Marks & Spencer's commitment and dedication to the environment and consumer friendly farming practices through its Field to Fork initiative are admirable.

But it also reminds me of criticism levelled at good agricultural practice and assurance schemes from some quarters - mainly the growing end of the supply chain - where the question raised is always who will foot the bill?

With Field to Fork specifications going above and beyond those required by other schemes, the expense must be greater. Such costs are always hard to pass on. Perhaps even more so given the concentration in the retail sector. In such a competitive marketplace, multiples now clearly see their environmental and food safety credentials as a valid area on which to assert that vital point of difference.

And I cannot help feeling a little concerned also at where this is all leading. Going beyond requirements of the benchmarking of EurepGAP means that the very purpose and importance of the benchmark approach is being questioned. And part of the purpose of such Europe-wide standard-setting is to eliminate costs from the chain, as well as give the producers world-wide supplying into Europe a single yardstick.

What will happen if more retailers follow suit? If individual retailers are introducing their own codes, then the benchmarkers are just going to have to keep up and continue to raise the bar and evolve. Otherwise the standards will become meaningless. l