Trade and animal welfare

After many years of negotiation, the UK-EU Trade and Cooperation Agreement¹ was struck and ratified in December 2020.

EU and UK legislation on animal welfare is, largely, identical. However, the trade deal that has been negotiated is still something of a mixed bag for farm animals.

On the positive side:

• The deal does not prevent the UK from implementing a ban on the live export of animals for slaughter or fattening (although the Northern Ireland Protocol means it would be challenging to implement a ban across the Irish border, should this be desired).
• The agreement ensures tariff-free, quota-free trade in all farm products and many processed products. This means the level of farm imports originating from the EU can be maintained, given that animal products from third countries (most often produced to lower animal welfare standards) will not become cheaper than EU products.
• The UK is now able to replace the Common Agricultural Policy with its own system of farm subsidies, recognising the need to use public money to support public goods. This includes making it possible for the UK Government to divert resources to support higher animal welfare standards. There are already proposals on the table on this topic, and others are expected – for example, on the method of production labelling.
• The UK-EU deal also specifically references areas where the Parties will work together on farm animal welfare, particularly related to the "breeding, holding, handling, transportation and slaughter of food-producing animals."
• The deal recognises animals as sentient beings. This is also welcome, yet somewhat at odds with the UK Government position. Its failure to introduce a version of Article 13 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU means that animals are no longer recognised as sentient beings in UK law.
• There is also a section recognising that the misuse of antibiotics in animal agriculture is a threat to human and animal health. However, it is unclear what progress this will lead to on the ground, as regards the overuse of antibiotics in intensive farming systems.

On the negative side:

Disappointingly, however, the UK-EU agreement does not list animal welfare in its chapter on a 'Level Playing Field', and provisions on animal welfare cooperation do not include a commitment to non-regression.

Whilst in some FTAs the inclusion of a level playing field may be of concern (such as in an FTA with the USA), a commitment to this in the agreement with the EU could have prevented any backsliding in UK animal welfare standards. This is because much of the UK's animal welfare law is derived from EU law, and both have similar, comparatively high standards.

Conversely, the lack of such a commitment means the UK could set animal welfare standards lower than those of the EU, or vice versa. And neither Party will be able to use tariffs to claim back any cost disadvantages from lower animal welfare standards, should these standards diverge and impact trade.

Additionally, whilst the absence of tariffs could ensure that most exports of animal products from the UK  will not drop abruptly, additional checks, paperwork, and bureaucracy ('non-tariff barriers') do now apply for any animals or food products leaving Great Britain for the EU. This could, in spite of the deal, still impact trade – potentially decreasing demand for British animal products (which could lead to the culling of animals in the impacted sectors) and causing delays in transit for any animals leaving the country.

Moreover, as with other trade deals, the UK Government has secured to date, the EU deal fails to give the UK the right to refuse to import meat, eggs, and dairy produced to lower animal welfare standards. This is a missed opportunity because, for example, the UK could have insisted that imported pork must come from herds that do not use sow stalls (as is required of UK pig farmers.)

The first new post-Brexit deal the UK negotiated was the Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement with Japan.²

Although this was largely a rollover of an existing EU-Japan deal, the UK Government did seek to make changes in certain areas. Frustratingly, however, the agreement did not match up to the Government's rhetoric on protecting animal welfare standards:

• The language contained within the FTA relating to animal welfare is short and meaningless.
• There does not appear to be anything within the agreement which permits the UK to reject the import of products that are not produced to UK standards.
• Some elements of the agreement could also have a chilling effect in respect of the UK adopting stronger animal welfare regulations in the future. For example, the "exchange of information on planned or existing regulatory measures" would require the UK Government to notify Japan of any changes to domestic legislation. This could be seen as onerous – leading UK Ministers to determine it is more straightforward to simply not make changes to legislation in the first place.

For more information, read a comprehensive briefing on the UK-Japan FTA, sent by Compassion to members of both Houses of Parliament.

In November 2020, the UK and Canada reached agreement to roll over the provisions of the existing EU-Canada Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement ("CETA")³, with both Parties aiming to negotiate a more 'tailor-made' UK-Canada deal in 2021.

Compassion has a number of concerns regarding the existing EU-Canada deal, and the roll-over of this agreement does not allay our ongoing fears about protecting farm animal welfare standards. In particular:

• The original agreement on which the UK-Canada deal is based does not provide assurance that EU animal welfare standards will be upheld or specify that imports from Canada must meet EU legal requirements.
• The EU-Canada deal requires the Parties "to ensure that their technical regulations are compatible with one another." Yet Canada's regulatory standards on farm animal welfare are substantially lower than those of the UK or EU. There is no Canadian federal legislation on animal welfare besides basic anti-cruelty provisions, and few public health rules concerning animals. The strength of animal welfare law at the provincial level also varies greatly. The divergent regulatory approaches of the EU and Canada to animal welfare will make it difficult for the EU to adopt good new animal welfare legislation and could place downward pressure on existing measures. When re-negotiating its trade agreement with Canada the UK could find itself in a similar position, potentially resulting in standards being lower than if there were no obligation to achieve regulatory cooperation.
• CETA notes animal welfare only once (Art. 21.4.s) and, worryingly, the UK-Canada interim agreement does not make a single reference to animal welfare.
• Under CETA, compliance with animal welfare standards cannot be checked upon import of animal products. And, in the name of making trade easier, CETA dismantles EU inspections and audits in Canadian production facilities. As a result, given the contrast in legislation between the EU and Canada, it is clear that the risk of importing lower-standard products is high. This is a risk the UK continues to face, and one that must be addressed in any future negotiations between the two nations.
• Similar to CETA, the UK-Canada agreement permits the tariff-free import of significant amounts of bison meat, beef, veal, and pork. This would potentially allow UK farmers to be undercut by lower standard imports.
• As with a number of other nations the UK Government is prioritising trade agreements, Canada uses significantly larger quantities of antibiotics in its agricultural production – with associated threats to both animal and human health. A 2020 report by the Alliance to Save our Antibiotics⁴ found that overall farm antibiotic use per animal is about five times higher in Canada than in the UK.

In December 2021, the UK signed a free trade agreement with Australia⁴. Compassion is deeply concerned by the deal, as this ultimately tariff-free deal will allow cheap imports of beef and sheepmeat into the UK and seriously undermine UK animal welfare standards and Britain’s higher welfare pasture-based farmers.

Around 40% of the beef produced in Australia comes from cows fattened in feedlots, where the animals spend months in intensive conditions, fed largely on grain rather than grazing on pasture.

As with the USA, antibiotic use in Australian agriculture is also high. A recent report by the Alliance to Save our Antibiotics⁵ found that use per animal in poultry is over 16 times higher in Australia than in the UK, whilst for pigs, it is nearly three times higher.

In addition, several practices prohibited in the UK are permitted in Australia. These include mulesing (removing parts of the skin from live sheep), confining hens in barren cages, and keeping pregnant sows in stalls.

Despite these crucial differences in animal welfare standards between the two nations, the UK Government will not require beef or sheepmeat imports to meet domestic animal welfare standards in order for it to qualify for tariff or quota-free access to the UK market.

The UK Government has said that poultry, pork and egg exports will not be granted tariff-free access to the British market, due to a lack of comparative standards. Yet, in spite of the frequently poor practices adopted by the Australian beef and sheep sectors, exports of those products will be granted significant market access.

Worryingly, under the terms of the Agreement, in the first year alone tens of thousands of tonnes of Australian beef and sheepmeat will be allowed into the UK, tariff-free. Then the quotas would grow, year-on-year, until tariffs are totally eliminated.^6,7

The UK Government’s Impact Assessment of the deal states that there will be “around” a £94 million negative impact to the agriculture, forestry, and fishing sector and £225m hit to the semi-processed-foods sector as a result of this agreement. This suggests they expect large quantities of agricultural goods to come onto the UK market from Australia.⁸

The UK-Australian FTA looks set to break the UK Government's promises to protect animal welfare standards in trade deals. It will undermine higher welfare farming in the UK and encourage lower welfare practices in Australia – threatening the wellbeing of animals in both nations.

We are also concerned that concessions in the deal with Australia, may form a precedent for the US and other talks. Already, New Zealand renegotiated parts of its agreement, before it was signed (see below), to secure similar access to that which Australia negotiated for its agricultural export. It is vital that an Australian deal does not act as a Trojan horse, paving the way for the UK's higher standards to be further undermined in the potentially much larger US FTA.

You can find out more about these issues in our briefing on the UK-Australia FTA, and our submission to the Environment Food and Rural Affairs Select Committee.

Compassion is calling for the UK Government to develop a set of core standards that would need to be met in order for imports of certain products to be permitted.

SPEAK OUT: Please help protect animals by taking action against the UK-Australian trade deal.

In February 2022, the UK and New Zealand signed a free trade agreement ⁹. This deal will allow beef, sheepmeat and dairy products from New Zealand to become tariff-free (over 10-15 years for beef and sheepmeat and six years for dairy, along the same lines as the Australian deal).

Other food products, in particular eggs, pork and poultry, will also become tariff-free – but immediately on the deal entering into force, with no phase-in period.

However, the New Zealand deal raises less of a concern from an animal welfare perspective, as the standards in both countries are broadly comparable. For example, New Zealand is meant to be banning battery cages for laying hens from this year and the UK-New Zealand agreement is unlikely to come into effect until 2023.

The most concerning thing about this agreement is that there is no conditional liberation in the deal (i.e. allowing tariff-free access only to those products that definitely do meet UK standards). This seems a missed opportunity – if the UK can’t (or, more likely, isn’t willing to try to) secure that in a deal with NZ then it certainly won’t secure such conditions with anyone else it is seeking deals with (given all the other trade agreement the UK is prioritising are with nations that all have lower standards than either the UK or New Zealand). The UK Government’s Impact Assessment for the deal suggests the agriculture, forestry, and fishing sector will take a £48 million hit and the semi-processed foods sector around £97 million as a result of the deal.¹⁰

On a more positive note, the deal contains wording around non-derogation and non-regression from respective levels to avoid either nation trying to undercut the other party – given New Zealand’s higher standards, when compared to the rest of the world, this should be more meaningful than the similar language in the Australia deal (which carries little weight, given Australia’s poor standards). Although, as the animal welfare chapter is not subject to a dispute settlement mechanism it is unclear how the non-regression provisions will work (and how each party will assess welfare). Encouragingly, the deal also recognises the right of each party to legislate / introduce new policies in the area of animal welfare in order to try and improve animal welfare standards domestically.

