Don’t count on Starmer’s EU reset to bring down food prices

LONDON — Keir Starmer has a plan to bring down food prices. Businesses aren’t buying it.

“We’re in a world where there’s massive conflict [and] great uncertainty,” the U.K. prime minister told the BBC during a campaign visit to the North West last week. “I strongly believe the U.K.’s best interests are in a stronger, closer relationship with Europe.”

By striking a deal with Brussels to align with EU animal and plant health rules, the government will “make trade easier so there are less burdens for businesses and that, of course, translates into lower prices,” he argued.

But many of the food and drink firms supposedly benefiting from the agreement are skeptical — warning that, for all its ambition, the plan risks amounting to little more than wishful thinking at a time when the Iran conflict threatens to drive up food prices even further. Others claim the deal could do more harm than good.

“The government is making headline statements that are at best erroneous, if not blatantly untrue,” said Nigel Jenney, chief executive of the Fresh Produce Consortium, which represents Britain’s fresh produce supply chain.  

At the heart of the row is the claim that aligning with EU sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) rules will remove friction at the border. But Jenney argues the government is “frustratingly” using fresh produce as a prime example, despite the fact that most EU fresh produce is not currently subject to controls.

While costly inspections and paperwork requirements on products like plants, meat, and dairy were rolled out in 2024, plans to introduce checks on fruit and vegetables were suspended in anticipation of the SPS deal, meaning there are no costs to remove.  

Meanwhile, most checks on food and plants arriving via Britain’s west coast ports from Ireland were also never imposed, meaning there are few costs to recover there, either.

Red tape for non-EU imports

In a recent open letter to ministers, Jenney warned that transitioning to EU SPS rules could have a detrimental knock-on effect on food imported from non-EU countries, in what he described as an “act of economic self-harm.” 

By pursuing an agreement, the government appears ready to adopt “unnecessarily stringent” EU SPS controls on imports from non-EU countries, said Jenney.

This risks triggering “thousands of additional and unnecessary border delays, considerably more inspections, more paperwork and port congestion — every added layer acting as a compounding financial penalty on trade,” he warned. 

Analysis conducted by the Fresh Produce Consortium — seen by POLITICO — suggests that a number of staples from the weekly shop could be negatively impacted as border checks for non-EU produce are ramped up — from Moroccan cucumbers and Indian mangoes to South African citrus fruits and U.S. sweet potatoes. This is expected to add a cost of around £400 million to the supply chain, the consortium estimates. 

U.K. Environment Secretary Emma Reynolds leaves No. 10 Downing Street after a Cabinet meeting on March 24, 2026. | Leon Neal/Getty Images

Beyond imports, firms have warned that the SPS deal risks imposing costly burdens on domestic growers, who are forced to impose EU standards even if they have no plan to export to the bloc. 

On March 9, the government set out the proposed scope of the SPS deal, covering areas such as food safety, packaging, labeling and pesticides. Announcing the plans, Environment Secretary Emma Reynolds said they would make “trade easier and cheaper, and deliver tangible benefits for British businesses.”

CropLife, which represents the plant science industry, fears it could have the opposite effect. In a recent report, the trade association warned that alignment with the EU’s regulatory regime for agricultural pesticides alone could wipe £810 million off British farmers’ profits in year one, with knock-on effects for food prices.

More than a trade deal

The Food and Drink Federation (FDF), which represents British food and drink manufacturers, is among those now calling for a reframing of the narrative around the deal, which they claim goes far beyond the scope of a trade agreement. 

Kate Halliwell, FDF’s chief scientific officer, described the government’s narrative around the deal as a “bit misleading.” 

While the government claims the SPS deal would encompass 76 EU regulations, FDF said it has identified over 400 pieces of food and drink legislation that will be in scope of EU alignment under the agreement.

