Author: Yashashvini Singh Jodha
The UK has treated animal welfare, and consumption of ethical food, with great importance. In fact, to the extent that it may change the course of Post-Brexit trade deal negotiations between the UK and other nations, including the EU. Britain, along with the EU, has for years championed policy and law in favour of animal protection including, the relative effects such regulation would have on the kind of meat and/or dairy the people of Britain consume.[1] This naturally includes animal and animal products imported into the country from other nations. The UK, in addition to its own high standards of production and consumption, was also bound by the EU’s common regulations, owing to the free market and ‘level playing field’ conditions that govern the EU.
To begin with, when the UK was part of the EU it was prohibited from importing seal products, certain Genetically Modified Organisms and meat from animals injected with the bovine growth hormone BST and, the hormone Ractopamine which has been said to make pigs stressed and lame[2]. Most significantly, the EU prohibited the trade of chlorine-washed chicken, of which the US is a major supplier. With the UK attempting to negotiate a fresh FTA with most countries, the absence of this prohibition on chlorine-washed chicken should seemingly ease the negotiation process.[3] However, this freedom would come at the cost of great damage to locally produced animal products. An FTA with lower to no tariff rates, or low non-tariff barrier measures would allow imported meat to enter UK markets at a much cheaper rate than the locally manufactured food products that still have to comply with stringent UK regulations, leading to an unbalanced competitive market. Such measures would also appease the concerns over the time technical barriers to trade would cost at the border, which is especially harmful to food products.[4] Conversely, such a step would also hamper trade relations with the EU because of the disruption of the level playing field, similar to that which would inevitably take place within the UK if trade deals fail to support local suppliers. Considering the US and the EU are part of the UK’s largest trade partners, Britain cannot afford to disappoint either with its Brexit deal.[5] The line would indeed be very fine to balance. To further add a caveat, the UK must also consider its future policy impacts such as that of the Agriculture Bill, 2019. The UK, along with being a country that has promised to bring carbon emission to zero by 2050, has also come up with an incentivised scheme of payment to farmers in its Agricultural Bill. According to this rule, the UK farmers will be paid to produce ‘public goods’ such as environmental or animal welfare improvements instead of the earlier criteria based on the amount of land farmed.[6] This law would further add to the standards required to be followed within the UK and therefore also make it tougher to compete with foreign products.
In a situation where Britain is unable to chalk out a deal appeasing both the EU and another trade nation, although unlikely, would lead to the UK falling back on WTO rules and regulations. This too does not sit well for animal welfare proponents, of which a large majority within the UK itself [7], owing to the limitations on product banning prescribed in Article 21 of the GATT and, restraints on Trade Exceptions granted on the basis of animal welfare. Moreover, the understanding of animal welfare itself would be somewhat vague and carved out from the ‘public morals’ exception in Article 20(a) and Article 20(b)- ‘Measures necessary to protect human, animal or plant life or health’ of the GATT. This has been proven somewhat successful in the precedents of WTO jurisprudence favouring animal welfare; shown in the success of the EU’s case for a ban on seal product imports, wherein the WTO ruled that animal welfare is a legitimate issue of public morality.[8] A silver lining also exists in the form of SPS Measures that can again be negotiated between nations. This too, however, would be a tricky path considering the WTO itself does not have specified standards that ensure “Harmonisation”- consistency of local benefit and international trade principles.[9]
Brexit, in bringing the UK out of the Common Agricultural Policy followed by the EU, therefore, brings about a number of challenges in terms of political appeasement along with legal congruity. The insistence of the USA to trade chlorine-washed chicken in the UK[10], the peoples vote against non-tariff border measures to reduce waiting periods[11], which would then allow the import of beef from cows injected with BST, a ban successfully implemented against the USA by the EU[12], the weakening promise of the government to ban the trade of live animals considering the difficulty of passing it across the WTO and, the latest affirmations made by UK PM Boris Johnson that sound vehemently opposed to the EU bullying its way into the UK’s trade plans; an example being the Punishment Clause threatened by Brussels.[13] Johnson has also been quoted to promise the liberalisation of the biotech sector i.e relieving it from the Anti-Genetic Modification Rules of the EU.[14] Further, the direction being taken by the UK in its COVID-19 specific guidelines for border management have shown a blatant lack of priority to animal well-being, much less their welfare. [15] Lastly, in case of a Hard Brexit, the UK would have to rely on the current laws of the WTO which would mean losing out on the advantages of FTA’s which drove the Brexit in the first place. Instead, Britain would have to comply with the MFN clause that would essentially require equal trade measures for all WTO members.
