Wtf EU RED audit.

Dave645

Member
Arable Farmer
Location
N Lincs
I think you make this way too complicated. All we need is a passport that says this grain was grown subject to the laws of the U.K. and as such exceeds the standards required of imported grain. You can put a tick box on it to say you haven’t drained a peat bog or ploughed up species rich grassland if you want but I think it’s unnecessary.
I agree, it needs to be a simple as possible, and Red 2 would likely be very simple, but if we go to the trouble of setting up a new assurance that the food standards agency accepts, why aim so low to risk premiums for assurance.
It will likely just take as long to get a super simple system passed that has no marketing benefits for uk farmers or retail, as a more comprehensive scheme that offers multi levels for the farmer so the opt in or out to what suits them, in the new scheme.

while I may not like it assurance at some level is actually beneficial to uk farmers it is a marketing tool that if done right can open extra markets, my point is to keep it simple so the benefits of the scheme out way the disadvantages. And make it optional. If assurance has a premium then for what?


ps I would be more than happy if the scheme we got was as you described for the lowest level, and I expect we are the same page, but can we get that simple scheme passed the food standards agency and accepted as a new assurance scheme, that is the question not if we like it, rather if the food standards agency will formally recognise that as a animal feed uk standard for assurance.

self assessment is fine with me, but can we sell it as assurance to force the AIC to take our crops in, only a food agency accepted scheme can force the AIC’s hand. So the question becomes what will the food agency accept it as assurance?
And for what uses?

I will agree in reality self assessment is all it’s ever been anyway they have to take our word for it regardless of what scheme we are in, RT just paints the illusion that someone is looking over our shoulders watching. In reality the checks the mills make on our crop as they receive it is all that’s important, is it what we said it was, and is it ok.

I actualy think the only important aspects of RT farm inspections were there inspection of grain stores, which didn’t need to be done annually unless we make changes. An initial visit was all that was needed, and now anyone that has been in RT and passed ever, show that they meet RT standards as far as the sheds go.
So any new scheme could use that as leverage to cut out annual inspections on farm, and let anyone moving from RT to the new scheme be accepted at that basic level. A simple declaration annually to say the sheds still meet the rules would do. Random Spot checks of 5% of farms would be all you need, that’s on average 1:20 years if you make changes to your storage, ie build a new shed, photo evidence can be sent to show the work was done to standards. If from the photos they deem an inspection is needed then you get one.

as far as I am concerned annual inspections would be replaced by random checks of 5% of farms. They could argue for more but realistically random ones, and inspections if you make changes is all that’s needed then a check box to say you comply with the rules.
 

Dave645

Member
Arable Farmer
Location
N Lincs
The government should do more to insist importers are meeting the same standards but you'll never get them exactly the same as laws are different in every country, so you can always find things to disagree on.
The government cannot restrict imports, they know if they did, and if they applied the same requirements on imports it would be impossible to import any crops. As no other country would meet our standards including from the EU because for a start no farmer in the EU would do what we are forced to do and have annual inspections, because it’s madness.
Never mind get them to pay for it.
Never mind the difficulty assuring at the farm level they cannot even assure what merchants are handling. If what was posted about mass balances is true, that merchants can take 1000 t of crop mix it with non assured then sell out a 1000 t of assured crop again with mass balances, how is that still assured in anyone’s eyes. . .
 

Two Tone

Member
Mixed Farmer
When grain buyers mix Imported, Unassured grains with UK Assured grain, it is like they think they are pleased with themselves, because at least some of the end product is Assured.
What they believe they have done is produced a product to a higher standard, when in reality, they have reduced the quality to a lower standard.

Being then able to market that product as RT assured, should be made illegal, because quite simply it isn’t.

Even without RT, UK grain is produced to higher standards than Imported grain, due to the limitations of what product may be used to grow it and the legal requirements set out by Government. There simply is no need for RT unless it will pay a premium for RT produced grains, which it has never done in its entire history.

Yet again it is a case of Heads they win, Tails we lose.
 
Last edited:

cb387

Member
Arable Farmer
Location
Cotswolds
RT have got themselves into a quite unique position really. The retailers don’t value it otherwise the logo would be everywhere. The producers don’t want it, yet its stuck in the middle of the supply chain. They serve no useful purpose like a parasite you can’t (easily) get rid of
 

Flat 10

Member
Arable Farmer
Location
Fen Edge
RT have got themselves into a quite unique position really. The retailers don’t value it otherwise the logo would be everywhere. The producers don’t want it, yet its stuck in the middle of the supply chain. They serve no useful purpose like a parasite you can’t (easily) get rid of
It’s because they charge retailers to use it and so the retailers use Union Jack a which is free..... anyway it’s rarely used on cereal products
 

tullah

Member
Location
Linconshire
RT have got themselves into a quite unique position really. The retailers don’t value it otherwise the logo would be everywhere. The producers don’t want it, yet its stuck in the middle of the supply chain. They serve no useful purpose like a parasite you can’t (easily) get rid of
The treatment for the parasite will soon be on the shelves.
 

SFI - What % were you taking out of production?

  • 0 %

    Votes: 79 42.5%
  • Up to 25%

    Votes: 65 34.9%
  • 25-50%

    Votes: 30 16.1%
  • 50-75%

    Votes: 3 1.6%
  • 75-100%

    Votes: 3 1.6%
  • 100% I’ve had enough of farming!

    Votes: 6 3.2%

Red Tractor drops launch of green farming scheme amid anger from farmers

  • 1,287
  • 1
As reported in Independent


quote: “Red Tractor has confirmed it is dropping plans to launch its green farming assurance standard in April“

read the TFF thread here: https://thefarmingforum.co.uk/index.php?threads/gfc-was-to-go-ahead-now-not-going-ahead.405234/
Top