The Great UK–EU Food Reset: what could possibly go wrong?

The proposed realignment of the UK with EU food safety, animal health and plant health regulations represents one of the most important changes in British food policy since Brexit. After years of immense disruption, additional bureaucracy and mounting costs, the prospect of a new Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) agreement has understandably been welcomed by many across the food industry. Consumers should also benefit with at least some of the likely cost savings being passed on from a range of products imported from the EU.

As recently reported, the agreement promises to remove disruptive barriers to trade and rebuild cooperation between two deeply interconnected food markets. However, I believe the political language of a Brexit ‘reset’ may risk creating some unrealistic expectations. Resetting a computer is relatively straightforward but attempting to reset complex regulatory arrangements that have diverged over the past decade governing food production, imports, exports and consumer protection is an entirely different ‘kettle of fish’.

Behind the positive headlines lie many difficult questions about pesticides, agricultural competitiveness, border inspections, food fraud, scientific independence and, perhaps most significantly, the future roles and responsibilities of the Food Standards Agency (FSA). Restoring smoother and more extensive trade with the EU will be vital to the UK economy and represents a long-overdue attempt to repair some of the immense economic damage inflicted by the deeply misguided and extraordinarily costly failed political experiment that was Brexit. Yet, understanding what regulatory realignment will actually mean in practice in terms of who benefits, who might lose out and whether the resulting system genuinely strengthens national food safety and security is not currently clear.

Britain now appears prepared to accept EU rules in exchange for easier market access – but this time without a seat at the table where those rules are decided.”

A fundamental change in how Britain regulates food is on its way

The proposed agreement is likely to establish a common SPS area, removing most routine certification requirements and physical inspections on agrifood products moving between Great Britain and the EU. This involves what’s been called ‘dynamic alignment’ – ie, Britain will generally follow future regulatory changes across the areas covered by the agreement. According to Defra’s guidance, it includes food and feed safety, pesticides, veterinary medicines, food additives, nutrition and health claims, labelling, organics and agricultural production. There is a certain irony in this ‘back to the future’ moment: after years of Brexit arguments centred on taking back control of its laws and regulations, Britain now appears prepared to accept EU rules in exchange for easier market access – but this time without a seat at the table where those rules are decided.

Farmers and pesticides: an uncomfortable trade-off

From what I can see, one of the most immediate challenges is the use – or more accurately the withdrawal of use – of certain pesticides. Since Brexit, GB and the EU have taken several different decisions on the approval of certain crop protection products. Realignment will, in all likelihood, change (and reduce) the number of pesticides British farmers are permitted to use. The National Farmers’ Union has identified three active substances approved in GB but not yet in the EU: cinmethylin, isoflucypram and pydiflumetofen. It also highlights 13 other compounds withdrawn in the EU that remain approved domestically. The NFU recognises the potential environmental benefits of restricting certain pesticides but is advocating for a sensible and pragmatic approach, with the implementation of appropriate transitional arrangements rather than abrupt withdrawals. This would afford farmers time to adopt effective and affordable alternatives, helping to deliver environmental improvements while minimising the risks of increased production costs, reduced yields and declining competitiveness for British agriculture.

Aside from market access, other benefits to alignment include improved access to certain biopesticides, treated seeds and parallel imports of crop protection products.

The FSA and EFSA: shifting scientific responsibilities

Perhaps the most consequential, and I think least discussed, aspect of the agreement concerns the future relationship between the FSA and the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). Since Brexit, the FSA, in conjunction with Food Standards Scotland, has undertaken independent scientific risk assessments supporting British decisions on novel foods, additives and other regulated products. However, the FSA’s September 2026 Annual Science Update explicitly states “risk assessment underpinning European Commission proposals would be undertaken by The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA).”

My interpretation of this is that it signals a substantial shift of scientific responsibilities away from the UK. EFSA would increasingly provide the assessments underpinning regulatory decisions in GB, although the FSA would retain a few UK-specific assessment responsibilities. Even more revealing is the FSA’s September 2026 SPS Programme Board paper, which states that under the proposed arrangements “all the GB authorisations cease to apply”. This means that businesses would instead require EU authorisations to place regulated products on the GB market, with perhaps a few exceptions.

Examples of some existing differences include titanium dioxide, nitrites and nitrates, bisphenol A and certain novel foods. The FSA also reports approximately 390 applications within its market authorisation service – nearly half concerning products already approved in the EU. What happens to all of these and the body of staff within the FSA that is currently responsible for their approvals? What happens when British scientists disagree with EFSA’s conclusions? How much influence will UK experts have over assessments affecting British consumers? Could reduced demand for independent assessments gradually weaken domestic scientific capability? Will the FSA’s future responsibilities lie more on surveillance, incident response, enforcement intelligence and UK-specific research?

