Get your facts right before putting your foot in it...
The Farmers Weekly otherwise fair article on the High Court judgment was unfortunately ruined by the inclusion of Anders Crofoot's ill-informed and irrelevant comments. Why didn't the chairperson of the Fertiliser Quality Council (FQC) bother to read up on what the case was actually about; perhaps even make contact with me to see if the FQC could help sort it out, as I had suggested in my letter to Mark Wynne (CEO Ballance) two years ago!
I have never had any objection to the existence of Fermark. However, I believed that the continued use by Fertmark of a totally unsatisfactory test for RPR, one that is used nowhere else in the world because of its shortcomings, should not go unchallenged.
To describe the Fertmark 30-minute citsol test as more 'stringent' than other solubility tests for RPRs used around the world is totally misleading; laughable in fact. It gives false negatives and false positives. RPRs containing even small amounts of lime or dolomite - like Algerian RPR- give a false negative. Even worse, you can mix Sechura RPR - which has an artificially high citsol test but high cadmium - with any non-RPR waste or other phosphate and pass the test. This was done for 6 years! The FQC did nothing. Why, Anders?