Brexit changes under Starmer may threaten farmers’ harvests

Farmers have said they face losing harvests because crucial agricultural chemicals will be banned under Labour’s deal with the European Union.

The UK will have to ban almost 30 widely used pesticides and fungicides after Sir Keir Starmer committed Britain to following EU laws.

Growers warned that removing them could lead to significant falls in food production, further eroding their already tight profit margins.

A raft of products will have to be taken off shelves, including treatments to prevent potato blight, which threatened crops during last year’s wet winter.

The move will be yet another blow to struggling family farmers already reeling from Rachel Reeves’s inheritance tax raid.

Olly Harrison, a cereal farmer in the North West, said he would have lost his entire potato crop last year had the treatment for potato blight been banned.

“It would be devastating if we had to ban all these products,” he said.

“The UK has taken a more science-led approach since Brexit on pesticides, whereas EU regulation is often based on emotion and green lobbying.

“We need to paddle our own canoe when it comes to food security.”

James Wright, a farmer from Exmoor who stood as a Tory candidate at the last election, said many of the pesticides available in Britain are “cheaper than in the EU”.

“There’s a lot of worry, particularly in arable farming at the moment, because the margins are really tight,” he said.

“The arable guys are really struggling at the moment, prices are way down, and this is just another kick.”

Britain now faces having to ban the chemicals because previous Tory governments took a lighter touch approach to regulation than the EU after Brexit.

The deal Sir Keir agreed with Brussels - under which he also allowed EU fishermen access to British waters for 12 years - explicitly states that pesticide regulations will be covered by the agreement.

A paper setting out the “common understanding” says that the pact “should ensure the application of the same rules at all times by providing for timely dynamic alignment of the rules applicable to and in the United Kingdom acting in respect of Great Britain with all the relevant European Union rules”.

The dossier adds that “where necessary to ensure the European Union’s level of food, sanitary, and phytosanitary safety” this should be done “through the immediate application of the relevant European Union rules” in the UK.

The deal includes scope for Britain to negotiate “limited exceptions” to following EU regulations, which would have to be agreed with Brussels.

But it makes clear these will only be acceptable where they do not “lead to lower standards as compared to European Union rules” and that they respect the principle that only animals and goods compliant with European Union rules move into the EU.

Brussels is renowned for being heavy-handed on pesticides, with farmers accusing the EU Commission of becoming captive to green lobbying groups.

As a result a wide gap has grown between the two sides’ laws, with the UK allowing the use of 28 existing and new products that the EU has not permitted.

Earlier this year, Christophe Hansen, the EU’s agriculture commissioner, suggested that Brussels would take a tough line on pesticides in the talks.

Addressing farmers in Dublin, he vowed to introduce “stricter” import controls on crops grown with chemicals banned by Brussels.

“This is something farmers do not understand, consumers do not understand either, and we have to be bolder on that,” he said.

In return for Britain following its rules, the EU will drop almost all import checks on agricultural produce, slashing costly red tape for exporters to the continent.

Farmers have widely welcomed the improved market access, with the border controls and bureaucracy put in place since Brexit negatively affecting many growers.

But they have also warned that dynamic alignment will come with major pitfalls, particularly on pesticides, which are vital to the industry.

Hazel Doonan, the head of crop protection and agronomy at the Agricultural Industries Confederation, said one benefit of Brexit had been the UK’s nimbler approach to pesticide regulation.

She said that four new active substances - two herbicides and two fungicides - had come onto the market in Britain that are still awaiting approval in the EU.

Rules on weedkiller

She also said there were questions over whether Britain will now have to apply EU conditions on products that are authorised for use.

In particular, owing to the UK’s wet weather, farmers in the north and west often use glyphosate, a weedkiller, to dry out their crops pre-harvest.

The practice helps with harvests and reduces crop drying costs, but it is now banned in the EU.

“We have and will highlight to Defra that if we are to lose some active substances that are currently available then that could mean that growers face, in some areas and for some crops, very few alternatives to tackling weeds, pests and diseases,” she said.

Environmental groups welcomed the move as a “massive win for human health, nature and British farmers” and described the pesticides as “harmful”.

The Pesticide Action Network has compiled a list of 28 products that are banned in the EU but not in the UK, and 15 of them are actively marketed in Britain.

Josie Cohen from the charity said: “The agreement to align with EU pesticide standards is a massive win for human health, nature and British farmers.

“The reset deal draws a line under the past five years during which the UK government has been quietly weakening our national pesticide standards.”

Downing Street did not deny that Britain faces having to ban more pesticides, but said the new EU agreement will give ministers input into EU policy making.

A Government spokesman said: “Our new agreement with the EU will support British farming by opening up access to EU markets and making agrifood trade with our biggest trading partner cheaper and easier.

“It will cut red tape and costs, benefitting British producers, retailers and consumers. We will be having detailed negotiations with the EU, and it’s important not to get ahead of those discussions.”