Suggested Solutions
A possible solution would be to follow along the lines of the FTA signed between Chile and the EU in 2002.[16] the EU signed an FTA with Chile which actually led to improved practices in Chilean slaughterhouses; as the Chilean industry was required by the terms of the agreement to raise its standards to trade with the EU. The UK must include animal welfare protections in any FTA to not only ensure its own standards are maintained but also as a means to promote animal welfare standards internationally.
Another solution would lie towards the overall scheme of the UK’s trade plans. Britain has increasingly shown favour towards a Canada like FTA known as the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA)[17] which gives Canada preferential access to the EU single market for 99% of goods.[18] A modified version of this model accounting for continued free movement of labour and services would have to be negotiated with the EU that would then give Britain the requisite flexibility to negotiate its trade deals with other nations. However, in the opinion of this author, the EU does not seem eager to follow this model per se, perhaps owing to the dispute over fishing areas and trade. [19] The CETA like a model would have to be modified in order to incorporate the free (or partially free) movement of services so crucial to the British economy.
A final probable solution for Britain to strike the balance between its craving for independence and yet maintain its much-needed relationship with the EU would be to join The European Free trade Association (EFTA) once more. The EFTA, with the Vaduz Convention as its governing law, regulates free trade relations between its four member states (Norway, Iceland, Switzerland and Liechtenstein) and the EU. The EFTA is also more successful in its negotiations with developed nations, compared to the EU. [20] This would perhaps, in this author’s opinion, come closest to the Brexit phrase of “ have cake and to eat it”.
[1] 2020. Keithtaylormep.Org.Uk. Accessed May 7 2020. https://www.keithtaylormep.org.uk/sites/default/files/download/2019-01/Keith-Taylor-MEP-Animals-and-Brexit-Report-2018.pdf.
“Key EU achievements for animal protection-
1997 Animals recognised as sentient beings
2004 Eggs must be labelled by method of production e.g. eggs from caged hens
2005 End of subsidies for live cattle exports
2005 Minimum standards set for animal transport
2007 Ban on veal crates (UK ban in 1999)
2009 No animal testing for cosmetics purposes (UK ban in 1998)
2010 Ban on the import of seal products
2012 Ban on barren battery cages
2013 Ban on use of sow stalls (UK ban in 1999)
2013 No cosmetics newly tested on animals can be imported into EU 2016 Animal health law to prevent animal diseases.”
What does Brexit mean for animal welfare? “What Does Brexit Mean For Animal Welfare?”. 2020. Wildlife And Countryside Link. Accessed May 7 2020. https://www.wcl.org.uk/what-does-brexit-mean-for-animal-welfare.asp.
“Around 80% of UK animal welfare legislation originates from the EU with some 44 different laws agreed over the past 42 years.”
[2] Salon (2013). Is this meat’s most dangerous additive? https://www.salon.com/2013/11/01/ is_this_meats_most_dangerous_additive_ partner/
[3] McCulloch, Steven. 2018. “Brexit And Animal Protection: Legal And Political Context And A Framework To Assess Impacts On Animal Welfare”. Animals 8 (11): 213. MDPI AG. doi:10.3390/ani8110213.
“Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 laying down specific hygiene rules for food of animal origin prohibits chlorine-washed chicken; Directive 96/22/EC as amended by Directive 2003/74/EC prohibits hormone-treated beef; and EC Directive 96/22/EC as amended by Directive 2003/74/EC prohibits ractopamine pork.”
[4] “House Of Lords – Brexit: Food Prices And Availability – European Union Committee”. 2020. Publications.Parliament.Uk. Accessed May 7 2020. https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld2
[5] “OEC – United Kingdom (GBR) Exports, Imports, And Trade Partners “. 2020. Oec.World. Accessed May 7 2020. https://oec.world/en/profile/country/gbr/
[6] Finlay Jonathan, Lukas Audickas, Matthew Ward, and Sarah Coe. 2020. “Agriculture Bill 2019-20”. House Of Commons Library. Accessed May 7 2020. https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-8702/.
