Why the US trade deal could come with a long-term health cost for the UK
British farmers and food safety campaigners have been sounding the alarm over the recent deal struck between the UK and US. The agreement offers unprecedented access to US agricultural exports such as beef and ethanol into the UK market.
While some hailed this as a breakthrough after previous talks stagnated under Joe Biden's administration, critics argue it could undercut domestic producers, introduce lower standards for food and even compromise public health. With the cost of living remaining high, cheaper US imports may look appealing to British consumers. But many fear the products may come at a longer-term cost.
The UK government has insisted it will not compromise on standards. Hormone-treated beef and chlorine-washed chicken remain banned. But critics are sceptical. At the White House, US trade officials suggested food rules should be based on science, hinting at renewed pressure to permit products currently excluded by UK law.
But public opinion in the UK strongly supports high food standards. Surveys show most UK consumers reject hormone-fed beef and chlorinated chicken, valuing animal welfare and food safety. Given this, any shift toward US-style practices could trigger a backlash.
The deal's language – promising to 'enhance agricultural market access' – raises concerns that this may be only the first step. Food safety advocates fear a slow erosion of standards under commercial pressure.
Under the terms of the deal, the UK will allow in 13,000 tonnes of US beef tariff-free — a huge change from the 1,000-tonne cap (with a 20% tariff) previously in place. In exchange, the US will grant a matching quota for UK beef.
The National Farmers' Union (NFU) welcomed improved US market access. But domestically, many farmers feel exposed.
They worry that cheap US beef, even if hormone-free, will undercut UK cattle raised under stricter welfare and environmental rules. Feedlot beef from the American Midwest is typically cheaper, prompting fears of price pressure.
The NFU says this could be a 'disaster' for British farming. Supermarkets including Tesco and Sainsbury's say they will continue sourcing 100% British beef, but farmers fear US meat could enter the wholesale and catering sectors.
There's also concern about ethanol – a biofuel typically sourced from crops such as corn or wheat and used primarily as a petrol additive to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The UK has eliminated a 19% tariff and opened a quota of 1.4 billion litres of US corn ethanol.
But this threatens domestic bioethanol plants, which purchase millions of tonnes of British wheat each year for ethanol production. It plays a crucial role in supporting UK arable farming and rural economies.
The NFU has warned that this could destabilise farm incomes, reduce local feed supplies and endanger the production of CO², which is used widely in food packaging, refrigeration and the carbonation of drinks across the UK industry. The NFU said the deal overlooked the complex role these plants play in the UK's food system.
But cheaper imports could ease grocery bills in the UK, a welcome prospect given food price inflation peaked at more than 19% in 2023. Cheaper beef might help households increase their protein intake. For lower-income families, for example, small savings on staples could really improve nutrition.
However, not all cheap calories are healthy. Britons are already encouraged to eat less red meat on health grounds. Increased access to cheaper beef could nudge intakes beyond recommended levels.
Restaurateur Henry Dimbleby, the UK government's former food strategy lead, has argued that undermining domestic standards for short-term savings risks health and environmental setbacks.
Food safety is another issue. While the government says all imports will meet UK standards, future trade negotiations could challenge that. Country-of-origin labelling and enforcement will be essential for consumer confidence.
There's also the risk of more ultra-processed food entering the UK. The deal may increase imports of US cereals, drinks and snack foods. While not inherently unsafe, many health advocates worry about worsening rates of obesity and diabetes if heavily processed products become cheaper and more common in the UK.
Trade can bring benefits — but food isn't just another commodity. It intersects with health, environment and rural life. The NFU warns that Britain's high standards shouldn't be quietly traded away under pressure from US agribusiness.
The UK government claims it has preserved food protections while expanding trade. What will be key is whether consumers see real savings, as well as whether supermarkets stick to British meat. If not, it remains to be seen whether UK farmers can compete or if they will be squeezed out.
Crucially, UK regulators must hold the line if the US pushes harder. A prosperous deal should not just mean more trade — but safer, healthier and fairer food for all.
Manoj Dora is a Professor in Sustainable Production and Consumption at Anglia Ruskin University.