These are fundamental questions that need clear answers if we are to understand the full implications of the reset and ensure that the UK retains sufficient scientific independence and the ability to ensure consumer protections aren’t inadvertently weakened.

On a more positive note; the FSA’s science update has identified potential realignment of UK National Reference Laboratories with the European Reference Laboratory network and closer coordination of surveillance programmes. Such developments can only strengthen Britain’s food safety infrastructure, provided domestic scientific investment is maintained. The EU will also be a winner here with so much UK scientific expertise returning to the fold. I know, from speaking with many EU scientists, that UK knowledge and experience has been sorely missed over the past decade.

Could reduced demand for independent assessments gradually weaken domestic scientific capability?”

Border controls: less bureaucracy, but what about food safety and food fraud?

Removing routine inspections on EU food imports promises significant commercial benefits, particularly for fresh produce, meat and dairy. However, fewer inspections does not equate to improved food safety or protection against food fraud. Defra’s border guidance confirms that routine checks on EU imports would largely disappear, while inspection rates for certain products originating outside the EU could increase. This would fundamentally change the responsibilities of Britain’s port health authorities. The FSA’s September 2026 Board paper reports that almost all of the 16 port health authorities consulted expressed concerns about staffing, funding and the future of inspection services. I add my voice to these concerns.

Criminal networks exploit complex international supply chains, fraudulent documentation and weaknesses in traceability. Removing routine border inspections may well reduce opportunities to identify suspicious consignments, particularly where fraudulent products have already entered European supply chains.

On a more positive note, the agreement also offers an important opportunity to address weaknesses in food safety and fraud intelligence sharing that emerged as a direct result of Brexit. The House of Commons Public Accounts Committee previously highlighted the UK’s loss of full access to the EU’s Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed (RASFF). Although mechanisms remained for exchanging relevant notifications, the UK lacks the same comprehensive access available to EU members. Of potentially even greater importance is the EU’s Agri-Food Fraud Network, which supports confidential information exchange and cross-border investigations involving suspected food fraud. Restoring access to confidential European food fraud intelligence could significantly strengthen the FSA’s National Food Crime Unit and Scottish Food Crime and Incidents Unit, providing earlier warnings about fraud issues that could affect the UK.

Encouragingly, the FSA is preparing for renewed engagement with European systems, including TRACES and RASFF. However, access to these systems does not automatically guarantee access to confidential food fraud intelligence. Whether Britain becomes better or less well protected against food fraud will depend greatly on the quality of intelligence-sharing arrangements negotiated with the EU and could provide an opportunity to replace routine border checks with a more sophisticated, targeted, intelligence-led system.

Removing routine border inspections may well reduce opportunities to identify suspicious consignments, particularly where fraudulent products have already entered European supply chains.”

Industry welcomes the reset, but uncertainty remains

Many parts of the food industry have understandably welcomed the potential reduced administrative costs and improved market access on offer. Yet all sectors face considerable uncertainty over implementation of the great reset. A 2026 House of Commons committee report highlights concerns raised by the NFU, the Food and Drink Federation and other industry groups that Britain could lose some of its freedom to make its own food regulations as it moves towards adopting EU rules. It also identifies potentially substantial savings from reduced border friction. The FSA’s industry engagement similarly reveals widespread support for simpler certification and border procedures, alongside requests for transitional arrangements, phased implementation and greater clarity.

UK Innovators: winners or losers?

The agreement could also reshape Britain’s capacity for driving important agriculture and food innovation. The UK’s approach to precision breeding illustrates the potential tension between regulatory independence and market access. The NFU has requested transitional protection for the existing British precision-breeding framework until the EU’s new genomic techniques regime becomes operational – currently anticipated in 2028. Similar questions arise for novel foods, precision fermentation and emerging food technologies. Alignment could create a larger, more predictable market, but potentially reduce the UK’s flexibility to pursue different regulatory approaches.

A reset worth pursuing, but not without important safeguards

The proposed SPS agreement offers an opportunity to repair some of the damage caused by years of fragmented regulatory arrangements driven largely by ideology. Reduced bureaucracy, improved trade flows and stronger scientific cooperation could benefit businesses and consumers alike. The reset must also be judged by whether British farmers and food manufacturers can remain competitive, food safety and fraud protections are maintained, regulatory institutions are adequately resourced and Britain retains the scientific capability to respond independently to emerging threats. Removing border controls without securing these capabilities would be a serious, missed opportunity and potential threat.

I firmly believe the reset is both necessary and will ultimately be beneficial. But unless its anticipated and unexpected consequences are properly understood and managed, we risk discovering that solving one set of problems has merely created another.