Key takeaways
- The UK and EU are planning a Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) Agreement to reduce trade friction in the agri-food sector, potentially saving businesses significant costs and time.
- Dynamic alignment with EU food standards is a core element, though the UK government emphasises maintaining some regulatory autonomy through limited exceptions.
- The UK government is cautiously framing the agreement as a pragmatic solution to economic pressures, avoiding explicit language of alignment to prevent political backlash.
Nearly a decade after the Brexit referendum, the UK government finds itself at a crossroads. With economic pressures mounting and trade with the EU still hampered by regulatory barriers, recent developments suggest a subtle but significant shift in policy – particularly in the food and agriculture sector.
The question is whether this shift represents a quiet move toward EU regulatory alignment, designed to stimulate growth while avoiding the political fallout of being accused of betraying Brexit.
The SPS Agreement: A turning point
In May 2025, the UK and EU announced their joint intention to agree a landmark Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) Agreement, aimed at reducing friction in agri-food trade. The agreement in principle involves the setting up of a ‘UK-EU Sanitary and Phytosanitary Zone’ and negotiations are set to begin in autumn, with a likely timeline of one to two years.
It would provide a wide range of benefits, including the removal of Export Health Certificates, saving businesses up to £200 per consignment each time goods are sent; a single lorry carrying a mixed load of animal products could potentially see thousands of pounds in reduced costs.
It would also see the removal of plant health certificates and Certificates of Inspection for organic products, again saving money and reducing hours of paperwork.
Routine border checks on agri-food products will stop under the agreement too, so fresh produce can hit supermarket shelves faster. The 100% paperwork checks and up to 30% physical checks for British goods such as dairy, fish, eggs and red meat would be removed entirely as well.
Similarly, routine checks on certain imports from the EU for products such as milk, dairy, eggs, red meat, plants for planting, potatoes, would also be removed, reducing the cost to bring these products into the UK.
Meanwhile, British products that were banned, such as fresh sausages and burgers and certain shellfish from domestic waters, would be able to resume trade to the EU. Moving goods between Great Britain and Northern Ireland would be made easier, helping make sure that the same products can be found on shelves across all parts of the UK.
The scope is extensive and could (re)open European markets to many UK producers, while also reducing costs and saving potentially thousands of hours. What’s more, the UK government would still have the ability to negotiate a limited number of exceptions to the rules.
Is ‘dynamic alignment’ a political minefield?
Central to the SPS Agreement is the concept of ‘dynamic alignment’ – the UK adopting EU food standards to maintain frictionless trade. While the Government has not formally committed to full alignment, the EU has made it clear that reduced checks depend on the UK following its rules.
There also remain certain key unknowns including, for example, exact border changes, how and to what extent the UK will be able to input into EU policy, and dispute resolution mechanisms. Questions remain too about government plans to encourage innovation in food in the UK, which has resulted in policy shifts on gene edited crops and the regulation of novel foods such as cultivated meats and fermented foods.
To navigate this politically sensitive terrain, UK officials have emphasised that the agreement will include “a short list of limited exceptions”, preserving some regulatory autonomy. However, the lack of detail has led to speculation that broader alignment is occurring behind the scenes. Where and what limited exceptions may be negotiated are not yet confirmed but precision breeding and alternative proteins appear to be high on the political agenda.
Economic imperatives vs political optics
The economic rationale for easing regulatory divergence is compelling. After all, UK agri-food exports to the EU have declined by 21% since Brexit, while imports are down 7% with many businesses scaling back or ceasing trade altogether. Particularly worryingly, increased costs and logistical hurdles have disproportionately affected SMEs, further increasing the market share of the larger industry players.
The SPS Agreement is aimed at reducing the amount of friction, which has proved so problematic to the sector since Brexit. It’s expected to stimulate growth, boost competitiveness, and lower inflationary pressures by improving supply chain efficiency and reducing food import costs.
Despite the huge potential, the Government’s messaging remains overtly cautious. Officials are avoiding terms like ‘alignment’ or ‘convergence’ and instead framing the deal as a pragmatic solution that safeguards sovereignty while delivering economic benefits. It’s clear that the Government feels that it is treading on Brexit-shaped eggshells.
A particular impact on Northern Ireland
The SPS Agreement has particularly major implications for NI. Under the Windsor Framework, agri-food products moving from GB to NI are subject to EU checks and labelling requirements, including the controversial Not for EU labels which could also be mandated in the rest of the UK for consistently.
This would be a win for businesses and unionists in NI, but also a tacit admission of regulatory convergence with the EU.
A Brexit reset in disguise?
Taken together, these developments point to a Brexit reset – a recalibration of the UK’s post-EU strategy that prioritises economic pragmatism over ideological purity. While the Government has not formally abandoned regulatory divergence, the SPS Agreement signals a growing willingness to compromise where national interests are at stake.
This shift is unlikely to be publicly acknowledged. The spectre of ‘Brexit betrayal’ still looms large, and any overt move toward outright alignment could provoke backlash from within certain powerful sections of the media.
Instead, the Government appears to be pursuing a strategy of incremental convergence, using technical agreements and sector-specific deals to rebuild ties with the EU without reigniting the Brexit debate.
This may be the new normal: a policy of strategic ambiguity, where alignment is pursued in substance but denied in rhetoric. For UK businesses, it could mean greater stability and access to EU markets. For politicians, it offers a way to reconcile the economic realities of Brexit with its political legacy.
Whether this approach will hold remains to be seen. But for now, the UK appears to be walking a fine line – quietly, cautiously, and with its eyes firmly on the prize of growth. And the food and agriculture sector is looking like the tightrope.
About the author
Alex Kenworthy is a partner at law firm Mills & Reeve. He has 20 years’ experience advising private and public companies, large international groups, owner-managed mid-market businesses and HNW individuals. He advises on mergers and acquisitions, investments into the UK, reorganisations and governance.
The UK and EU is gradually and quietly being pushed closer together, with food at the epicentre of this shift, writes Alex Kenworthy. (Claire Wood Photography)