UK–EU Reset: Nigel Jenney Warns Global Fresh Produce Trade Could Pay Price for Modest Economic Gains

The Government’s claim that closer ties with the European Union could boost the British economy by 0.4 per cent has come under scrutiny, with Fresh Produce Consortium (FPC) Chief Executive Nigel Jenney warning that the proposed agreement risks imposing substantial new costs on fresh produce imports from outside the EU.

An analysis published by The Telegraph on 5 November questions whether the economic benefits being promoted by Prime Minister Andy Burnham adequately reflect the potential consequences for businesses, international trade and consumers.

The Government estimates that agreements covering food and agricultural standards, energy markets and other areas could increase UK gross domestic product (GDP) by 0.4 per cent, revised upwards from an earlier estimate of 0.3 per cent.

However, the newspaper highlights that the full Treasury calculations have yet to be published, making it difficult to assess the assumptions underpinning the projected economic gains.

Based on previous government assessments, the anticipated benefits may take as long as 15 years to materialise. The Telegraph suggests this could equate to an economy approximately £15 billion larger by 2040 than it would otherwise have been.

While additional economic growth would be welcome, concerns are mounting over whether the benefits of closer EU alignment could be outweighed by costs imposed on other parts of the British economy.

Nigel Jenney Highlights Risks to Global Fresh Produce Supply

Among the industry leaders featured in The Telegraph's analysis is Nigel Jenney, Chief Executive of the Fresh Produce Consortium, who challenges the Government's approach to assessing the implications of closer regulatory alignment with Brussels.

Jenney argues that the Government is concentrating on the potential advantages of improved trade with the EU while failing to give sufficient consideration to Britain's established trading relationships with the rest of the world.

The Telegraph highlights his concerns that the UK's post-Brexit regulatory arrangements have enabled fewer and faster border checks, allowing fresh produce to reach supermarket shelves more efficiently, with improved product condition and reduced costs.

Adopting EU sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) requirements could reverse those advantages, potentially introducing additional certification, inspections and administrative procedures for imports from countries outside the bloc.

The warning reflects FPC's longstanding position that an agreement designed to simplify European trade must not create new barriers for other essential supply chains.

Jenney has previously made clear that FPC supports improved relations with Europe, but not at the expense of the UK's wider food supply network.

"We support a sensible reset, but not at any cost," he said in an FPC statement published by FreshTalk Daily on 19 October.

He also stressed: "The rest of the world supply chain is not optional!"

£300 Million in Potential Additional Annual Costs

The concerns raised in The Telegraph are particularly significant for the fresh produce industry, which relies on an extensive international supply network to maintain year-round availability of fruit and vegetables.

FPC estimates that approximately four million tonnes of fresh produce imported annually from outside the EU could be affected by additional regulatory requirements.

According to the consortium, the proposed changes could impose more than £300 million in additional annual costs through increased certification requirements, inspections, official fees and potential border delays.

For highly perishable products, additional time at the border could also reduce shelf life, increase food waste and undermine supply chain efficiency.

FPC points to the UK's existing science-based, risk-based approach to import controls, which it says achieves 99.5 per cent border compliance.

The consortium argues that imposing more extensive checks on already compliant imports could increase consumer prices without delivering a proportionate improvement in biosecurity.

In comments previously reported by The Grocer, Jenney warned that the additional burden would ultimately affect the industry and UK shoppers, with consequences for food inflation.

Benefits for EU Trade – But at What Cost?

Supporters of the proposed UK–EU reset argue that regulatory alignment would deliver meaningful benefits by removing unnecessary border checks and reducing administrative burdens for businesses trading with European partners.

The British Chambers of Commerce has highlighted the substantial costs associated with post-Brexit customs procedures and supports efforts to improve trading conditions.

The Government also maintains that closer alignment could improve market access, strengthen supply chains and support economic growth.

However, the trade-offs remain contentious.

Official government guidance confirms that the proposed SPS agreement would remove many routine requirements for goods moving between Great Britain and the EU, while aligning British import controls more closely with those applied by Brussels to goods arriving from other countries.

This means some non-EU fresh produce imports could become subject to additional phytosanitary certification and inspections, including products that do not currently undergo routine checks.

The implications extend beyond border procedures. Regulatory alignment could also affect plant protection products, pesticide approvals and maximum residue limits, potentially requiring British growers and importers to adapt to different standards.

Industry representatives are therefore calling for a more comprehensive assessment of the costs and benefits across the entire supply chain.

FPC Calls for a Practical Alternative

Rather than opposing closer European co-operation, FPC is urging the Government to negotiate a proportionate, sector-specific solution that maintains the UK's existing risk-based approach for fresh produce imported from outside the EU and destined exclusively for British consumers.

The consortium argues that goods subsequently exported to the EU could continue to meet European standards, with the existing customs border providing the necessary separation.

FPC believes this would allow Britain to secure the benefits of improved European trade without imposing unnecessary costs on international suppliers.

The organisation is pressing for these arrangements to be addressed at the UK–EU summit in Brussels on 20 November, where the Government hopes to advance agreements on food and farming standards, emissions trading and youth mobility.

The wider economic debate has also intensified following criticism from the Growth Commission, which argues that the Government's projected benefits do not adequately account for potential losses arising from reduced regulatory flexibility and increased restrictions on trade with non-EU countries.

Its assessment suggests that the long-term economic costs of the proposed reset could exceed the anticipated benefits, although those projections remain contested.

For the fresh produce industry, the immediate concern is ensuring that the pursuit of modest economic gains does not introduce avoidable costs into a supply chain already facing considerable commercial pressures.

With global sourcing essential to Britain's food security, FPC maintains that a successful UK–EU reset must deliver meaningful benefits not only for European trade but also for British consumers and the international businesses supplying their fruit and vegetables.

The consortium continues to encourage industry representatives and consumers to support its campaign through the FPC UK–EU Reset Action Pack, calling for a negotiated solution that protects affordable, safe and reliable fresh produce supplies.