[7] “Don’t Weaken Animal-Welfare Laws After Brexit, Ministers Warned”. 2019. The Independent. Accessed May 7 2020. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/brexit-animal-welfare-protection-sentience-eu-law-survey-a8787041.html.
[8] Congressional Research Service (2015). The U.S.-EU Beef Hormone Dispute. https://fas. org/sgp/crs/row/R40449.pdf
[9] “WTO | Understanding The Sanitary And Phytosanitary Measures Agreement”. 2020. Wto.Org. Accessed May 7 2020. https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/s
[10] Commerce, U.S.-United. 2020. “U.S.-United Kingdom Trade Negotiations: Private Sector Priorities”. U.S. Chamber Of Commerce. Accessed May 7 2020. https://www.uschamber.com/comment/us-united-kingdom-trade-negotiations-private-sector-priorities.
[11] http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2020/1/enacted/data.htm
[12] Congressional Research Service (2015). The U.S.-EU Beef Hormone Dispute. https://fas. org/sgp/crs/row/R40449.pdf
[13] Boffey Daniel, and Jennifer Rankin. 2020. “EU To Demand Right To Punish UK If It Fails To Shadow Brussels Rules”. The Guardian. Accessed May 7 2020. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/feb/24/france-warns-uk-not-be-blackmailed-risky-eu-trade-deal-brexit.
[14] “UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson Promises “Liberation” For UK Biotech Sector”. 2019. IEG Policy. Accessed May 7 2020. https://iegpolicy.agribusinessintelligence.informa.com/PL220983/UK-prime-minister-Boris-Johnson-promises-liberation-for-UK-biotech-sector.
[15] Correspondent, E. (2020). Farm animals suffer at EU borders due to #Coronavirus response, says Compassion in World Farming – EU Reporter. [online] EU Reporter. Available at: https://www.eureporter.co/frontpage/2020/03/20/farm-animals-suffer-at-eu-borders-due-to-coronavirus-response-says-compassion-in-world-farming/?__cf_chl_jschl_tk__=22a2ce000f6f927ec1fcf04c04255f68f993880e-1588874727-0-AWmJHQkjOWLFHWbrEC7Cp7pGcQPwfZ0bWcLEFi_KJB06LsGpLsO6maeAMcj9cC2wBOmu-sJwTDcTnN2Qyz0GT-89Sm24VWyeOYjR–npwLP6Sg7-YIX5iMR2kNhYyacMKEbTV4UYrE6jTrZQaP7CmlrHuHnnQAM4oWuOW17f460GA8hDWCGj6J_BfP3jNcLwNsHSmoUxuo3imMLinUyCdIC0zF9Kz1dT-DKE0vICgdklhq7mKEbSgIDoiVHIuyOMMAXwtNuWck4UyL2WwGu6Si59TYB6BMVSskT3V8CP-DA2AU1QB2COoRX-dw0Y2mYi16GCEw3c2n4imuM7W0WtLxUrisSDVxntBRsmXHrXSdJKxHB6XyH0IP2UhOwlV2T3S8LV8UrVAme1IHmh678Bk58K3AUh4oPztDXQz5eN9-0L [Accessed 7 May 2020].
[16] Eurogroup for Animals (2013). The EU—Chile Free Trade Agreement—a Boost for Animal Welfare. http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/ docs/2013/december/tradoc_151962.pdf
[17] “What Is A ‘Canada-Style’ Trade Deal?”. 2020. BBC News. Accessed May 7 2020. https://www.bbc.com/news/business-45633592.
[18] Brexit scenarios for the UK, EU, and global trade relations
“Brexit Scenarios For The UK, EU, And Global Trade Relations”. 2020. IHS Markit. Accessed May 7 2020. https://ihsmarkit.com/research-analysis/brexit-scenarios-for-the-uk-eu-and-global-trade-relations.html.
[19] Boffey Daniel. 2020. “EU Will Protect Fishing Communities In Post-Brexit Talks”. The Guardian. Accessed May 7 2020. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/jan/14/eu-will-protect-fishing-communities-in-post-brexit-talks.
[20] “Free Trade Map | European Free Trade Association”. 2020. Efta.Int. Accessed May 7 2020. https://www.efta.int/free-trade/fta-map.
About The Law 