SPS agreement would bring benefits, but has potential pitfalls too, report warns
A future deal with the EU must not disadvantage Britain’s horticulture and wider farming industry, a new report by the influential Efra committee has insisted.
The report notes the ongoing government negotiations with the European Union over the trade of meat, plant and animal products, and stresses that a sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) agreement could bring many benefits for UK consumers, farmers and producers if it lowers costs by removing the need for border checks and other red tape, and makes supply chains more resilient.
But it also outlined potential problems that should be avoided as the UK faces potentially having to change regulations in a number of areas to align with the EU. MPs emphasised the need for the government to communicate effectively with the public about potential pros and cons of an SPS deal regarding decisions on regulations.
Negotiations between the UK and EU Commission towards a common area for SPS regulations began in November 2025.
“Making it easier to trade with our European neighbours should present a feast of benefits for British businesses, farmers and consumers,” said Efra committee chair Alistair Carmichael. ”But there is a lot on the menu for the government to consider, and our recommendations aim to help ministers set the table.
“The use of pesticides is 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.
“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.”
‘Strengthen, don’t constrain’
Fresh Produce Consortium CEO Nigel Jenney welcomed the Efra committee’s recognition of the “profound complexity and the sheer scale of unanswered questions” surrounding the SPS situation.
He said the UK urgently needs 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,” he added.
“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,” Jenney continued. “In that context, the so-called ‘savings’ being promoted by the UK government simply do not exist if the underlying deal delivers no real additional benefit.
”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 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 per cent 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.”
