Written evidence submitted by Animal Policy International (APH0197)

3 September 2025

Priorities for a UK-EU SPS Agreement

Introduction

The proposed EU-UK SPS Agreement presents both opportunities and challenges for protecting and advancing the United Kingdom’s animal welfare standards. While the Agreement could reduce trade friction and encourage upward regulatory alignment, without explicit exemptions for animal welfare from dynamic alignment requirements, it may limit the UK's ability to implement policies that reflect public expectations on animal welfare.

This submission will address questions 2, 4, 5, 6 and 7. It recommends specific carve-out provisions, modelled on Switzerland's successful negotiation of Article 7 exemptions in its 2025 EU Common Food Safety Area Protocol, to preserve the UK's ability to maintain and enhance animal welfare standards while capturing the benefits of alignment.

About Animal Policy International

Animal Policy International works to improve the lives of millions of farmed animals through evidence-based research and advocacy. Our mission is to ensure that animal welfare standards are upheld in international trade policy.

International trade in animal products continues to expand globally, creating significant challenges for animal welfare policy implementation. While citizens and advocates across the world have secured landmark legislative victories for animals in their countries, imported animal products are typically exempt from these protections. For instance, while the UK has banned barren battery cages for egg-laying hens domestically, eggs produced using this production method in other countries continue to be imported and sold in UK markets.

Question 2. What opportunities and risks are posed by the introduction of dynamic regulatory alignment with the EU?

While dynamic regulatory alignment with the EU could offer opportunities to improve animal welfare in certain areas, there is a serious risk that it will constrain the UK's ability to restrict imports that don't meet British animal welfare standards. In order to properly assess the opportunities and risks posed, further clarification is needed about whether dynamic alignment obligations will extend to animal welfare. If animal welfare falls within the scope of the Agreement, the UK must negotiate explicit carve-out provisions that preserve regulatory autonomy while capturing the benefits of alignment.

Opportunities

A Common Veterinary Area (CVA) with the EU would remove some of the SPS requirements for goods moving between the EU and Great Britain, and between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. It would reduce certification and physical checks, which cause delays that can have adverse impacts on the welfare of live animals.[1]

An agreement similar to the EU-Switzerland CVA could also allow the UK to drive up standards of animal health and welfare in areas where the EU has higher standards than the UK, while allowing the UK to maintain those standards of animal health and welfare that are higher than those in the EU.

Risks

The EU-UK Common Understanding Agreement released in May 2025 states that exceptions to dynamic alignment in the EU-UK SPS Agreement must not "negatively affect European Union animals and goods being placed on the market in the United Kingdom”. This provision could prevent the UK from applying higher animal welfare standards or welfare labels to imports from both EU and non-EU countries[2].
 

Given the UK’s historically higher animal welfare standards compared to EU minimums, securing an explicit animal welfare carve-out is essential to preserving the UK’s regulatory autonomy in this area of significant public interest.

Analysis of current import patterns demonstrates significant welfare standard differentials that would be affected:

●        Sow stalls: Prohibited in the UK since 1999, but permitted in most EU countries for up to 28 days per pregnancy cycle. HMRC data indicates over 50% of UK pork imports originate from countries permitting sow stalls

●        Foie gras: Production by force-feeding effectively banned in Britain since 2007, but legal in France and Hungary. Current UK imports total 31.9 tonnes annually, representing approximately 53,098 force-fed birds

●        Fur products: While certain fur imports are restricted, the UK continues to import fur from production systems that would not meet UK animal welfare standards if operated domestically

Third country import implications

The EU-Mercosur Free Trade Agreement, currently proceeding toward ratification, illustrates the potential constraints on UK regulatory autonomy absent proper exemptions.

If ratified, the EU-Mercosur FTA would grant Mercosur countries substantial concessions to export increased volumes of poultry meat and beef to the EU. Mercosur countries frequently employ intensive farming practices, including feedlots for cattle and high stocking densities for broiler chickens. Production methods that are prohibited in the EU and the UK—including battery cages for hens, gestation crates for pigs, and long-distance live animal transport—remain standard practice in Mercosur countries, where regulations are fragmented and productivity-focused rather than welfare-oriented.

Under dynamic alignment without proper exemptions, the UK would face constraints on restricting third-country imports that meet EU standards, regardless of production methods. With reduced border controls under the SPS Agreement, Brazilian beef and other Mercosur animal products that enter free circulation within the EU could subsequently enter the UK market with minimal checks. This applies not only to processed goods—such as ready meals, deli products, or canned goods containing Mercosur meat—but also to primary products that qualify for tariff-free access once they have entered the EU market.

Current labelling regulations do not require clear disclosure of original slaughter or farming locations, meaning UK consumers may inadvertently purchase meat from animals raised under production systems that would violate UK animal welfare legislation if operated domestically.

Surveys consistently show the British public overwhelmingly supports the strengthening of animal welfare standards, including through the restriction of low welfare imports. For example,  a Bryant Research survey (2023) found that 84% of the British public support measures to require imports to meet domestic animal welfare standards.
 

