Cymraeg The Agriculture Bill, as it stands, lacks any formal requirement to uphold British farming production standards as we negotiate trade deals and in our general trade policy. The Bill should ensure that agri-food imports are produced to at least equivalent environmental, animal welfare, and food safety standards as those required of producers in the UK. The manifesto commitment not to compromise environmental, animal welfare, and food standards in trade deals needs to be enshrined in law. This would be achieved by Amendment 93.
The amendment does not prevent the UK from signing new trade deals. It simply requires the government to confirm to Parliament that the commitment not to compromise standards has been upheld in trade deals, with imported food and agricultural products having to be produced to equivalent, rather than the same standards. It is for the government to set out how it will judge equivalence, something it would have to do in any case if it is to honour the manifesto commitment.
For more info on the Amendment, see below!
What we need from you
The amendment is being debated on Tuesday 22nd September in the House of Lords. We need you to let the Lords know this is important to you that they support Amendment 93.
Two simple ways you can do this:
- Post a photo or video of yourself asking them to support Amendment 93 on social media – use the hastags #Amendment93 #HouseofLords #SaveBritishFarming . Don’t forget to tag the Landworkers’ Alliance in your posts so we can share them.
- Email Lord Gardiner of Kimble on gardinerj@parliament.uk and send him your photos, videos or an email asking for support.
Which sorts of standards does the Amendment refer to?
The purpose of banning low standard imports is to protect farmers who produce food to high stands from being undercut in price and quality by cheap imports. These low standard imports would include:
- beef treated with hormones
- pork which is produced with ractopomine and farrowing crates
- chicken from more intensive farming units than are allowed by law in the UK
- fruit and vegetable covered in high levels of pesticides banned in the UK
Public Support for a ban on low standard imports
The public along with a coalition of almost all of the farming organisations, including the NFU and major environmental organisations sent a letter to MPs on May 20th, and has remained united in its opposition to the possibility of lower standard food such as chlorine-washed chicken or hormone injected beef entering the UK.
Which? research shows more than 9 in 10 (95%) believe it is important for the UK to maintain existing food standards. Around three-quarters (74%) told Which? they objected to importing food produced using lower standards. Those in lower socioeconomic households were less likely than those in higher socioeconomic households to think lower standard food should be available in the UK, for both groups support for such a change was low – 11% and 16%. A letter from Which to Liz Truss, points out that consumers would have no choice about eating low standard produce as much of the food eaten out of home is not labelled. It goes on to argue that any pre-existing legislation could be changed using little-scrutinised secondary legislation, which is why new legal commitments on chlorine-washed chicken and hormone-reared beef, for example, are needed.
Impact on farm livelihoods
All of the farming organisations who signed the letter dated May 20 agreed that a trade policy that undermines our farmers by requiring them to compete against food produced to lower standards will mean that our common goal of a more prosperous, sustainable and nature-friendly food and farming sector will be made much harder to achieve. And the UK will have missed an opportunity to set out its stall as being serious about tackling its global footprint. A report by economists from Waganinigen analysed the impact of lower cost imports on farm gate prices and compared the impact of increased exports in a low tariff regime against higher domestic prices gained from protection of farm prices and concluded that UK farmers on balance fare best under scenarios in which tariffs on imported agricultural goods are highest. The report did not analyse the impact of products which fall below UK standards, but shows the importance of maintaining fair prices for farmers to have viable farm livelihoods.
WTO compliance
The WTO is not a set of standards or clear cut rules, but a process we as the UK should be working with to improve standards and having a clear legal remit to do this would enhance that role and indicate political will. Tariffs allowed by the WTO are much higher for agricultural goods than they are for most other goods, since agriculture, is particularly vulnerable to global competition and there are many sensitivities surrounding cultural norms and agricultural livelihoods. Indeed, for this reason, agricultural commodities were exempt from World Trade Organization negotiations until 1994 — and many still argue that “food is different” and should not be subject to WTO regulations.
Countries across the world, are clear that they need the ability to prevent the importation of agricultural products which fall below their domestic standards, largely to prevent the exploitation of farm workers and to protect livelihoods for their farmers providing for their domestic food security. India, for example, has rigorous standards that prevent the import of goods that do not meet their standards (dairy products produced with animal products in the feed, chlorinated chicken) and has been at the forefront of defending these rules at the WTO level.
Amending the Bill to enshrine the importance of food trade, but only where high standards of production are met, will allow the UK to be an important voice for sustainable production and climate-friendly farming across the world, in line with the many voices of farmers across the Global South.
Why should this be in the law?
It it is extremely important that this ban on products produced to low standards is in the law because Government commitment can change according to political will. Liz Truss is currently scrutinised, but it is difficult to maintain this level of pressure over time. The articles in Farmer Guardian by Liz Truss listing the potential opportunities in the US trade deal for farmers are patronising and insulting.
Farmers organisations don’t want to trade away our local farms, our food sovereignty and our future food security for a handful of trade opportunities for big farms or other interests. Agriculture represents a very small part of total UK economy and its interests are likely to be sacrificed for other ends. If Amendment 93 provides a legal baseline for negotiations it will be difficult for individual concerns to be sacrificed.
Government needs to prioritise our domestic producers and ensure we have a strong domestic food supply first, before we look to global supply chains. There is trade off. If they allow in food products produce below British standards then farmers will go out of business. Government will be forced to either lower standards, so that British farmers remain competitive or we will lose them and our domestic food supply will suffer or become concentrated in the hands of large industrial farms.
There is the argument that Amendment 93 would force the UK to to redo trading relationships with some EU countries, such as Denmark, and it will make it difficult to negotiate trade agreements, jeopardising our food security. This is an argument for investing in a skilled diplomatic team. Since we are already renegotiating our trade arrangements with Europe we should be investing in a skilled team with a vision for setting high standards in our negotiations with all of the countries we trade with. This is something we should be doing anyway if we want to ensure high standards and fair prices for farmers in the UK.
Composition of the Trade and Agriculture Commission
Two other amendments have been put forward to strengthen the remit of the Trade and Agriculture Commission, both are good but they do not contain a requirement to broaden the representation on the TAC.
As it stands now the Trade and Agriculture Commission is highly inadequate and you can read our full response here. Therefore we are supporting Amendment 93 rather than these amendments.
