The government has been warned that any future UK-EU trade agreement risks undermining English farming and food businesses unless it includes clear carve-outs, phased implementation and strong safeguards on standards.

In a report published on 5 February 2026, the House of Commons Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee (EFRA) urged ministers to approach negotiations with Brussels pragmatically, arguing that agriculture remains one of the sectors most exposed to post-Brexit trade friction and regulatory divergence.

"The message from MPs is blunt: without careful design, a deal intended to smooth trade could lock UK producers into unfavourable conditions, weaken domestic policy flexibility, and intensify competitive pressure on English farms."

Why EFRA is sounding the alarm now

The committee’s intervention comes against a stark backdrop. Since the UK left the EU, exports of British agri-food products to the bloc have fallen sharply, particularly in meat, dairy and composite foods. Industry data consistently points to higher certification costs, border delays and regulatory complexity as barriers that disproportionately affect small and medium-sized producers.

EFRA’s concern is that a future agreement — especially one focused on sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) alignment — could trade short-term administrative relief for long-term strategic disadvantage if the UK accepts terms without sufficient flexibility.

MPs argue that the agricultural sector is not like other traded goods markets. Food production is bound up with animal welfare law, environmental regulation, rural employment and food security — all areas where policy autonomy matters.

What EFRA is asking for

The committee sets out three core demands:

Transition 01
Implementation Periods
Any regulatory changes must include adequate transition time. Sudden shifts in certification or labelling would disproportionately hit farmers.

Context: For livestock producers, even minor procedural changes can cascade into lost contracts.
Exemptions 02
Targeted Carve-outs
MPs recommend exemptions for sensitive areas:
  • Livestock and meat processing
  • Dairy and chilled products
  • Small consignments and mixed loads
Safeguards 03
Protection of Standards
The most politically sensitive issue. Any deal must not:
  • Undermine UK animal welfare rules
  • Constrain environmental policy choices
  • Allow lower-standard imports to undercut domestic producers

EFRA explicitly cautions against arrangements that would import EU rules dynamically without adequate parliamentary oversight — a concern echoed by farming groups worried about losing influence over future regulation.

What this means for English farmers

For many English farmers, the report reflects lived reality rather than abstract policy debate.

Sector Impact Analysis

Livestock & Dairy: The most exposed. EU markets have historically absorbed high-value cuts and specialist dairy products that struggle to find alternative destinations. Even modest trade friction can quickly erode profitability.

Horticulture: Regulatory misalignment could complicate seasonal labour arrangements, plant health certification and cross-border supply chains — all critical for time-sensitive goods.

Smaller Farms: Least able to absorb compliance costs. EFRA’s emphasis on implementation periods is particularly significant for businesses operating on thin margins.

The political balancing act

The committee’s report exposes the government’s tightrope walk.

On one side sits pressure to reduce friction with the EU, the UK’s largest agri-food trading partner. On the other lies a strong political commitment to regulatory independence, championed as a key Brexit dividend.

EFRA’s position attempts to chart a middle course: pragmatic cooperation without structural dependency.

However, critics argue that this balance will be hard to sustain in practice. SPS alignment, by its nature, involves ongoing regulatory dialogue — and potentially compromise. The risk, MPs suggest, is that agriculture becomes a bargaining chip rather than a protected national interest.

A wider warning about food security

Beyond trade mechanics, EFRA frames its recommendations as a matter of national resilience.

England’s farming sector is already undergoing rapid change, shaped by the transition away from direct payments, rising input costs and climate volatility. Adding poorly designed trade arrangements to that mix, MPs warn, could accelerate farm exits and increase reliance on imports.

The committee stops short of opposing closer EU cooperation outright. Instead, it calls for a deal that supports domestic production, preserves high standards and gives farmers confidence to invest.

What happens next

The government has yet to issue a formal response to the report. Under parliamentary convention, ministers are expected to reply within two months.

For farmers, processors and rural businesses, EFRA’s intervention offers both reassurance and uncertainty: reassurance that parliamentary scrutiny is alive to sector risks, and uncertainty because the ultimate shape of any UK-EU agreement remains unresolved.

What is clear is that agriculture is once again at the centre of the UK’s post-Brexit trade debate — and the outcome will have lasting consequences for English farming.

References