The solution: Animal welfare carve-outs to dynamic regulatory alignment

The UK Government should negotiate specific animal welfare exemptions to dynamic regulatory alignment, drawing on the successful precedent established by Switzerland in Article 7 of its 2025 Common Food Safety Area Protocol with the EU.

This approach would preserve the UK’s regulatory autonomy in animal welfare while still capturing the benefits of alignment in other areas.

The UK should seek inclusion of the following provisions in the SPS Agreement, modelled on Article 7 of the Swiss Protocol:

The obligation to integrate legal acts as set in [insert dynamic alignment Article here] and the obligation to temporarily apply legal acts [insert relevant Article(s) here] shall not apply to animal welfare, including concerning the minimum standards for the protection of animals bred or kept for farming purposes; the protection of live vertebrate animals during transport and related operations; as well as certain mandatory labelling requirements and import restrictions.

In this area, the United Kingdom may continue to apply provisions of UK law:

Specific Exemptions

(a) Farm Animal Welfare Standards

concerning the protection of animals kept for farming purposes, including but not limited to housing systems, space allowances, environmental enrichment, and husbandry practices;

(b) Animal Transport

concerning the transport of animals within the UK’s territory, including journey times, space allowances, and welfare conditions during transport, as well as the prohibition on the export of “relevant livestock” from Great Britain for slaughter as set out in the UK’s Animal Welfare (Livestock Exports) Act 2024

(c) Mandatory Labelling Requirements

concerning the mandatory labelling of animal products, including imported animal products, based on welfare standards and method of production. 

(d) Import Restrictions

establishing and applying import restrictions and/or sales bans for animal products produced using inhumane practices, including but not limited to:

●        fur and fur products;

●        products from animals kept in housing systems prohibited in the UK;

●        products from animals subjected to procedures banned under UK law;

●        any other animal products where the production methods would constitute an offence under UK animal welfare legislation;

Safeguard Language

Such measures must not constitute a means of arbitrary discrimination or a disguised restriction on trade, and must be based on legitimate animal welfare concerns as established in UK legislation.

Strategic considerations

The negotiating strategy should emphasise the UK’s historical leadership on animal welfare, the considerable importance placed on animal welfare by the British public, and the positive precedent set by Article 7 of the Swiss Protocol, as justification for these provisions. Without such a protection included in the Agreement, there is a material risk of significant backlash from the British public who wish to preserve the UK’s regulatory autonomy in this critical area.

The proposed carve-out preserves the UK’s ability to maintain the democratic legitimacy of trade policy by ensuring it duly reflects  the public’s expectations with respect to animal welfare.

Question 4. How should the UK Government engage with industry stakeholders and devolved administrations to ensure the agreement aligns with wider agri-food and environmental goals?

The Government must prioritise engagement with the animal welfare sector during SPS negotiations to ensure it does not undermine the Government's commitments to upholding high animal welfare standards and not lowering food standards. We are committed to supporting the Government to preserve the UK’s regulatory autonomy in this area of significant public interest.
 

Question 5. What could the implications of an SPS agreement for trade and border controls be, including border infrastructure, resources, biosecurity, trade friction, growth and the treatment of imports from non-EU countries?

Under WTO law and existing UK FTAs, the UK currently retains the ability to implement trade-restrictive measures to protect animal welfare. Article XX of the GATT permits such measures where they are necessary to protect public morals. However, if the EU-UK SPS Agreement replicates features of the EU-Switzerland Food Safety Protocol, this could significantly constrain the UK’s ability to maintain or adopt autonomous policies with regard to imports from non-EU countries.

Under this Protocol, Switzerland has committed to incorporating EU rules into its legal order and to maintaining a common food safety area without border checks which leaves limited room for applying additional or divergent requirements on third-country consignments. As a result, products from third countries that comply with EU rules would have to be accepted in Switzerland under the same conditions - even when entering Switzerland without transiting through the EU.

Assuming that animal welfare measures fall within the scope of dynamic alignment under the EU-UK SPS Agreement - and that no express derogation is granted - the UK could face the same constraints: Dynamic alignment would imply that EU rules are incorporated into UK law and applied as domestic requirements. As such, all products that comply with those rules would in principle circulate freely between and within both jurisdictions, including those originating in third countries.

Consequently the UK may not only be bound to align with covered EU rules, but also to accept imports from third countries that are allowed onto the EU market, regardless of whether it is imported directly into the UK or first transits through the EU. The scope for the UK to maintain stricter requirements on animal welfare or ethical production methods for imported goods would be significantly reduced.

Fortunately, the Swiss precedent shows a degree of flexibility can be negotiated in this type of agreement. Whether the UK obtains similar exemptions is critical. Without such carve-outs or exceptions, the UK would be required to accept third-country imports permitted under relevant EU rules. This would significantly reduce the UK's regulatory autonomy in setting ethical production standards for all imports, not just those from the EU.  In this regard, the exception to dynamic alignment envisaged in the Common Understanding could in theory allow the UK to apply its higher animal welfare standards to third-country products, even if not to EU goods.

