The value of annual UK food exports to the EU has been slashed by around a third since Brexit. The hope is that a UK-EU Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) agreement will simplify trade and recoup those losses by bringing the UK and EU closer together on aspects such as food safety, animal health and plant health.
The rollout of the new SPS deal is earmarked for November 2027, although as Food Manufacture understands it’s more likely to be Q1 2028.
When implemented, it will have far-reaching implications for the food industry, affecting everything from how products are made and labelled to the regulations businesses must follow.
The Government has also said the deal could generate up to £5.1 billion a year to the UK economy by 2040.
Many in the sector have said the agreement is a welcome development, with the director general of the Provision Trade Federation, Rod Addy, framing it as “the best news” for the food industry in a decade.
Greater visibility and trust
Although few have seen the wording of the deal, Addy is under the impression the UK will gain access to the EU digital TRACES system, which manages import, export and intra-EU trade for animals, plants and related products.
This will mean “greater visibility of any issues impacting on our commercial relationship with the EU”.
The deal could also signal a wider shift under the EU’s emerging ‘Made in Europe’ policy, designed to help local industries compete with producers abroad, including the US and China.
The Government and others have raised concerns over being excluded from this emerging framework.
However, as customs duty senior manager for MHA, Andrew Thurston, suggested: “If the UK can demonstrate that closer alignment delivers practical benefits while remaining a trusted partner in European supply chains, it may strengthen the case for UK manufacturers to receive favourable treatment under those arrangements.”
The devil is the in the detail
While there are clear benefits to the agreement, the PTF boss adds that it will not address all trading issues.
“The UK remains outside the EU Common Market and Customs Union, which means it still faces customs paperwork, inspections and charges and it will have less influence than it did before on EU policy and legislation, while having to conform to it,” Addy noted.
Further cautious notes have been raised by other industry figureheads.
“There is still considerable uncertainty about the practical implications for businesses,” said Denise Rion, head of technical at the British Frozen Food Federation (BFFF).
“The detail will be crucial, particularly around sector-specific requirements, implementation and how existing products and packaging will be treated.”
Johnathan Eckley, AHDB director of international trade development, agreed: “While there are clear opportunities for exporters, it is important that the implications for all agricultural sectors are fully understood.”
What does dynamic alignment mean?
One area that is yet to be fully understood is the agreement’s implications on the entire sector, including those who operate solely within GB.
The deal would see the UK aligning on certain relevant EU rules through what is known as ‘dynamic alignment’, meaning a party commits to aligning its domestic rules with those of another jurisdiction not just at a fixed point in time but on an ongoing basis, updating them in line with future changes. As such, businesses operating solely within Great Britain could also be affected by the rules.
While dynamic alignment should make UK-EU trade simpler, Thurston noted that a balance will need to be struck between regulatory autonomy and improved market access.
“Any agreement would raise questions about the potential impact on the UK’s trade with the rest of the world, particularly where alignment affects the controls applied to non-EU imports, as this may require additional certification that is not currently necessary under UK controls,” he said.
“Businesses would want to understand how the agreement affects these imports alongside the benefits for UK-EU trade. Equally, if UK and EU standards are already closely aligned across many of these areas, there is a strong practical argument for looking again at whether the existing level of certification and border controls is proportionate.”
Food safety responsibility
Anthony Baldock, executive board chair of the Association of Port Health Authorities, meanwhile, raised concerns over a potential reduction in protections.
“We welcome efforts to remove unnecessary trade friction and make it easier for businesses to trade with the EU. But removing a check does not remove the risk it was designed to manage.
“The test of any new agreement is whether it delivers those benefits while maintaining effective protection for public health, animal and plant health, and the UK’s food supply.
“This is a matter of national significance. Defra’s own guidance makes clear that the agreement extends well beyond border paperwork into food law, official controls, animal and plant health, food standards, pesticides and biocides. Its implications need to be understood across the whole system.”
For Baldock, the questions government needs to answer are straightforward: Where does responsibility for assuring food safety move to, who pays for it, how do we detect problems, and what happens when something goes wrong?
“If this protection and assurance moves away from the border, there must be clear responsibilities, effective surveillance and enforcement, and sufficient funding and expertise to make the new arrangements work to protect public health. Port Health Authorities have practical experience that should inform their development and implementation,” he continued.
Baldock also said figures outlined by government need to be cleared up: “Government must demonstrate that the projected savings are net savings, taking account of the full cost of the new system, rather than costs transferred to other public services or businesses.
“Fewer certificates may be good news. Fewer safeguards would not be and we simply cannot allow the mistakes of the past to be revisited.
“Businesses and the public need confidence that simpler trading arrangements will be backed by a robust, properly funded system of protection.”
Prime Minister Andy Burnham is set to meet with European leaders later this month at the UK-EU summit in Brussels where further details are expected to be announced.
Whatever happens, the shift will likely bring teething problems similar to those seen when the UK left the EU.
The success of this transition period will therefore depend on how well industry and government collaborate.
