“For example, the report says the NFU is opposed to the Grocery Code Adjudicator (GCA) whereas the complete opposite is actually the truth. The NFU lobbied hard for the introduction of the GCA and is now pushing for an extension to the GCA’s remit. We also lobbied for the Grocery Supply Code of Practice to be enshrined in legislation, rather than being a voluntary code, and for the GCA to have powers to fine retailers for breaches of the code. This is just one point where the report is absolutely wrong – a theme that is repeated throughout the report.
“The NFU has around 55,000 members, making it the single biggest representative body for farmers and growers in England and Wales. We are proud to say that our membership includes farms of all sizes, in all sectors throughout England and Wales and we actively champion and lobby for all our members whatever their size or their farming type. All our members are able to take part in the democratic process of the NFU and we actively encourage them to do so.
“The democratic structure of the organisation – which is based on an elected structure of local, regional and national officeholders – means that NFU policies are representative of the views of its members. This ensures the organisation is representing, and campaigning on, the views of its farmer and grower members – exactly what members of a trade association would expect it to do.
“It is clear that Ethical Consumer – an organisation that has campaigned against the badger cull and called on shoppers to stop buying dairy products – has a very particular view of its own of the NFU and, indeed, of farming which it has tried to validate through this report. In our view it should be read as a campaign document written by an organisation with a particular view point rather than a scientifically sound research document.
“We wrote a letter to the editor of Ethical Consumer magazine highlighting a large number of factual inaccuracies in an article about the report that appeared in the magazine before Christmas and invited them to visit us to talk about what we do and how we operate. Unfortunately, they have not spoken to us about the report and decided to go ahead and publish anyway despite being made aware of the factual inaccuracies it contains.”