Rushed EU deal could cost UK growers £810m, report warns

A rushed deal with the EU on crop protection rules could cost British growers up to £810m in a single year and wipe out more than 10% of farm income, new analysis has warned.

The findings come from a report by the Andersons Centre, published today (29 January) and commissioned by CropLife UK, which examines the impact of Britain immediately aligning with post-Brexit EU decisions on plant protection products.

The analysis warns that if EU decisions were allowed to override GB approvals without a transition period, farmers could lose access to key crop protection tools almost overnight.

That scenario would hit production of major staples such as wheat and potatoes, as well as fresh produce including apples, berries and leafy greens, at a time when domestic food production is already under pressure.

The report underlines that such losses would land as growers continue to face high costs for labour, fuel and other inputs, compounding pressure on farm incomes and threatening UK food security.

The NFU has echoed those concerns, warning that immediate and complete alignment with EU rules could cost the arable, horticulture and sugar sectors between £500m and £810m in the first year alone.

At the heart of the risk is the sudden loss of approved plant protection products. Since January 2021, four new products have been approved in Britain following safety and sustainability assessments but are not yet authorised in the EU.

The NFU has warned that immediate alignment in June 2027 could see growers lose access to those tools before EU reviews take place, reducing their ability to control weeds, pests and disease across combinable crops, fruit, vegetables and root crops.

CropLife UK chief executive Dave Bench said the findings showed why careful negotiation was essential.

“The Andersons Centre report is an important piece of evidence,” he said. “We support the UK government’s aim to seek an SPS Agreement with the EU that will reduce trade frictions.”

“But it is important to understand the costs and consequences of different approaches before entering into an SPS deal,” he added. “This report shows how damaging a badly done deal could be.”

The analysis also highlights growing challenges around resistance management. Warmer and wetter conditions are allowing pests to overwinter and reproduce more rapidly, increasing pressure on existing products.

It warns that losing further active substances would narrow the range of tools available to growers, intensifying resistance problems and storing up bigger productivity challenges for the future.

However, both the report and the NFU stress that these impacts are not inevitable.

The Andersons Centre argues that a process of managed alignment between Great Britain and the EU could significantly reduce disruption by phasing in changes through planned review and renewal points, rather than triggering an immediate regulatory “cliff-edge”.

The NFU has backed that approach, warning that growers are already making long-term planting and cropping decisions that would be directly affected by sudden rule changes.

NFU president Tom Bradshaw said: “Implementing appropriate transition periods is absolutely vital to enable farm businesses to adapt.”

He said British farmers should retain access to GB-approved plant protection products until EU rules are next reviewed, rather than being forced into abrupt change by an arbitrary deadline.

The NFU said uncertainty around the shape of a future Sanitary and Phytosanitary agreement is already delaying investment decisions and called on ministers to clearly communicate the outcome of negotiations as soon as possible.

The report concludes that the government must fully understand the consequences of any SPS deal before signing it, ensure a managed transition that respects legitimate GB decisions, and guarantee meaningful UK involvement in future regulatory choices.

It warns that decisions taken now will shape farm productivity, food security and investment for years to come — and that getting the negotiations wrong would lock in long-term damage for British agriculture.