FPC Warns EU SPS Deal Risks Driving Costs, Trade Friction And Food Inflation As MPs Urge Caution
- Sarah-Jayne Gratton
- 1 day ago
- 4 min read
A cross-party report from the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee (EFRA Committee) has warned that any future sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) agreement between the UK and the European Union must avoid disadvantaging UK agriculture and meat businesses, while calling for clear public communication and robust parliamentary scrutiny of any regulatory changes.
The Committee says an SPS agreement could deliver significant benefits for consumers, farmers and producers by reducing border checks, cutting red tape and improving supply-chain resilience. However, it also highlights a range of risks, particularly if the UK is required to change domestic regulations to align with EU rules in ways that create additional burdens or erode competitive advantage.
Negotiations between the UK Government and the European Commission towards establishing a common area for SPS regulations began in November 2025.
Responding to the report, Nigel Jenney, Chief Executive of the Fresh Produce Consortium (FPC), said: “I welcome the EFRA Committee’s recognition of the profound complexity and the sheer scale of unanswered questions that FPC has been highlighting for some time.
“What the UK urgently needs is a genuine UK/EU reset that strengthens, not constrains, international trade with both the EU and the Rest of the World (RoW). Instead, we are once again staring down the barrel of unnecessary bureaucracy, higher costs, and deeper trade complexity.
“Let us be absolutely clear: we have secured no UK SPS border controls for EU fresh produce imports, and only a very low level of controls for cut flowers. In that context, the so-called ‘savings’ being promoted by the UK Government simply do not exist. Even more concerning is that any move to unnecessarily align with EU SPS controls, which now appears increasingly likely, would actively create trade friction, drive disruption, and push up costs for UK consumers, with no meaningful upside.
“Over the past five years, the UK has developed a risk-based biosecurity regime, including for Rest of the World (RoW) trade, under which most fresh produce is not subject to border controls. Replacing this with EU-style SPS measures would mean around four million tonnes — roughly 50% of our imports — becoming subject to extensive border checks, purely for political convenience, and with inevitable consequences for food inflation.
“This would be a profound step backwards. It is not pragmatic. It is not proportionate. And it is certainly not pro-trade. The fresh produce sector — and UK consumers — deserve far better.
“We need the UK Government to do more than listen; we need clear and unambiguous commitment to ensure international trade and UK consumers are not left picking up the bill indefinitely if effective exclusions are not adopted.”
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.”
Precision breeding
MPs recommend that the UK seeks an exemption from dynamic alignment for the growing and selling of precision-bred products in England. The UK introduced a legal framework in November 2025 allowing English farmers to apply to grow and sell precision-bred seeds, plants, food and animal feed.
Without an exemption, the Committee warns, UK growers could lose the advantage of having moved first in this area.
Pesticides and residue limits
The report states that EU rules on naturally occurring mycotoxins in fruit and vegetables, and on certain pesticides and other products, should not be imposed automatically on UK producers. Since these regulations were developed after Brexit, MPs say they may not reflect UK climate or growing conditions and could create unnecessary burdens.
The Committee calls for assurances that GB scientific evidence, including agronomic and climatic data, would be incorporated into all new science-based decisions affecting UK agriculture.
Communication and scrutiny
If the UK adopts dynamic alignment in any form, the Government must explain the benefits and constraints clearly to businesses, farmers, producers, industry stakeholders and the wider public. The Committee also says the Government should publish detailed plans for how Parliament will scrutinise any SPS agreement and future EU legislation that may be assimilated into GB law.
MPs add that they were disappointed that Nick Thomas-Symonds, Minister for the Constitution and European Union Relations, declined to give oral evidence to the inquiry.
Implementation timescales and contingencies
The Government has said it hopes to conclude SPS negotiations by early 2027 and implement any agreement in the first half of that year. MPs warn that major regulatory changes will require lengthy lead-in periods, potentially involving staff training, new equipment and new ways of working across agencies, ports and businesses.
The Committee recommends realistic implementation periods of at least 24 months for any changes arising from dynamic alignment.
Finally, MPs call on the Government to publish contingency plans in case SPS negotiations are delayed or fail, covering biosecurity, border operations and regulatory oversight, and explaining how resources would be reprioritised to avoid undermining critical functions.
Download the report:
.
Comments