus would be? I'm guessing it wouldn't be A or B........</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="FarmyStu, post: 7443822, member: 806"] I'm not doing it for fun but I'm not on a mission either. I just have an opinion and a few spare minutes to type it out. I'm not a devotee of Red Tractor, but have no problem with assurance as a good thing. I think RT is too easy to pass due to lax inspections in many cases. I've been on farm for a few RT inspections and the inspectors have been too keen to get inside to look at paperwork rather than having a good look around the livestock and buildings. I don't think anything produced to UK legal standards needs a scheme. That was what others have suggested. I think it's daft. Who would NOT tick the box saying "produced to minimum legal standards"??? But don't kid yourself that "produced to legal minimum standards" is some sort of assurance. It's exactly what it says it is. The minimum legal. And without some sort of regular check, some will produce to standards lower than that, as they do now. In fact we know that some produce to lower than legal standards despite being RT. But overall I'd guess this happens more with non RT farmers than it does with them. (That's not to say that there aren't some very high quality producers who aren't RT, as I know there are). Imports have to be "assured" not "farm assured". Some are obviously produced to lower standards than our own legal produce, let alone RT produce. If mixed with our own RT stuff, it retains assured status, but not RT status. Not ideal, but only RT grain is RT. Once mixed it is no longer RT or sold as such. Some on here seem to want a race to the bottom, to be able to produce to foreign standards. In my opinion, this is simply not a runner. Your customers don't want it and if the public got wind of such a reduction in UK standards, done at the behest of UK farmers, the reputational damage to UK ag would be immense IMO. I do sometimes detect a bit of a luddite attitude to some pf the posts on here. "Assurance used to be ok but now it's gone too far". "I just want to be left alone to farm as I always have". Things change and they always will. Complaining is human nature but to really believe that you can turn back the clock to "the good old days" is delusional. I keep reading on here that people don't want to lower standards, but just to match those of imports, If you believe that, then I'd ask this: If a 1000 consumers were polled on the following question: There is a push by some RT assured farmers to change sprayer testing from once a year, to once very 3 years. Would this A. Raise standards B. Maintain standards C. Lower standards. Where, in all honesty, do you think the consensus would be? I'm guessing it wouldn't be A or B........ [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Farm Business
Agricultural Matters
The Red Tractor ACCS referendum
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