Red Tractor Logo - The Reality

The hoo-hah among some farmers about Countryfile’s piece on food labels and what they mean for animal welfare seems to have died down, replaced by a new furore over Panorama’s look at whether rich/non farming types should receive the single farm payment.

If the people behind the Red Tractor are returning to business as usual, breathing a sigh of relief that the story has blown over, then they should think again.

Careful viewing of the Countryfile piece reveals no inaccurate reporting but rather a gentle effort by John Craven to get at the facts behind three labels – Red Tractor, Freedom Foods and Soil Association.  

The bald facts are that when it comes to welfare the Red Tractor label stands for little more than compliance with minimum legal standards.  This was tacitly acknowledged by their spokesman.

Freedom Foods requires more than the legal minimum in some areas. Animals cannot be transported for more than 8 hours compared with the 24 allowed by the Red Tractor. Pigs get more space than the legal minimum. They have to have bedding to lie down on, and be able to root around, neither of which is mandated by Red Tractor. Farrowing crates are being phased out next year, but Red Tractor has no plans to forbid them. When it comes to chickens, Freedom Food says no more than 15 per square metre compared with 19 for Red Tractor, and chickens must have natural light and straw bales to peck on, neither of which are required by Red Tractor.

The Soil Association also requires more than the legal minimum in some areas.

What the Red Tractor team need to understand is that animal welfare matters to consumers, and whilst there is still huge confusion among the majority about the facts behind the different labels, consumers are becoming more sophisticated and knowledgeable by the day, prompted by campaigning groups and enabled by technology which allows instant access to the internet for research and verification.

Red Tractor therefore needs to be clear in itself about what it promises, and transparent about what it communicates because it will continue to be exposed if it is not. It is no bad thing for it to stand for a guarantee that the food which carries its label is produced to legal requirements. But it has to be confident that this is indeed the case. Headlines such as “AFS promises action after shocking Red Tractor expose” (Farmers Guardian February 2012), must not be allowed to happen. It would help avoid another expose if it uncompromisingly stood for food produced in Britain instead of being prepared to accept all comers and rely on having a Union flag on the packet to confirm Britishness.

Whichever way it moves forward, the 15 member strong Red Tractor board would do well to give thought to the changing nature of consumer feelings, the rise of ever stronger campaigning groups, and the place of Red Tractor in this new environment.