“It’s not really a traditional trade deal. It’s not about tariffs, it’s not about barriers and it doesn’t just relate to SPS rules,” Halliwell said. “It’s really a change to our domestic law — and that means that all food businesses need to be aware of it coming.”

One prominent example where the industry could be affected is breakfast cereal produced with crops grown in the U.K. using pesticides now banned for use in the EU. 

“Those crops have been grown, they’re stored and then turned into something like a breakfast cereal, which has got quite a long shelf life,” Halliwell explained. “So knowing what the rules are now in terms of the fertilizer and plant protection products that you can use … becomes really important.”

The government has said it is working toward a mid-2027 start date for the agreement — though Reynolds has confirmed that the government is separately considering targeted transitional arrangements for sectors that will find the changes challenging to implement.

Negotiating a transition period is “really important” for food manufacturers, who “need to ensure that crops that are being planted now will actually be turned into food and available for people,” Halliwell said.

While the SPS deal may help stabilize food prices over time, it “certainly” won’t bring them down, she said.

Trucks and other vehicles arrive at the Port of Dover ferry terminal in southern England on June 2, 2025. Henry Nicholls/AFP via Getty Images

Andrew Opie, director of food and sustainability at the British Retail Consortium, said he was “very much in favor” of alignment with EU SPS rules, which will strengthen supply chains and boost food security. 

But he added that any price impact would be “negligible,” pointing out that 70-75 percent of food is sourced here in the U.K.

“Anything that comes off costs is a good thing,” he continued. But in proportion to things like energy costs, labor costs or regulatory costs … this is a very small cost.” 

A government spokesperson, meanwhile, said the SPS deal would “deliver billions for British industry,” leading to “fresher food on more supermarket shelves quicker and less friction helping to put downward pressure on price inflation.”

They said the deal would remove a range of costs faced by businesses trading with the EU, including export health certificates of up to £200, phytosanitary certificates costing around £25, plus at least £127.60 in inspection fees, and organic certification averaging £35. In addition, it would cut port health fees of around £31 per load and sampling costs that can reach £1,200-£1,400.

It is also expected that most health certification and pre-notification requirements for non-qualifying Northern Ireland goods entering Great Britain from the island of Ireland will be removed, alongside associated costs.

Since 2023, firms have applied for more than 1.08 million export health certificates at a cost of £90 million to £210 million, the government said.

Iran war price shock

However, food retailers and manufacturers are warning of cost pressures from elsewhere, particularly the impact of the Iran war on energy prices.

On Wednesday, the U.K. inflation rate rose to 3.3 percent overall as a direct result of the conflict, with food and drink inflation hitting 3.7 percent. 

And it looks set to get worse. The FDF has predicted that food inflation could hit at least 9 percent by the end of 2026, driven largely by energy and supply chain shocks linked to the war.

The government insisted it was taking the effects of the war “very seriously” and was “actively monitoring the potential impact of the conflict on the food and farming sector.”

At a media briefing on Tuesday, the organization’s chief economist, Liliana Danila, said the war had “delivered a cost shock that is already too large for manufacturers to absorb in full.”

Fuel prices are listed outside a petrol station on the M4 motorway west of London on April 16, 2026. | Henry Nicholls/AFP via Getty Images

While the impact on prices will take time to work its way through the system, she warned that “it’s only a matter of time before it does.”

For manufacturers, long-term contracts with suppliers and retailers mean higher costs can take up to a year to feed through in full. But in less processed goods, or where supply chains are shorter, prices are expected to rise more quickly. 

Against that backdrop, FDF is calling for urgent government intervention before the effects are felt. It is urging ministers to introduce a bespoke, time-limited Food and Drink Energy Support scheme modeled on the Energy Bill Relief Scheme brought in after the invasion of Ukraine, including a cap on energy prices for food and drink manufacturers. 

“Government can act and they are listening to our concerns,” FDF Chief Executive Karen Betts said. “But it is the sense of urgency that concerns me. Once inflation is in food prices, it’s too late.”