Sevington Inland Border Facility in Ashford, Kent: built at huge cost, it has hardly been used. Now it is rumoured to be up for sale. Photo Gareth Fuller/PA Images/alamy.com.
We all have to eat, every day. And the safety of what we put in our mouths is exceptionally important. So what – particularly after Brexit – is the government doing outsourcing standard-setting to Brussels?
Anyone concerned about food standards – both in relation to quality and safety – will be feeling a bit queasy as the government cosies up to the European Union. Egged on by big agribusiness, it is ceding control and sovereignty in small steps that are largely eluding scrutiny in the mass media.
The most obvious move came in May with the announcement of the new Strategic Partnership with the EU. That’s about more than food standards, of course. It covers everything from foreign policy and defence to trade and industry.
The joint statement issued by the EU and Britain at the time noted: “We reflected on the need to develop an ambitious, dynamic relationship which meets the needs of our citizens.” The key word here is “dynamic”.
Dynamism sounds good, doesn’t it? Who doesn’t want to be dynamic? But in the particular language of Brussels-speak dynamic means regulations that change automatically whenever the EU changes them. Dynamic means subordination to the EU and the European Court of Justice.
That dynamism is set to be confirmed in law with the development of a Sanitary and Phytosanitary Zone, or SPS. That is still being developed. But it is already clear that although Britain will have access to the EU committees that make the rules on animal and plant (that’s the “phyto” bit) health, it will not have any role in decision making. No vote. And it will have to pay for access to the committees and their data.
Delayed
Agreement on the SPS may in fact be some way off. Speaking at a British–Irish Chamber of Commerce conference in Dublin on 2 October, EU trade commissioner Maros Sefcovic said that the “most optimistic” assessment would be that the agreement would be in place within a year.
That, though, has not stopped Keir Starmer’s government from moving to dismantle the checks in place on a range of products. On 2 June, it announced that most fruit and vegetable imports from the EU would no longer be subject to border checks.
Laughably, the government says, “Protecting UK biosecurity remains a key government priority, and risk-based surveillance will continue to manage the biosecurity risks of these products.” In practice, surveillance has all but ended.
Big business is delighted, to go by reactions published by The Grocer magazine. The only salutary warning came from the International Meat Trade Association. It fears that what it calls one of the few benefits of Brexit, “the ability to move quicker than the EU bloc”, could be lost.
‘On 2 June, the government announced that most fruit and vegetable imports from the EU would no longer be subject to border checks.…’
“We’re keen to understand what assessment government has made on what this would mean for our relations with third countries,” the association said in May. “Food security is national security; food regulation should not be wholly outsourced to the EU, it is important that the UK retains some material influence in this area.”
The Royal Horticultural Society has not responded to the changes, although the import of seeds and plants is a key area for horticulturists. While Britain was in the EU, individuals were free to bring in seeds and plants for their own personal use with no checks whatsoever.
The result? Ash dieback, box tree moth and horse chestnut leaf miner have spread widely in Britain, causing, says the society, “significant changes to our landscape and horticultural practices”.
Under regulations introduced after Brexit, all plant material – for personal use included – require a phytosanitary certificate. Since August 2025 that requirement has been loosened, applying only to high or medium-high risk plants.
Not content with easing checks on fruit and vegetables, the government went further on 18 August, suspending the planned introduction of extra border checks on live animals and meat products entering Britain.
These checks were originally planned to come into force in 2021, but as with virtually anything associated with Brexit, delay has followed delay. Most recently, the planned introduction in October 2024 was postponed in September that year.
Now the controls – and all the work associated with bringing them in – has been abandoned. This included new border control stations, including a major installation at Sevington in Kent.
True to form, the National Farmers’ Union – whose council opposed Brexit back in 2016 – has backed the planned SPS agreement. Meanwhile, the National Pig Association has raised concerns.
“While we would always welcome steps to ease the trade burdens, we continue to stress that this must not be done in a way that potentially leaves UK livestock more exposed to imported disease by reducing inspections where they are needed,” said the association.
“While pigs imported for commercial breeding purposes are already tested for diseases at dedicated quarantine facilities, the same cannot be said for pet or hobby pigs and they do pose a risk to national biosecurity.”
Risks
The British Veterinary Association was even more forthright. It recognises the government’s desire to facilitate smoother trade, but warns that the suspension of planned checks “risks serious implications for the UK’s biosecurity while the details of the UK-EU deal continue to be negotiated”.
It added, “The Government must engage with the veterinary profession to ensure that efforts to ease trade do not come at the expense of the UK’s human and animal health and welfare.”
The shambles – and that’s not too strong a word – in Britain’s biosecurity was laid bare in a report by the National Audit Office published in June this year. Noting that there have been outbreaks of animal diseases in each of the past six years, it says that Defra and the Animal & Plant Health Agency “would struggle to cope with a more serious outbreak of animal disease”.
For reference, the foot-and-mouth epidemic in 2001 cost an estimated £13.8 billion at 2023/24 prices. And bird flu has resulted in the culling of 7.2 million birds between November 2020 and mid-March this year.
According to the report, Defra estimates that only 1 in 20 live animals imported into Britain from the EU and the rest of the world are currently undergoing physical checks.
The government’s target was 100 per cent at border control posts by the end of 2024. Meanwhile, the Animal & Plant Health Agency has a “vacancy factor” of 20 per cent.
British people who worry about biosecurity are going to have to express their concerns more loudly. The stark truth is that both this government and the EU are really only bothered about keeping large agribusiness happy. Leaving it to Westminster to keep us safe is not an option.
• Related article: Precision breeding