UK promised EU pesticide ‘rights’ – but no vote

Britain would have the “rights and obligations” of an EU member state under proposed pesticide arrangements in the UK-EU food and farming realignment deal, industry representatives have been told – but without voting rights.

An industry source told Farmers Weekly that Defra officials had outlined the position at a recent roundtable, saying the UK’s Chemicals Regulation Division (CRD) would act as a rapporteur.

See also: EU alignment risks £810m hit to UK farm incomes

However, details of what that role would involve, and how the promised rights would operate without a vote, remained unclear, the source said.

The arrangement forms part of the proposed sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) agreement, intended to reduce border checks and paperwork on agrifood trade.

A 200-page draft of the deal is said to be circulating around Brussels, with the Guardian reporting that implementation is expected in the first quarter of 2028.

Imports

Meanwhile, trade association CropLife UK has warned that adopting EU pesticide maximum residue levels (MRLs) could affect imports from countries outside Europe and require domestic growers to meet EU standards, even when only supplying the British market.

Further changes are set to follow through the European Commission’s proposed Omnibus X package, which plans to reduce permitted residues for certain active substances to the lowest level that can be reliably measured.

Josh Woolliscroft, head of external affairs at CropLife UK, said: “Since leaving the EU, the UK has moved closer to Codex international MRL standards, and at the same time, the EU has moved further away.

“MRLs are international standards designed to ease international trade. They are not safety standards, and are well below safety standards. In a time of increased food insecurity, where free-trade consensus is breaking down, we should not be increasing costs and barriers to our trade with the rest of the world.”

An industry source said the US and Canada were concerned about the implications for trade, with critics arguing the restrictions create a non-tariff trade barrier and questioning their compatibility with World Trade Organisation rules.

Adopting the same restrictions could expose Britain to similar objections from trading partners, alongside the practical consequences for growers and importers.