Committee publication · Report · 5 February 2026 · HC 1661

5th Report - UK-EU agritrade: making an SPS agreement work

From: Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee

Government response deadline: 5 April 2026

Summary

The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee examines a proposed UK-EU Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) agreement aimed at reducing trade friction in agrifood. The report identifies critical areas—animal welfare, plant protection products, precision breeding, and mycotoxins—where the UK must secure exemptions or carve-outs from dynamic EU alignment to protect domestic farmers and maintain regulatory autonomy. Implementation requires 24+ months, early clarity on scope, and parliamentary scrutiny of this constitutional development.

Key findings

Government must urgently clarify whether on-farm animal welfare and food labelling fall within SPS scope, given implications for UK farming standards and industry preparedness.
UK should seek Swiss-style exemptions from dynamic alignment on animal welfare to prevent domestic farmers being undercut by cheaper EU imports produced to lower standards.
England's Precision Breeding Act provides first-mover advantage that would be lost through regulatory inertia; Government should seek targeted exemption from dynamic alignment in this area.
Post-Brexit EU rules on plant protection products and mycotoxins were developed without GB climate/agronomic data; any agreement must ensure British scientific evidence is incorporated in new regulations.
Realistic implementation period of at least 24 months needed; port health authorities report disruption fatigue from four major policy changes in six years.

Recommendations

Government and EU should establish scope of SPS negotiations as priority and publish interim information prior to conclusion to enable consultation and scrutiny.
UK Government should seek specific exemptions from dynamic alignment with the EU on animal welfare standards.
Government must prevent UK food producers from being undercut by EU imports produced to lower animal welfare standards within future common SPS area; set out practical protective measures.
Government should secure implementation period of at least 24 months for sectors to adapt to regulatory changes; all dynamic-aligned legislative changes must include transition mechanisms similar to EU Member State provisions.
Government should provide clear, realistic transition timetable with key milestones 12–24 months in advance, developed with businesses, industry, port health and local authorities.
Government should set out contingency plans if negotiations fail, ensuring biosecurity, border operations and regulatory oversight continue uninterrupted.
Government should provide clear, timebound strategy for addressing market barriers within UK internal market, including engagement with devolved governments on mutual recognition and common frameworks.
Government should ensure devolved administrations have formal consultative position in negotiations and outline meetings/mechanisms for this.

Tone

Critical

Topics

agritradeanimal-welfarefood-standardsbiosecurityregulatory-alignment

Key actors

Alistair Carmichael, Baroness Hayman of Ullock, Emma Reynolds MP, Emily Miles, Katie Pettifer, Geoff Ogle, Food Standards Agency, National Farmers Union

Notable line

“Dynamic alignment with the EU on SPS policy represents a significant constitutional development.”

Key Quotes

“A central matter to resolve is the scope of the negotiations. The Government must urgently clarify whether on-farm animal welfare and food labelling fall within scope …”
— Alistair Carmichael (Committee Chair) · On unclear scope of SPS agreement negotiations

“We are still considering a method of production labelling. The slight issue that we have at the moment is the SPS talks with the EU. We cannot suddenly diverge and do things completely differently, if we then have to dynamically align with EU labelling methods.”
— Dame Angela Eagle MP (Farming Minister) · On tensions between domestic labelling policy and SPS dynamic alignment

“Our farmers should be rightly proud of the quality of their produce and the higher welfare and environmental requirements they meet. However, to ensure our farmers are not put at a competitive disadvantage, we must ensure they are not undercut with cheaper imports produced to less stringent standards.”
— Baroness Batter (Farming Profitability Review) · On risk to UK farmers if animal welfare exemption not secured

“Let us take a precision-bred tomato. If the precision-bred tomato is produced in England, it can be sold in Scotland. If the precision- bred tomato is used to make a lasagne in England, it could be sold in Scotland.”
— Geoff Ogle (Chief Executive, Food Standards Scotland) · On internal UK market complications from precision breeding divergence

“"until the negotiations are concluded, we cannot know for certain when and how much alignment will be required." 48 Defra told us that …”
— Emily Miles (Director General for Food, Biosecurity and Trade, Defra) · On uncertainty over implementation timelines for businesses

“Negotiations must take full account of devolved responsibilities and internal market implications and 2 ensure that biosecurity protections remain robust while enabling efficient trade with the rest of the world.”
— Alistair Carmichael (Committee Chair) · On balancing trade with devolved oversight and biosecurity

View original document →

Source · parliament.uk record ↗