Meat processors chief calls for SPS deal and fair standards
© Adobe Stock The British Meat Processors Association has called for a comprehensive sanitary and phytosanitary agreement with the EU, and stronger production standards in future trade deals with other countries.
John Powell, the association’s new chief executive, told Farmers Weekly that the sector faces a “pivotal moment” as post-Brexit trading arrangements and global competition reshape the food and farming industry.
See also: The pros and cons for farming of closer EU alignment
He described a sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) deal as the most immediate opportunity to ease trade friction.
“We are fully supportive of a successful conclusion of the SPS negotiations and want this agreement to be as comprehensive as possible,” he said.
Mr Powell added that this would immediately reduce costs for processors who export, and “it would also dramatically improve our competitiveness”.
Regulatory alignment
Mr Powell acknowledged that regulatory alignment with the EU remains politically sensitive, but said it is a practical requirement for exporters.
“Regulatory alignment in itself isn’t actually a bad thing, because we have to comply with the EU’s rules if we want to export.
“Just the same as we have to comply with any third-country rules that we want to export to,” he said.
“At least, having the regulatory framework gives you a set of benchmarks and it opens up markets.”
While the opportunities for domestic “flexibility” (for things like pesticide approvals and gene editing) could be limited, he argued the trade benefits outweigh the drawbacks.
“Yes, the agreement would definitely bring lots of benefits, reduce costs and I think that does mean some form of regulatory alignment is actually a price worth paying.
“I think we need to see [it] in terms of a regulatory framework around a trade arrangement, not loss of sovereignty,” he added.
Core production standards
Looking beyond the EU, Mr Powell called for future trade deals to include core production standards, particularly on animal health and welfare.
“I think allowing free trade and fair trade should go more hand in hand,” he said.
“I’m pretty sure that consumers, when they buy food in the supermarket, are still expecting it to be at least equivalent to the standards that British farmers produce.”
He raised concerns about increased imports under existing agreements with Australia and New Zealand, warning of potential pressure on domestic prices.
“The more that comes in, potentially at a cheaper price which could threaten the price structure here, it could destabilise livestock farming even more.
“And once you are becoming reliant on imports, then you rely on supply chains that, as we’ve seen in recent years, are not as secure as they used to be.”
Mr Powell said future deals should aim for close equivalence on welfare and environmental standards, with a balance of market access and safeguards.
Without this, he warned, the UK risks losing both market share and consumer trust.
Q&A session with Mr John Powell
John Powell took up his role as chief executive of the British Meat Processors Association (BMPA) in March, replacing former incumbent Nick Allen, who has now retired.
Previously, Mr Powell was head of the agricultural sectors team at Defra. He has more than 40 years’ experience in the agri-food industry, both as a UK civil servant and in the private sector as an adviser to governments in more than 20 European countries.
What is the driving concern across the livestock sector?
Mr Powell said declining UK livestock numbers are placing growing pressure on farm businesses and the wider meat supply chain.
He said the impact is already visible in self-sufficiency figures.
“From 113% self-sufficient a couple of years ago, now we’re down to 99%, and numbers continue to fall.”
What are the risks for processors and the supply chain?
Mr Powell warned that lower throughput could threaten the viability of processing plants, which depend on consistent volumes.
“If livestock numbers fall to a point where it becomes unviable, the big risk is that one of the processors decides to consolidate, and that may mean closing a plant.
“The whole supply chain could be at risk and our food security and our self-sufficiency at the same time,” he said.
He added that closures could leave farmers with fewer outlets, longer transport distances and added animal welfare pressures.
Do policymakers understand these impacts?
Mr Powell, who previously served as head of the agriculture sector team at Defra, believes they do, but balancing competing priorities remains difficult.
“The challenge is finding that sweet spot where you can actually address all those things.”
He added that closer collaboration between government and industry will be key.
“In my time at the civil service, I was not working in a processing company, I was not on a farm with animals, so you need both sides of the equation to be able to contribute to good policymaking.”
Is the narrative around livestock and climate change too simplistic?
While acknowledging emissions targets, Mr Powell said livestock must be considered within a wider system.
“I think it is actually a very complex problem, and there are lots of issues that are interlinked.
“It’s being able to see things holistically and tackle it holistically.”
Across the UK, who has the right approach to livestock traceability systems?
Not expressing a preference for either low- or high-frequency electronic ID systems, Mr Powell called for UK-wide compatibility.
“We’re urging the UK government and devolved administrations to ensure that any modernisation of the traceability systems maintains full compatibility at Great Britain [level].
“There has to be a common system. If we’re operating different systems, it’s going to become incredibly difficult for us to trace animals.”