The recent Brexit reset has raised concerns that the UK may need to reconsider its animal welfare protections unless Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer firmly establishes these standards as a non-negotiable aspect of trade discussions. Prime Minister Rishi Sunak has prioritized securing a veterinary agreement with the EU, aiming to improve trade relations and facilitate the movement of food and goods across the border. However, such an agreement would likely require the UK to align closely with EU regulations, which has prompted warnings from experts and animal welfare organizations that the UK could be pressured to dilute its existing higher animal welfare standards.
Critics are particularly worried that the UK might have to abandon its ban on live animal exports and its plans to prohibit the importation of foie gras—both of which have been framed as significant benefits of Brexit. The EU does not impose similar restrictions, and any trade deal that requires alignment with EU laws could jeopardize these protections.
The i Paper has reported that ministers have faced lobbying from the farming sector to ensure that animal welfare issues are excluded from the scope of these negotiations, known as sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) discussions. However, government representatives have not committed to preserving these animal welfare policies in their negotiations with Brussels, particularly with the first post-Brexit UK-EU summit on the horizon on May 19.
Improved Animal Welfare Was Touted as a Key Brexit Benefit
The UK government’s ban on the export of live animals for fattening and slaughter, which came into effect in January, was portrayed as a significant achievement of Brexit. This ban was not possible under EU regulations, which mandated that member states allow such exports. Meanwhile, the Labour Party has signaled its intention to outlaw foie gras imports, citing animal cruelty concerns associated with the force-feeding practices used in its production.
Brexit expert David Henig suggested that a comprehensive SPS agreement, similar to the arrangement Switzerland has with the EU, could create a “single market for food and drink products.” This could potentially include provisions for trading live animals, as EU member states are unable to restrict such exports to one another. Henig, who serves as the UK director of the European Centre for International Political Economy, noted, “While there may be room for exemptions, the UK should prepare for a maximalist EU position.”
UK Should Prepare for EU to Drive a Hard Bargain
Joël Reland, a senior researcher at the UK in a Changing Europe, indicated that the EU is exploring reforms to its animal transportation rules but has no intention of banning live animal exports outright. Potential reforms could impose a maximum journey time of 21 hours, along with new requirements for animal rest, feed, and water, as well as minimum space allowances for transportation. Reland emphasized that the trade of live animals represents a significant industry within the EU, making it unlikely that the bloc would readily compromise on this issue. He commented, “The EU might stipulate that a condition of participating in our veterinary area is that animals are permitted to be exported.” However, he also noted that the EU could grant the UK specific exemptions if it serves the bloc’s interests, as this would reduce competition.
Warnings of ‘Terrible Backward Step’ on Animal Rights
Former Environment Secretary Steve Barclay, who played a pivotal role in implementing the live animal export ban, expressed that reversing this policy would represent a “terrible backward step.” He stated, “The cessation of live animal exports underscores our nation’s commitment to animal welfare. This change received widespread support across political parties and was welcomed by the public.” Barclay lamented the previous frustrations faced by Parliament in enacting this policy due to EU membership, asserting that allowing live exports to resume would be a grave mistake.
Peter Stevenson, chief policy advisor at Compassion in World Farming, has urged Starmer to prioritize animal welfare as a fundamental aspect of negotiations. He remarked, “Many people would be horrified at the prospect of reverting to live animal exports. We would advise the government that while a frictionless trading relationship with the EU would have numerous advantages, one of our red lines must be the preservation of our export ban. Ideally, a second red line would be the UK’s ability to prohibit foie gras imports.”
Abigail Penny, executive director of Animal Equality UK, cautioned that without essential exceptions in negotiations, the UK could struggle to prevent the import of products resulting from inhumane practices, such as foie gras or products from pigs kept in excessively confined conditions. Regarding animal exports, she warned that reducing checks on food and agricultural trade at the border could significantly hinder the enforcement of the UK’s live export ban, potentially exposing animals to distressing transport conditions. “The UK government must not allow extreme animal cruelty to go unchecked,” she stressed.
David Bowles, head of public affairs at the RSPCA, expressed skepticism that any agreement with the EU would adversely affect existing legislation and maintained that it should not reverse the live animal export ban. He urged the government to ensure that any agreement does not inadvertently compromise the UK’s high health and welfare standards or impede the country’s ability to enhance its animal welfare regulations in the future. “This could include a future import ban on fur or foie gras, both of which are already prohibited in the UK,” he added.
When questioned about the government’s commitment to maintaining the live animal export ban and fulfilling its promise to prohibit foie gras imports, a government spokesperson stated, “We have made it clear that a veterinary or SPS agreement could enhance trade and yield significant benefits for both parties. The terms of any agreement will be subject to negotiation, and we are determined to work towards removing trade barriers, given that the UK and EU already maintain comparably high standards.”