Question 6. How might an SPS agreement affect the UK’s internal market, particularly considering regulatory divergence across the devolved nations?

An SPS agreement with the EU could significantly constrain regulatory divergence across the UK’s internal market, potentially undermining devolution settlements and limiting the ability of devolved administrations to introduce animal welfare policies that reflect local priorities.

Animal health and welfare policy is mostly devolved in legislative terms with only limited exceptions. Analysis from the Office of the Internal Market identified animal welfare and the environment as two of the main policy areas where increased regulatory divergence is expected over time.[3]

While the UK was a member of the EU, the EU single market provided a framework that limited the scope for divergence in regulatory approaches across the four nations. However, when the UK left the EU, powers previously exercised at the EU level returned to the UK Government and devolved administrations, increasing the potential for regulatory differences to emerge between the four nations, particularly in animal welfare and environmental policy.

Without proper exemptions, the SPS agreement could restrict local regulatory innovation in animal welfare (including import/sales bans or labelling requirements) where such measures might "adversely affect EU products" in UK markets. This constraint would apply regardless of the measure's justification under local democratic mandates or the minimum economic impact principle that currently permits divergence with minimal inter-UK trade effects.

A notable recent example of regulatory divergence is Scotland’s ban on glue traps through The Wildlife Management and Muirburn (Scotland) Act 2024. The legislation was enacted using the minimum economic impact principle, which permits divergence where it can be shown to have a minimum impact on inter-UK trade while addressing public concerns, like animal welfare.

EU-Mercosur trade deal

The EU-Mercosur agreement's Trade and Sustainable Development chapter exemplifies these risks, lacking enforceable standards to address deforestation and environmental degradation. Beef production in Mercosur countries, a primary driver of Amazon and Cerrado deforestation, is set to increase under this agreement. Despite the environment being a devolved matter, devolved administrations would be unable to introduce restrictions on Mercosur beef due to environmental concerns if the UK becomes bound by EU trade deals through SPS agreement dynamic alignment.

Question 7. What impact could the proposed SPS agreement have on upcoming Defra agri-food and environmental strategies, such as the Land Use Framework, Food Strategy, Farming Roadmap, and efforts to improve farming profitability and sustainable growth?
 

The proposed SPS Agreement could constrain the implementation of several key Defra strategies and commitments, undermining policy coherence across the UK Government’s agri-food and environmental agenda.

Trade Strategy

The UK Trade Strategy explicitly commits to "uphold high animal welfare standards" and recognises "concerns about methods of production, such as sow stalls and battery cages, which are not permitted in the UK." The Strategy also states that "where necessary, [the Government] will be prepared to use the full range of powers at our disposal to protect our most sensitive sectors including permanent quotas, exclusions and safeguards."

This contradiction is particularly acute given that the SPS Agreement's trade facilitation measures would likely increase UK imports of pork from EU countries where sow stalls remain permitted for up to 28 days per pregnancy cycle. Current data shows over 50% of UK pork imports already originate from countries permitting sow stalls, representing a direct competitive disadvantage for UK producers who have been prohibited from using such systems since 1999. The Agreement would exacerbate this unfair competition by reducing trade barriers for precisely the production methods the Trade Strategy identifies as problematic, fundamentally contradicting the Strategy's stated objectives and undermining policy coherence across government.
 

Without appropriate carve-outs, the SPS agreement risks removing the tools that the Government has committed to use when "overseas produce has an unfair advantage." This creates a direct conflict between the Trade Strategy's commitments and the UK's ability to implement them in practice, undermining policy coherence and potentially rendering key Trade Strategy commitments undeliverable.

National Food Strategy

The National Food Strategy identifies 10 priority outcomes needed to deliver a healthier, more affordable, sustainable and resilient food system, including that "Trade supports environmentally sustainable growth, upholds British standards and expands export opportunities."

However, the proposed SPS Agreement could directly conflict with this priority outcome. Without specific animal welfare exemptions, the Agreement's dynamic alignment requirements would constrain the UK's ability to uphold British standards where these exceed EU minimums, particularly regarding imports from production systems that would violate UK animal welfare legislation.

Conclusion

The UK stands at a critical juncture in determining how its future relationship with the EU will impact its sovereign ability to regulate animal welfare.

Clarification is needed on whether dynamic alignment obligations will extend to animal welfare under the proposed agreement. If animal welfare does fall within the scope of this agreement and dynamic alignment obligations, the UK Government should negotiate specific carve-outs for farm animal welfare standards, animal transport regulations, mandatory welfare labelling requirements, and import restrictions on products produced using inhumane practices.

Without such provisions, the Agreement risks undermining multiple strategic priorities across the Government's portfolio, creating contradictions between stated commitments and implementation capacity, and potentially facing significant public backlash. By securing appropriate exemptions for animal welfare, the UK can maintain its position as a global leader in animal welfare while still benefiting from streamlined trade with the EU.

September 2025

8