On the issue of food safety, the deal permits the recognition of each other’s SPS measures. This will ensure that the UK can continue to use the precautionary principle when assessing food safety, which is how it maintains bans on hormone treated beef and chlorinated chicken (whereas the Australian deal only talks of a science-based approach, which would permit both of the above, if successfully challenged). The New Zealand deal also has wording around reducing antibiotic use on farms, which is to be welcomed.

Although the deal signed between the UK and New Zealand is of less concern than that signed between Australia and the UK, it is a further step in the Government signing deals with countries that will export significant agricultural products to the UK - including, in this instance, a 2,400% increase in beef imports. While New Zealand’s animal welfare standards are broadly comparable with current British standards, Compassion remains concerned that the headlong rush to increase meat imports, when combined with the UK-Australia FTA, could come at the expense of Britain’s higher welfare, pasture-based farmers.

For further information on this deal, you can read Compassion’s submission to the International Trade Select Committee inquiry into this trade agreement. 

With the election of President Biden and his focus on domestic issues as a priority, talk of a trade deal between the UK and the USA has dropped down the agenda in recent months. However, the UK Government remains keen to secure a UK-US FTA, and it seems likely that talks will resume at some point – although perhaps in the 2nd half of Biden's first term in office.

The possibility of a trade deal with the USA gives rise to a number of concerns regarding animal welfare standards.

Beef

Concerns about the import of hormone-treated beef have been widely publicised in the UK. However, the problems with US beef are not limited to the use of growth-promoting hormones. US cattle are usually kept in feedlots for the last few months of their lives. Feedlots confine thousands of cattle in crowded, often dirty conditions. If imports of beef from US feedlots are permitted, they will undercut UK pasture-based beef farmers on price.

Pork

Ractopamine is a beta-agonist feed additive used to promote growth in pigs. Its use is permitted in the US but prohibited in the UK, and there is evidence that it has a detrimental impact on the behaviour¹¹ and welfare¹² of pigs.

Pork imported from the US is also likely to come from herds where sows are confined in narrow stalls during pregnancy. The use of sow stalls has been illegal in the UK since 1999, due to concerns about animal welfare.

Dairy products

BST (bovine somatotropin) is a genetically engineered lactation-promoting hormone that is injected into cows in the US to increase milk yields.

The use of BST is prohibited in the UK on animal welfare grounds. Imported US dairy products from BST-treated cows would undercut UK farmers on price.

Chicken meat and egg products

The import to the UK of chicken washed in chlorine or other chemical disinfectants has rightly caused concern, as such treatments are used to mask unhygienic conditions in production, slaughter, and processing. These conditions are often associated with low welfare, highly intensive chicken farming.

Additionally, whilst the use of barren battery cages for hens is banned in the UK, they are used in most US states. Although fresh eggs are unlikely to be imported from the USA, in the UK 21% of eggs are used as product ingredients, often in the form of whole egg powder. At present, US egg powder imports are discouraged by high tariffs, but the US is likely to oppose the inclusion of such tariffs in any trade agreement. This may well result in egg powder coming into the UK from hens kept in barren cages in the USA, undermining domestic farmers.

Antibiotics

Antibiotics are given to farm animals at much higher levels in the USA than in the UK. In terms of mg of the active ingredient of antibiotic per tonne of livestock unit (PCU)¹³:

• Total antibiotic use in US farm animals is more than five times higher than in UK farm animals.
• Antibiotic use in US cattle is about 8-9 times that in UK cattle.
• US antibiotic use in both pigs and chickens is more than double that in UK animals.
• Antibiotic use in US turkeys is about nine times higher than that in the UK.

Regulatory coherence

In any trade agreement with the UK, the US is likely to press for the inclusion of a clause intended to align regulatory standards on the farming, transport, and slaughter of animals. This would be worrying, as US regulations on farm animal welfare are generally substantially lower than those in the UK.

Indeed, the US has no federal regulations at all in many areas. There is no federal legislation governing the welfare of animals while they are on a farm. And, although there are provisions on slaughter, these do not cover poultry and are much less detailed than UK legislation. Similarly, regulations on transport are much less detailed and demanding than UK legislation.

Meanwhile, whilst the UK has banned barren battery cages for hens, sow stalls, and veal crates, there is no US federal ban on these systems – although 12 states have prohibited one or all of these systems.

In the light of all these threats, Compassion believes it is vital for any FTA with the US to prevent imports of food that has not been produced to UK standards.

Read our full briefing on the threats posed by a UK-US Free Trade Agreement.