Negotiations between the UK and EU Commission around sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) regulations began in November 2025. While such an agreement could bring lots of benefits to the UK through cost cuts and red tape removal, there are concerns the UK will have to change regulations in several areas which would negatively impact local operations and Brits.
An EFRA Committee has now published a report which outlines areas in which the Government needs to focus on and/or address.
As the Committee’s chair, Alistair Carmichael MP, said: “There is a lot on the menu for the Government to consider, and our recommendations aim to help Ministers set the table.”
Animal welfare concerns
Among the proposals, the Committee is urging the UK Government to aim for a “Swiss-style” carve-out with the EU over animal welfare. In other words, ensuring the UK would not be expected to change its own regulations on animal welfare every time the EU does.
There is, for example, uncertainty on whether the SPS deal could include new regulations on labelling, and whether this would mean introducing new labelling systems that indicate conditions in which livestock and poultry have been reared.
Moreover, the Committee has said the Government must ensure UK farmers are not undercut by cheap imported meat with lower animal welfare standards.
“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,” said Carmichael.
Similarly, the Committee has said that there must be an exemption for precision breeding. Last year saw the UK introducing a legal framework which allows English farmers to apply to grow and sell precision bred seeds, plants, food and animal feed. The group says any prohibition could see the UK losing out on the benefits of being trailblazers in this space.
Pesticides and maximum residue limits
Pesticides and maximum residue limits are also flagged in the report.
The EU has regulations in place on the presence of naturally occurring mycotoxins in fruit and vegetables and the use of certain pesticides.
But the Committee warns that these should not be forced onto UK producers because these standards do not consider changing UK growing conditions. It is therefore likely to cut out certain farmers; for example Scottish oat growers could be negatively impacted due to the higher (but still safe) mycotoxin levels the climate welcomes.
A veterinary and medicines deal
Finally, the report calls on the Government to use this opportunity to also agree a veterinary and medicines deal.
Although veterinary and medicines are not within scope of this SPS agreement, access to these products remains an unresolved issue with certain veterinary products unavailable in Northern Ireland.
“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,” said Carmichael.
The Committee chair continued: “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.”
