The British Independent Fruit Growers’ Association (BIFGA) has written to the National Farmers’ Union (NFU) calling for an independent inquiry into the increasing hurdles and bureaucracy growers are having to navigate to attain certification for their produce.

BIFGA members have become particularly angered by the Assured Produce (AP) scheme which, they feel, asks too much of growers in the form of extra paperwork and audits on top of the various certifications required by the major retailers.

AP is a subsidiary of Assured Food Standards, which operates the Red Tractor logo and is jointly owned by several food and farming bodies, including the NFU.

Many believe that the existence of schemes such as Tesco Nature’s Choice, Marks & Spencer’s Field to Fork and Linking Environment and Farming (LEAF), which has been adopted by Waitrose, offer enough checks on standards.

Clive Edmed, grower and vice-chair of BIFGA, told freshinfo: “In my view, AP was started to guarantee safe food and traceability. Well, our name is on the produce right through to the shelf so you have traceability right there. The food is safe to eat as the marketing desks take samples and test them on behalf of the supermarkets, so that proves the food is safe and fully traceable.

“We have to keep spray records by law and we don’t mind handing those in to AP, but it is all the add-ons we object to - the service record for the machinery, for example, is just ridiculous and it becomes very repetitive with the same things required every year. We just need to get back to basics and have a system that proves safety and traceability without all the add-ons. A lot of smaller growers are very frightened that if they fail their AP audits, they have nowhere else to sell their fruit.”

Growers in an unofficial group named Rolling Back Assured Produce, which includes several BIFGA members and was set up 18 months ago, have asked Colin Gutteridge, director of East Malling Research (EMR), for assistance.

Gutteridge told freshinfo: “I have been helping the BIFGA focus group discuss the issue and the difficulties of changing the AP scheme. There is a concern that the scheme is costing growers too much to implement and I have suggested they ask the NFU to conduct an independent inquiry into the costs and benefits of the scheme. I am just helping them consider the technical aspects of the issue. At EMR, we support the industry, but we are independent of any grower or grower group.”

The NFU has responded robustly. In a statement to freshinfo, Sarah Pettitt, chairman of the NFU horticulture board, said: “The core values of the AP scheme, and indeed most food assurance schemes, are food safety, hygiene and traceability. In the case of the AP scheme, that extends to responsible use of plant protection products and integrated crop management.

“My view, and that of the NFU, is that is what the original values of assurance are and every effort should be made to maintain them. I believe AP should concentrate on its core values but I also want to be clear that I believe food assurance schemes are well established as a necessary component of modern farming and are here to stay.”

However, Pettitt did stress that there is room for AP to be changed and adapted: “One of my key priorities is to question why the AP scheme is benchmarked against GlobalGAP. In my view, this benchmarking is a significant component of the additional bureaucratic burden experienced by growers and need no longer be a part of the current AP scheme.

“This is where I believe groups such as BIFGA should focus its efforts, in persuading the AP board that GlobalGAP benchmarking is no longer appropriate for the scheme.”

Growers are keen to work with the NFU to come to an agreement. “Rolling Back has written to Pettitt; we need the NFU as it is the only vehicle that can fight on behalf of growers,” said Edmed.

Topics