US trade deal milking farmers dry, NFU tells Starmer
Agriculture has been forced to 'shoulder the burden' of the US trade deal so that other sectors of the economy benefit from reduced tariffs, farmers have claimed.
Tom Bradshaw, president of the National Farmers' Union, accused Sir Keir Starmer of using agriculture as a 'pawn' in his negotiations with Donald Trump and said that farmers must not be milked dry in future negotiations just to save the car and steel industries.
As part of the trade deal, announced on Thursday, the UK and the US agreed to cut tariffs to zero on beef imports and exports, making it much easier for American beef to flood the market.
Farmers have had a fractious relationship with Labour since last year, when Rachel Reeves removed an exemption on inheritance tax for family-run farms.
The Chancellor scrapped agricultural property relief, and said farmers would have to pay 20 per cent inheritance tax on agricultural assets over £1 million.
While the trade deal will make it easier for the UK to sell farm goods in the US, British farmers are concerned that they will be squeezed out of the market by a flood of potentially substandard American imports.
The Countryside Alliance demanded that Britain introduce rules to ensure that US beef is properly labelled as such when sold in the UK, to give consumers choice.
Meanwhile, the Save British Farming campaign group claimed low-quality beef could still enter the UK because the country's borders are not strong enough to keep it out.
The Government insisted there will be no watering down of food standards, with imports of hormone-treated beef or chlorinated chicken still barred.
Farmers have also raised concerns because the deal allows the importation of US ethanol, potentially affecting the viability of domestic bioethanol production.
In an article for The Telegraph, Mr Bradshaw, who has served as NFU president since last year, welcomed the fact that the US trade deal allows farmers to sell their beef in the US, what struck him most was that 'agriculture is shouldering much of the burden to enable the removal of tariffs for other parts of the economy'.
He warned of the 'huge strain farm businesses are already under' and the 'with confidence at an all-time low and investment dropping day by day, our sector has little more it can give', adding that 'while we understand we had a role to play in this initial deal, our government must also understand that food and farming cannot continue to shoulder any more on behalf of our wider economy in future negotiations'.
The deal also states the US can send up to 1.4 billion litres to the UK without paying tariffs.
Mr Bradshaw said this could harm the UK's bioethanol industry, which makes the chemical in an environmentally-friendly way from wheat.
'We need answers on these fronts, and quickly,' wrote Mr Bradshaw.
Labour has been accused of alienating rural voters with its decision to impose inheritance tax on family farms.
Angry farmers have disrupted Labour events with tractor protests in a bid to persuade the party to change the rules.
Tim Bonner, the chief executive of the Countryside Alliance, said: 'The Government must ensure that the beef coming into the UK is properly labelled, to ensure British consumers can choose fairly between British and American beef.
'UK beef is a premium product, the cattle is grass reared. We think that if British consumers are given the choice, they will plum for British beef.
'There are already huge concerns over inheritance tax and the future of family farms, and we need real clarity on environmental payment schemes.
'It is impossible for people to make plans for the future because they don't know where the government wants to go.'
Food and farming cannot shoulder any more on behalf of future negotiations
By Tom Bradshaw, president of the National Farmers' Union
Agriculture is often used as a pawn around the trade negotiation table. The deal with the US was no different and there was a lot at stake.
Our key concern, echoed by the British public, was around food safety, animal welfare and environmental production standards.
Back in 2020 when it last looked like a deal was on the cards, more than a million people backed our call for the Government to prevent imports of food into the UK which have been produced in ways which are illegal here.
No one wants to see hormone-treated beef or chicken treated with anti-microbial washes sold on our market.
Those ways of production were banned in the 1980s and 1990s for a reason – they don't reflect our values and the farm to fork approach we are proud of in the UK.
This is something we've been pressing to governments for years, and we appreciate this government holding firm on its commitments not to undermine our high standards in this deal.
America has long pushed to send more of its produce to the UK. Even if they did meet our standards, we couldn't face another deal like Australia or New Zealand which will completely liberalise access to our beef market and other sensitive sectors, with minimal benefit for our own farmers.
While we may see an increase in US non hormone-treated beef coming into the UK, from an annual average of around 46 tonnes up to 14,000 tonnes once this deal is ratified, the mitigating factor is that we will be able to send similar quantities to America.
This is new market access for British beef, something the NFU lobbied strongly for.
Years of campaigning with the UK's agricultural attaché in Washington for greater market access for British beef – a product globally respected for its quality and strong environmental credentials – have finally paid off.
But it's still not altogether clear what this deal means for our home-grown food sector and our farmers.
A key question is around the inclusion of ethanol in the deal, which states the US can send up to 1.4 billion litres of ethanol to the UK tariff-free.
Up to 15 per cent of our lower-quality specification wheat is sent to biofuel plants to make this more environmentally-friendly fuel.
Many arable farmers will be concerned that an increase in US exports could impact the viability of domestic bioethanol production, the availability of valuable animal feeds made in the biofuel refining process and the availability of CO2 gas that is vital elsewhere across the food industry. We need answers on these fronts, and quickly.
But what has struck me most about this deal, is that through these two sectors – beef and bioethanol – agriculture is shouldering much of the burden to enable the removal of tariffs for other parts of the economy.
'Farmers under strain'
I completely understand that our government has been put in the unfavourable position of having to negotiate its way out of destructive 25 per cent tariffs on cars and steel and aluminium going into the US.
I understand that there had to be concessions to reduce these. And given how the US has taken to throwing its weight around, I do think our government achieved as much balance as possible for the agricultural sector.
