At the General Election, the Conservative manifesto pledged: ‘In all of our trade negotiations post-Brexit, we will not compromise on our high environmental protection, animal welfare and food standards.’
The promise could not be clearer, the commitment to uphold our world-class food production standards could not have been stronger.
But upholding that commitment has two important elements.
Former Environment Secretary Theresa Villiers (pictured) welcomes reports that the Prime Minister is holding firm surrounding tariffs for US foodstuffs not produced to UK standards
These are, first, to maintain the high standards we require our domestic producers to meet and, second, to ensure that our trade policy does not allow the unconstrained import of food produced to lower standards.
Ministers regularly give assurances on the first point but have resisted commitments on the second.
That is why I very much welcome reports that Boris Johnson will now insist that in any future trade deal with the US, chlorinated chicken and other American foodstuffs not produced to our own high animal welfare standards will be subject to steep tariffs.
That will protect British farmers from being undercut by produce that is only cheaper because it is reared or grown using methods that would not be permitted in the UK.
However, reports that Ministers will now do all they can to protect British farmers with higher tariffs are not enough.
Promises from Government Ministers that they will do all they can to protect British farmers are not enough
We need a firm, open commitment from the Government either by way of a public statement or by amending the current Agriculture Bill, as I and 17 other Conservative colleagues sought to do last month.
I wholeheartedly welcome The Mail on Sunday’s campaign to defend British farmers and their renowned high standards of food production.
The problem is that retaining our strict domestic rules on environmental stewardship and animal welfare will have less and less of an impact if an ever-increasing proportion of the food we eat is produced overseas using methods which would be illegal if put into practice in Britain.
This is the great risk if a trade agreement with the US were to remove tariffs or restrictions on food imports without pre-conditions.
The higher cost involved in producing food to some of the most rigorous standards in the world means that UK livestock farmers would struggle to compete with US imports, especially hormone-treated, intensively-reared, feedlot beef which makes up so much of US production.
A core principle of free trade is that it shifts production to locations where firms are more efficient and have lower costs.
In many sectors of our economy, the benefits of that process, in terms of lower prices and access to overseas markets, are considerable and make both sides better off.
But food is different. I am a supporter of trade liberalisation but applying this dry economic principle in an unfettered way to food and agriculture would be wrong, which is why almost no country in the world treats food in the same way as other commodities when it comes to trade policy.
Exposing our farmers to uncontrolled competition from lower-cost, lower-welfare imports would not only undermine our commitments on protecting the environment and on the compassionate treatment of animals, it would have a huge impact on the rural economy.
There is a great risk that many livestock businesses could go bust across the country.
There is a risk that many livestock business will go bust if farmers are exposed to lower-cost imports that do not meet the UK’s animal welfare standards
Much debate has centred on the UK/EU ban on the import of chlorinated chicken. While the science is disputed, there can be little doubt that chlorine, and other disinfectant washes deployed at the end of production, are used to compensate for poor hygiene during rearing and slaughter.
Such washes have been banned in the UK since the 1980s, because our approach has been to require higher hygiene standards at all stages of production.
This is a far more effective way to protect human health and also promotes better animal welfare and lower use of antibiotics.
Similarly, the ban on hormone-treated beef has been in place in the UK since 1990 because of legitimate health concerns. These were upheld when the World Trade Organisation (WTO) dispute between the US and the EU on this issue was settled with the ban staying in place.
Part of the compromise agreed was that a significant amount of imported beef from the US would be allowed in without tariffs, so long as it was not treated with hormones.
This is a precedent which shows that imposing conditions on imports can be done within WTO rules.
Admittedly, it is more difficult to do this with regard to animal welfare than it is in relation to the issues on human health which have been the focus of the chicken and beef disputes with the US.
But if we are serious about animal welfare protections and the environment, we should be making the case that rules on international trade should be updated to better reflect public concern on these crucial issues.
I want to emphasise that I want the import ban on chlorinated chicken and hormone-fed beef to stay in place but the Government’s new proposal to use tariffs instead is a compromise which can deliver more or less the same outcome.
If the tariffs are high enough, American producers using intensive low-standard methods would be priced out of our market and deterred from trying to sell to us.
I very much hope that a US trade agreement can be reached because of the benefits it could bring for jobs, prosperity and lower prices.
However, our negotiators should stand firm and insist on tariffs or restrictions on imported food unless it is produced to standards of animal welfare and environmental protection as good as our own.
Ministers need to fight hard to protect British farmers (pictured) against the US who will negotiate very hard in the post-Brexit trade deal
Therefore, welcome as it is that our Government now seems to be signalling that it is prepared to use tariffs to defend our standards, this is not enough. The US will negotiate long and hard in their own interests.
We must hold our Ministers’ feet to the fire to ensure they do stay firm and resolute.
The UK market for food and groceries is the third largest in the world. It is a massive prize for any country to be allowed greater access to it. We should not sell ourselves short.
We can make a generous offer to the US on food based purely on produce we do not grow here, and we would still be offering them more than the EU did in three painful years of trade negotiations between Brussels and Washington.
If we want to ensure a successful, green Brexit and keep our promises on the environment and animal welfare, we should not throw our farmers under a bus in pursuit of a one-sided US trade deal.