Norman Bagley - Head of policy at the Association of Independent Meat Suppliers
In his letter to Farmers Guardian (April 19), Aberdeenshire farmer Patrick Sleigh said: ‘All farmers will certainly be welcoming the second review into Red Tractor and farm assurance'.
Farm assurance
The key here is assurance in general and not just Red Tractor which, after 20 years in existence, is long overdue a reassessment given how it has been ratcheted up for no discernible benefit in terms of premium.
Indeed, half the sheep industry has got by without any form of assurance, which is no surprise given only about 20 per cent goes into retailers anyway, with exports and halal commanding a far greater share of the market.
Day-to-day ‘delivery' of Red Tractor and other schemes has become little more than adding more modules and cost in response to the latest fad or welfare expose in order to be seen to be doing something, meanwhile heaping more costs on an already struggling industry.
With Red Tractor's mea culpa on the Greener Farms Commitment (GFC) still ringing in the ears of farmers, it does seem strange that it appears to remain of the view that its expensive and burdensome ‘prescription' for possible market access remains relevant.
Clue: it does not, given its almost non-existent role in exports.
To quote the great Bill Jolley, chief assurance strategy officer at New Zealand's Ministry for Primary Industries, when he spoke to the World Food Congress in Tokyo in 2019: ‘Third-party audit is little more than a money-making scam and should be confined to the dustbins of history'.
And New Zealand depends almost exclusively on international market access – I rest my case.
Red Tractor's own research shows high consumer recognition for its logo.
But that logo recognition is purely based on British consumers and not the global markets where UK high-quality meat and poultry must be sold for UK farmers and processors to prosper and remain in business.
Even without knowing the outcome of AHDB's three other reviews (key EU countries, North America, and South America/Brazil) it is almost certain that their farmers will be operating without the micromanagement and ‘dodgy' behind-closed-door dealings (like GFC) of Red Tractor's management and staff.
READ NOW: Red Tractor axes Greener Farms Commitment module
Game changer
It is time to push Red Tractor, and most of the other irrelevant schemes, out to an old shed and leave it there only to be seen as an exhibit on future Open Farm Sundays.
Fine, you might say, but what is the alternative?
Well, it is staring us in the face. Defra's funded Animal Health and Welfare on-farm veterinary reviews are a complete game changer in terms of credibility.
What amounts to competent authority audit is worth 10 times any third-party audit in terms of world trade.
Add to that real-time movement data via Livestock Information, which should keep the Chief Veterinary Officer happy in the event of a disease outbreak, and there you have your basic assurance.
Association of Independent Meat Suppliers
At the Association of Independent Meat Suppliers, we have completed a full gap analysis comparing the existing third-party assurance schemes against what can be delivered by the Animal Health and Welfare review visit – and we have found that the vast majority of retailers' requirements can be covered.
Where a few gaps exist, on-farm veterinary inspection at a modest additional cost can be used, and any remaining issues can be addressed electronically or remotely.
Then, imagine if the UK's trade negotiators and levy boards presenting in export markets were able to say that all British livestock and poultry is independently checked both on-farm and at the point of kill by veterinary surgeons.
Add to this that production and processing for fresh meat, frozen meat and poultry – as well as meat and poultry products – is inspected by the Government's own Food Standards Agency, all promoted under the globally recognised Union Jack within the UK's great export strategy.
What is not to like?
READ NOW: Red Tractor mistrust is 'serious and potentially damaging', warns governance review