But I wouldn't want anyone to overlook the huge strain farm businesses are already under.
With confidence at an all-time low and investment dropping day by day, our sector has little more it can give.
And as President Trump made very clear, this is only the start. This will not be the final deal by any stretch of the imagination.
So while we understand we had a role to play in this initial deal, our government must also understand that food and farming cannot continue to shoulder any more on behalf of our wider economy in future negotiations.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
25 minutes ago
- The Independent
Blow for Rachel Reeves after UK economy shrinks by more than expected
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging. At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story. The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it. Your support makes all the difference.
Telegraph
27 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Live Economy shrinks in blow for Reeves
Britain's economy shrank at the start of the second quarter, official figures show, in a blow for the Chancellor after her spending review. UK gross domestic product (GDP) contracted by 0.3pc during the month, according to the Office for National Statistics (ONS). This was worse than analysts' fears that the economy would shrink by 0.1pc and follows a 0.7pc expansion during the first three months of the year. The data covers the month when Donald Trump launched his so-called 'liberation day' tariff onslaught which threatened to upend global trade. ONS director of economic statistics Liz McKeown said: 'After increasing for each of the four preceding months, April saw the largest monthly fall on record in goods exports to the United States with decreases seen across most types of goods, following the recent introduction of tariffs.' The figures come a day after economists warned that Britain faces tax rises in the autumn after Rachel Reeves unveiled her spending review. The Chancellor has made growing the economy one of her key missions as she battles to shore up the public finances. An expanding economy would mean that she is better able to pay off the nation's debt and would improve living standards. Ms Reeves said: 'Our number one mission is delivering growth to put more money in people's pockets through our Plan for Change, and while these numbers are clearly disappointing, I'm determined to deliver on that mission.'
Telegraph
27 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Why Christianity might face the same fate as Paganism
In the spring of 2023, the Royal Household issued invitations to the Coronation of Charles III and Camilla featuring an unexpected crowned head – that of the Green Man. Had the King, Supreme Governor of the Church of England, embraced paganism? The folklorist Francis Young dispelled the chatter, explaining in The Spectator that the Green Man was just 'a personification of the natural world' – and that, as a coherent figure, he had been invented in 1939 by Lady Raglan, one of Young's less scrupulous predecessors in the field. Young knows everything about everything you never quite knew you wanted to know. And in Silence of the Gods, his impressive new history of the end of European paganism, he does so while conveying a dizzying level of doubt as to whether anything of interest is knowable with any certainty at all. Who exactly, for instance, were those 'pagans' against whom Henry of Bolingbroke, the future Henry IV of England, mounted crusades in the Lithuania of the 1390s? How did the legend of the werewolf come to be especially entwined with the folk customs of what was to become present-day Latvia? Having drawn one's attention to such tantalising questions, Young, a scholar immune to the temptations of flowered but delusive byways, at times refuses to answer them neatly. Silence of the Gods treats lesser discussed regions of Europe – the Baltic world, the Volga-Ural, Lapland/Sapmi, Finland and, in a more clement aside, the Canaries – over their long, transitional and little-documented Early Modern years. We're taken from the Christian-conversion processes initiated in the late 14th century to residual and local rituals that, in a handful of cases, by way of the potent crucible of 19th-century nationalism, have trickled into living memory. Young makes an irrefutable case that Lithuania, in particular, ought to be a great deal more studied and considered, whether by scholars, general readers or even contemporary policymakers. For, of all the voices that surface within Young's lightly technical, fundamentally clear prose, I was most struck by that of the Polish lawyer Paweł Włodkowic, who in 1414 established the juridical principle, uniquely advanced in its day, that pagans should not be massacred simply for being pagans. 'It is an error,' wrote Włodkowic, 'completely intolerable, that Christians should gather there to do war against the infidels solely because they are infidels, or because it is said that their goal is the spreading of the Christian Faith, for under the colour of piety impieties are committed.' Upon this rock was founded the political and ecumenical miracle that was the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, as well as, Young persuasively adds, 'the modern world of human rights and international law'. Yet of this brilliant moral jurist's personal character or individual life, we hear nothing. The same goes for the whole extensive galère of Grand Dukes, Jesuit or Lutheran missionaries, 'pagan' rebels, antiquaries, witch hunters and Romantic nationalist litterateurs upon whose evidence Young draws. Such restraint is hardly incompatible with this book's paradoxical quest. Young traces 'the urge to personify' within religious traditions who have left scarce traces of those personalised details. The names and portfolios of Pagan deities here seem to be linguistic corruptions of Christian saints, or Classical parallels misapplied by the Christian scholars recording 'pagan' practices. Such austerity demands a high level of readerly commitment. But it delivers, by the end of this concisely expressed, conceptually meaty book, a substantial reward. The argument at which Young arrives is both consistent and plausible; that the 'pagan' religions of Europe, faced with Christianity's aggressive expansion, entered a third, 'creolised' state. New ideas grew out of, or alongside, Christianity, without being convincingly Christian – an active, 'creative response' to the new, confessional faith's incursion. In an epilogue that reads as startlingly topical, Young proceeds to the next logical query – in the face of dominant European secularism, are we now beholding a 'creolised' transformation of Christianity in turn? (You only need to look to a doctrinally vague 'surf church' in Porto, Portugal, for proof.) Young again displays his knack for identifying a haunting question, without committing to a definitive or simplistic answer. But he does leave one parting insurance policy – 'human religiosity is full of surprises' – which allows room for the recent and intriguing speculation that Gen Z might be warming towards Christianity after all.
