Brexit At Ten: A Chance To Finally Get Food Security Right

Ten years on from the Brexit referendum, Britain has an opportunity to do something far more useful than relitigate the past: it can finally make the right decisions for the future of its food security.

For the UK fresh produce industry, the anniversary should not be treated as a political milestone, but as a practical moment of reckoning. The question is no longer whether Brexit happened, or whether people were right or wrong to support it. The real question is whether the Government is prepared to learn from a decade of disruption and design a border and trade policy that actually protects consumers, supports growers and keeps fresh produce flowing.

Fresh Produce Consortium Chief Executive Nigel Jenney has warned that Britain cannot simply “grow its way out” of food security concerns. Domestic production must be strengthened, but it cannot carry the entire burden of feeding the nation year-round.

“The solution isn’t as simple as ‘grow more here’,” said Jenney. “Land availability remains a major challenge and the UK itself is increasingly exposed to the very same climate shocks affecting global production regions. We absolutely can grow more domestically, but food security depends on achieving the right balance between UK production and diverse seasonal sourcing from around the world.”

That balance is the critical point. British growers are essential to national resilience, but so too are the trusted global supply chains that bring in the fruit and vegetables the UK cannot produce at scale, or cannot produce consistently throughout the year.

Jenney has been clear that imported produce is not a weakness in the system, but part of its strength.

“We import approx. 4 million tonnes or half of the UK’s fresh produce imports from the rest of the world sources excluding the EU,” he said. “This includes much of favourite fruit consumers enjoy every single day. That global supply network is not a weakness — it is a critical part of our national food security strategy.”

The danger, according to FPC, is that the Government’s proposed UK-EU “Reset” risks replacing one set of trade barriers with another. While a smoother trading relationship with the EU is welcome, it must not come at the expense of Rest of World suppliers who are fundamental to maintaining choice, affordability and continuity of supply for British consumers.

FPC has warned that applying unnecessary EU-style controls to produce destined solely for UK consumption could add significant official costs, increase delays and weaken the very supply chains that protect the country from seasonal shortages and climate shocks.

“If this is truly about the UK’s biosecurity risk management, why would we deliberately place feeding the nation at greater risk by simply and willing adopting unnecessary EU legislation on food supplies destined solely to be consumed in the UK,” Jenney said.

“In effect we are assuming the EU alone will wish to supply the volumes and seasonal continuity the UK requires? It simply cannot. The scale and seasonality of UK fresh produce demand requires a balanced domestic and global supply model. This is absolutely imperative.”

That message is echoed by businesses at the sharp end of post-Brexit trade friction.

Jon Adams, an FPC member and owner of the Hertfordshire-based family firm Jane Adams, has spoken publicly about the impact of Brexit on his business, describing it as “very traumatic" and adding that "nothing has been gained by these extra checks”. His experience matters because it brings the debate down from policy language to commercial reality.

The plant and flower sector has faced many of the same pressures as fresh produce: delays, additional inspections, higher costs, paperwork and uncertainty. Adams has previously warned that the new border regime has made some imports significantly more difficult, with certain product lines becoming less viable and delivery costs rising.

For businesses such as his, the issue is not theoretical. It is about whether products can arrive on time, in good condition and at a cost that still works for customers. Perishable goods cannot sit around waiting for political systems to catch up with commercial reality. Fresh produce, plants and flowers are time-sensitive, quality-sensitive and margin-sensitive. Every delay matters.

That is why the tenth anniversary of Brexit should be used as a reset in the truest sense of the word. Not as a slogan. Not as a diplomatic photo opportunity. Not as another layer of rules dressed up as reform. But as a chance to build a food and plant health border policy based on science, proportionality and national interest.

The UK should be asking some very simple questions.

• Does this policy make food more secure, or less secure?

• Does it reduce costs for consumers, or increase them?

• Does it help domestic growers, or create new risks for the young plants, seeds and inputs they depend upon?

• Does it support trusted global trade, or push suppliers away from the UK market?

• Does it strengthen biosecurity through intelligence and science, or simply impose blanket checks because they are politically convenient?

FPC has consistently argued for practical solutions. It supports sensible trade with the EU, but not at the cost of undermining global sourcing. It supports strong biosecurity, but not unnecessary inspections that add cost without clear benefit. It supports British production, but not the false idea that domestic supply alone can meet the country’s year-round fresh produce needs.

“The rest of the world supply chain is not optional — it is fundamental to mitigating food security risks,” Jenney said. “Yet we continue to see policies developing that will add hundreds of millions of pounds in unnecessary officially imposed costs at the sole discretion of the UK government on global food imports at a time when affordability and resilience should be the priority.”

There is also a consumer issue here. Food security is not just about whether food exists somewhere in the system. It is about whether people can access it, afford it and rely on it. If border policy makes fresh produce more expensive, reduces availability or discourages global suppliers from serving the UK, the burden will ultimately fall on households.

At a time when the nation is being urged to eat more fruit and vegetables, policy must not make those products harder to source or more expensive to buy. The UK cannot talk seriously about public health, inflation and food resilience while simultaneously creating unnecessary barriers to the very foods people are being encouraged to consume.

Brexit at ten should therefore be a turning point. It is the perfect opportunity for Government to stop treating fresh produce as a secondary trade issue and recognise it as critical national infrastructure.

This is not about going backwards. It is about getting the next decade right.

A successful food security strategy must back British growers, maintain strong EU trade, protect access to Rest of World supply, and ensure that border controls are genuinely risk-based, proportionate and scientifically justified.

Jenney put it plainly: “We support a sensible reset, but not at any cost. We have repeatedly offered practical solutions that would deliver a balanced, resilient and effective food supply system to max trade with the EU and Rest of the World promoting a practical win win solution.”

Ten years after the referendum, the UK has a choice. It can continue layering cost, complexity and uncertainty onto the fresh produce supply chain. Or it can use this anniversary to make things right.

For FPC, its members and businesses such as Jon Adams’ family firm, the answer is clear. Food security depends on balance, pragmatism and trust in the people who actually keep Britain supplied.

After a decade of political noise, that would be a reset worth having.