WIREDGOV

An EFRA Committee report into the Government’s negotiations with the European Union over the trade of meat, plant and animal products says a future deal must avoid disadvantaging UK agriculture and meat businesses.

• Read the report [HTML]
• Read the report [PDF]

A sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) agreement with the EU could bring many benefits for UK consumers, farmers and producers if it lowers costs by removing the need for border checks and other red tape, and makes supply chains more resilient. 

But this report outlines potential problems that should be avoided as the UK faces potentially having to change regulations in a number of areas to align with the EU. MPs also emphasise the need for the Government to communicate effectively with the public about potential pros and cons of an SPS deal regarding decisions on regulations. 

Negotiations between the UK and EU Commission towards a common area for SPS regulations began in November 2025. 

A summary of the cross-party Committee’s main recommendations is included below. 

Chair comment

EFRA Committee Chair Alistair Carmichael MP said: 

“Making it easier to trade with our European neighbours should present a feast of benefits for British businesses, farmers and consumers. But there is a lot on the menu for the Government to consider, and our recommendations aim to help Ministers set the table. 

“For starters, we strongly urge the Government to aim for a Swiss-style carve out of dynamic alignment with the EU regarding animal welfare. We must avoid unnecessary burdens and undercutting of farmers from products produced abroad where animals are treated worse than in the UK. This would present a zero-sum game and a threat to our already wary industry. 

“The use of pesticides is also a delicate subject. It would be a mistake for dynamic alignment to lead to products that are banned in the EU also being outlawed in the UK despite not having been tested in our climate and production systems. Similarly, we should not let regulatory alignment squander the benefits reaped from our scientific innovations with precision breeding. 

“A veterinary and medicines deal that would benefit trade between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK is long overdue and should be worked towards in tandem with SPS talks. 

“We recognise the potential benefits of an SPS agreement but are especially concerned that failures to communicate effectively with the public about the pros and cons of dynamic regulatory alignment on any subject could cause political upset. We need a national conversation on the realities of a future agreement. There is also the unresolved question of how Parliament should scrutinise any regulatory changes that are made in Europe if they then need to be adopted here. This Committee will continue to take the reins on any examination of SPS changes that affect this country.” 

Animal welfare standards 

The Committee recommends that in any future agreement, Ministers should seek a Swiss-style exemption from the principle of dynamic alignment with the EU regarding animal welfare standards. An exemption would mean the UK would not be expected to change its own regulations on animal welfare every time the EU does so, which would avoid placing additional burdens on farmers. There is uncertainty on whether the SPS deal could include new regulations on labelling, and whether this could mean introducing new labelling systems that indicate conditions in which livestock and poultry have been reared. Food Standards Scotland told the Committee this would be a “technical barrier to trade”. 

In addition, the Government should ensure UK farmers are not undercut by products from EU countries with lower animal welfare standards, which often makes products cheaper and more attractive for retailers to import and sell here. The Committee is also concerned that undercutting could occur if the Government’s recently revealed Animal Welfare Strategy places extra burdens on UK farmers. 

In its response to this report, the Government should set out the practical measures it will take to protect producers. 

Precision breeding 

The Government should seek an exemption from dynamic alignment with EU regulations for the growing and selling of precision-bred products in the England. This is an area where the UK is ahead of the curve, having introduced a legal framework in November 2025 to allow English farmers to apply to grow and sell precision bred seeds, plants, food and animal feed. The Committee is concerned that without an exemption UK growers could lose the benefits of our country having moved first in this area if it was required to align with relevant EU regulations as part of an SPS agreement. 

Pesticide and maximum residue regulations 

EU regulations on the presence of naturally occurring mycotoxins in fruit and vegetables, and the use of certain pesticides and other products, should not be forced upon producers in the UK. That is because EU regulations developed since Brexit will not have taken into account UK growing conditions or climate, and therefore may be unsuitable in a UK context and likely to create extra burdens for farmers. 

The Committee says the Government should seek assurances, as a core requirement of any SPS framework, that GB scientific evidence – including agronomic and climatic data – would be incorporated into all new science-based decisions affecting UK agriculture. 

Communicating with businesses and public 

Dynamic alignment with the EU on SPS policy would require the Government to communicate honestly and accessibly with the public about the benefits and constraints of this model. The Government should set out in its response to this report how it intends to communicate the realities of dynamic alignment – not only to affected businesses, farmers, producers, and industry stakeholders, but also the wider public.  

Parliament’s role in scrutinising future EU policy changes 

The EFRA Committee will continue to scrutinise both the negotiations and any eventual SPS agreement, as well as its implementation. We remain disappointed that the Minister for the Constitution and European Union Relations, Nick Thomas-Symonds, refused to give oral evidence to the Committee as part of this inquiry.  

Furthermore, the Government should publish detailed plans for parliamentary scrutiny of the SPS agreement and any future EU legislation that would be assimilated into GB law once within a common SPS area. 

Veterinary and Medicines Agreement for Northern Ireland 

Whilst veterinary and medicines will not be within scope of an SPS agreement with the EU, access to these products remains an unresolved issue following the Windsor Framework agreement and there are ongoing issues with certain veterinary products ceasing to be available in Northern Ireland. 

The Government should actively pursue a Veterinary Medicines Agreement with the EU in tandem with the SPS agreement to facilitate smoother trade between Northern Ireland and Great Britain. In its response to this report, the Government should set out its priorities and timeline for such an agreement. 

Big changes will need time 

The Government has said it hopes negotiations to establish a common SPS area will be completed by early-2027 and implemented in the first half of the same year. MPs heard concerns that any big regulatory changes resulting from an SPS deal will need to be implemented with a time frame long enough to enable front line organisations like the Food Standards Agency, port authorities, businesses and the Government itself to adapt to them. Such changes could require staff training, new equipment and ways of working, which comes at a cost. 

The Committee urges the Government to build realistic implementation periods of at least 24 months for any regulatory changes that arise from dynamic alignment with the EU once the SPS agreement comes into force. 

What if negotiations fail? 

The Government should set out, in response to this report, its contingency plans for the SPS negotiations, recognising that an SPS agreement is not guaranteed. These should set out how core functions such as biosecurity, border operations, and regulatory oversight will continue if negotiations take longer or fail, and how reprioritisation of resources will be managed to avoid undermining critical work.