Thread by @nvonwestenholz

After another weekend of coverage of trade deals and food standards, there’s been particular interest in the joint letter from Liz Truss and George Eustice sent to MPs on Friday. Lets break it down (long thread, apologies)…. /1

We should welcome it as an important re-statement of the commitment to UK farmers’ high standards of animal welfare, environmental protection and food safety in trade policy. It’s also in the government’s manifesto and the US/UK negotiating objectives /2

To the detail: it is true that all existing EU food safety provisions, including import requirements, have been transferred onto the UK statute book. This means, currently, the bans on things like chemical washes in poultry will remain /3

It is also true that legislation would be needed to be brought before Parliament to remove these restrictions. (Side note – it’s also true that the UK will come under heavy pressure from others to remove these restriction) /4

So these safeguards remain in place and are very important. However, we need to look more closely at what these bans actually are, and what they are not, and how cast-iron they are /5

Firstly, note the reference only to “food safety provisions” and “food safety legislation”. This is important as the specific issues referred to (growth hormones and chemical washes) are in fact bans on the grounds of food safety, not animal welfare /6

This is because international trade law (i.e. WTO rules and obligations) allows countries quite a lot of control over so called Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) measures. These allow countries to manage risks to human, animal or plant health in their own country /7

This last point is important. The focus is on the PRODUCT, and ensuring it poses no or little risk to (and in) the importing country. It has little to say about PRODUCTION if it is deemed to have no effect on the safety of the end product /8

This is often the case with animal welfare – for instance, in trade law a free-range egg and a caged-egg are considered “the same” when it comes to the risk posed specifically by the egg. But consumers care quite a lot about whether eggs are caged or free range /9

So, even though many of us argue about (e.g.) the animal welfare issues of using chemical washes in chicken, the legal basis for the ban is solely about food safety – the risk of the chemical to human health – not animal welfare /10

This means that if we have a concern about the animal welfare or environmental impact of a certain production method, the “food safety” assurances in this letter, which have been transferred into UK law, provide no safeguards /11

And while it’s important that the government is saying it will not compromise on environmental protection, animal welfare and food safety standards, the specific assurance it then gives is only about food safety /12

The second issue in the letter is about Parliamentary scrutiny of these controls. We are told that legislation will be brought before Parliament before any changes are made. But, there’s legislation and there’s legislation /13

Legislation is broadly divided between Primary Legislation and Secondary Legislation. Primary legislation (Bills) undergo weeks of debate, amendments and votes. Scrutiny is generally very high (although a government with a majority can always prevail) /14

Secondary legislation (for example statutory instruments or SIs) are rarely debated, cannot be amended, and are rarely subject to a vote. Often an SI is simply “laid” in Parliament and automatically comes into effect some days later /15

Secondary legislation is notoriously difficult to reject:

commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-brief…

The last occasion the House of Commons did so was in 1979! It is generally used to adjust aspects of primary legislation (like regulatory lists) easily /16

Back to the SPS bans on certain farming practices. Some of these may require primary legislation to change, but many will just need secondary legislation – i.e. a very low level of parliamentary scrutiny indeed (some might say simply a rubber stamp) /17

It should also be remembered, Parliament does not get an explicit vote on ratifying any trade deals. NB - both of these issues could be addressed in the current Trade Bill – giving MPs a clear say on trade deals, and a clear vote on any changes to food standards /18

Moving on, the letter states that the Food Standards Agency and Food Standards Scotland will have responsibility for ensuring imports meet high UK standards. This is true and important, and we must ensure these agencies are properly resourced to do this job effectively /19

There is also an important assurance that these decisions will be made independently of any trade agreement (and again, negotiators will come under pressure to at least provide assurances that these issues will be reviewed) /20

But, note again, the reference to food safety. Back to my earlier point about the distinction between product standards (safety) and production standards (e.g. animal welfare/environmental protection in the country of origin) /21

If an overseas producer exports product that is deemed "safe", but under animal welfare standards or environmental standards banned here, its very hard to see how the FSA can restrict its import under its current powers /22

What this means is that, if the FSA were to decide chemical washes in poultry are safe to the consumer, then that’s the end of the matter. Imports of the product would be allowed. It cannot maintain the ban due to animal welfare concerns /23

Furthermore, under the core principles of the WTO, this would apply equally to all imports. It wouldn’t relate only to, for example, US food (even if it might specifically benefit US farmers). It would apply to all overseas producers equally /24

So, there are a number of questions for government that are unanswered by this letter:

1.What are the government’s actual intentions regarding the FSA/FSS reviewing current SPS measures such as the ban on chemical washes in poultry and other EU-derived food safety laws? /25

2. In reviewing such measures, can the FSA take into account production standards? For instance, with regard to chemical washes in poultry, can the FSA take into account animal welfare issues where this practice is used? /26

3. More broadly, what role will the FSA have in future in assessing the standards of animal welfare and environmental impact (in the host country, not the UK) when it comes to food imports? /27

4. If the government cannot fully take animal welfare or environmental protection into account as part of its current food standards controls, what are the alternatives – in particular with regard to its general tariff policy (MFN tariffs/the UK Global Tariff) /28

5. Should the FSA advise a change in food standards (for example so that the consequence would be that food currently banned would be allowed for import), what precise role would Parliament have in agreeing to that change or otherwise? /29

6. What will be the precise Parliamentary involvement in ratifying trade deals – will it, in all circumstances, include a specific debate and a yes/no vote? /30

FINAL POINT – the fact that it has taken an enormous thread, and that there are still so many unanswered questions, demonstrates the complexity of the issue. It cannot be put to bed by broad assurances and single sentences in manifestos /31

This is why (for the umpteenth time) the government needs to get a grip on the issue. It needs to bring experts and stakeholders together, under the auspices of a Trade and Standards Commission, to set out the roadmap for managing the issues /32

The government says it will not compromise on our high environmental protection, animal welfare and food standards. Very good. But I think I have shown that much, much more detail is needed /33

PS – sign this /end

campaigns.nfuonline.com/page/56262/pet…