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.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.
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.