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

Washington Post
an hour ago
- Washington Post
Obama's doctor is critical of care decision by Biden's doctor
Joe Biden's doctor should have given him a cognitive test during his final year as president because of his age, Barack Obama's former physician said in an interview, contending that the results would have helped the White House and the public understand whether Biden was up to serving another four years. A report by White House physician Kevin O'Connor in February 2024 didn't include any mention of neurocognitive testing for the then-81-year-old Biden. Jeffrey Kuhlman, who held the same job under Obama and has called for cognitive testing for presidents and presidential candidates, said Biden would have benefited from such a test given his age. 'Sometimes those closest to the tree miss the forest,' Kuhlman said of O'Connor, Biden's physician since 2009. The rare criticism of one White House doctor by another comes as Republicans have increased scrutiny of O'Connor and other former White House aides. House Republicans subpoenaed O'Connor on Thursday, a day after President Donald Trump ordered White House attorneys to determine whether Biden's inner circle tried to conceal his alleged cognitive decline. Kuhlman also said the 2024 report merely assessed Biden's health when it should have considered his fitness to serve in one of the most taxing jobs on the planet. 'It shouldn't be just health, it should be fitness,' Kuhlman said. 'Fitness is: Do you have that robust mind, body, spirit that you can do this physically, mentally, emotionally demanding job?' O'Connor did not respond to repeated requests for comment. Biden's recent disclosure of metastatic prostate cancer and reporting about his alleged physical and cognitive decline have fueled suspicion — among Democrats as well as Republicans — that the true state of Biden's health toward the end of his term was known only by O'Connor and a few others closest to Biden. Journalists Jake Tapper and Alex Thompson sketched a picture of a well-meaning but weakened president in a book they released last month. The book, which draws on interviews with dozens of Democratic insiders after the 2024 election, paints a portrait of a man suffering at times from forgetfulness, incoherence and fatigue. It also says that O'Connor was reluctant to give Biden a cognitive test, though he was assessed by a neurologist for conditions such as Parkinson's disease. Biden gave a sarcastic response last week. 'You can see that I'm mentally incompetent, and I can't walk, and I can beat the hell out of both of them,' he told reporters at a Memorial Day event, apparently referring to Tapper and Thompson. Biden's granddaughter Naomi Biden has called the book 'political fairy smut.' The book isn't the first time Biden's cognitive state has been questioned. Special counsel Robert K. Hur said in February 2024 that Biden had 'limited precision and recall' — including not remembering when his vice-presidential term ended — after Hur conducted two days of interviews with Biden about his handling of classified documents. Kuhlman formerly worked alongside O'Connor in the White House medical unit, a nonpartisan post, and appointed him in 2009 to serve as then-Vice President Biden's personal doctor. Kuhlman was Obama's physician from 2009 to 2013. O'Connor examined Biden — and signed his name to the February 2024 medical report that said the president 'continues to be fit for duty' — four months before a disastrous campaign debate between Trump and Biden prompted Democrats to call for Biden to step down as the nominee. Kuhlman, who left the medical unit in 2013, said he tries not to criticize those who have held similar positions. He called O'Connor 'a good doctor' who seemed to do his best to 'give trusted medical advice.' 'I didn't see that he's purposely hiding stuff, but I don't know that,' he said. 'Maybe the investigation will show it.' O'Connor's six-page report included Biden's lab results and an explanation of various conditions for which he was being treated. It also listed 10 medical specialists, including a neurologist, who also examined Biden. 'President Biden is a healthy, active, robust 81-year-old male, who remains fit to successfully execute the duties of the presidency,' O'Connor wrote. White House doctors have long been under intense public scrutiny, balancing the deeply personal doctor-patient relationship with a responsibility to tell the American public whether the president is fit to serve — and if not, why. Some have gone to great lengths to hide when the president is severely ill — as Grover Cleveland's doctors did when they turned a yacht into an operating room to secretly remove a tumor from the president's mouth in 1893. Presidential physicians also are expected to communicate to Americans personal information about the very person who could fire them. 'Whether it's family who are worried for them or people who work for them and don't want to lose their jobs, no one has a vested interest in hearing the truth about the president's health — except for the American people and the world,' said Barbara Perry, a presidential historian at the University of Virginia. It has not always been clear what role the White House doctors see for themselves. Even as they are often close confidants of the president, they must consider the good of the country in their recommendations about what tests and treatments to pursue. O'Connor repeatedly refused last year to administer a cognitive exam to Biden even as aides privately expressed concerns about his mental fitness, according to Tapper and Thompson's book. Trump's former doctors, including Ronny Jackson and Sean Conley, have at times sounded more like cheerleaders for the president than sober judges of his health. His current doctor, Sean Barbabella, mentioned Trump's 'frequent victories in golf events' in the first medical report of his second term. Jackson suggested to the media in 2018 that Trump had 'incredibly good genes' and joked that he might live to 200 years old if his eating habits were more healthful. Jackson, now a Republican congressman from Texas, was demoted by the U.S. Navy after an inspector general report shed light on multiple misdeeds involving alcohol and harassment while he served in the White House medical unit. Conley, who succeeded Jackson, repeatedly downplayed the severity of Trump's symptoms when he was hospitalized with covid-19 in the fall of 2020. Past presidents who didn't want the public to know the truth about their poor health have orchestrated elaborate cover-ups. After Woodrow Wilson suffered a major stroke in 1919, leaving him with a paralyzed left side, his doctor conspired with Wilson's wife to keep his condition hidden from his own Cabinet. Cleveland insisted the operation to remove his tumor be secretly performed on a friend's yacht, under the guise that he was on a fishing trip near his summer home on Long Island. The administration denied an initial report about the surgery, and the truth wasn't widely accepted until after Cleveland's death many years later, when one of his doctors publicly confessed. On the other hand, Dwight D. Eisenhower reportedly ordered his press secretary to 'tell them everything' after suffering a heart attack in 1955. His surgeons regularly briefed the public after his heart surgery. But medical transparency is only as strong as the president wants it to be. Like regular Americans, the president is protected by medical privacy laws, so disclosing any health information is ultimately up to him. An additional challenge, former White House doctors and presidential historians say, is that there is no official requirement for how often a president should undergo an exam, what the exam should include and which of the results should be made public. 'There's nothing codified about what to do,' said Kuhlman, who also served on the White House medical unit under George W. Bush. White House doctors traditionally conduct an annual physical exam on the president and release a memo of varying length that includes vital signs, a summary of the physical examination and the results of blood tests. These memos generally conclude with some kind of pronouncement from the doctor that the president is fit to execute the duties of the presidency. Trump's and Biden's doctors have largely followed that pattern, although the reports on Biden's health have been significantly longer and more detailed than the reports on Trump. Kuhlman and Lawrence Mohr, who served as physician to Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, said they were never asked by any president to withhold medical information in their reports. Mohr said he recalls that there was 'never any question' about being candid about the president's health. 'You never lie; never, never say anything that's not true,' Mohr said. 'You put out a clear press release about what's going on, what to expect and you get it out there. If you don't do that, you end up with all sorts of speculation.' Reagan was 77 when he left office and five years later announced he had Alzheimer's disease. He faced similar questions about his fitness to serve. Mohr recollected administering the Mini-Mental State Examination — a test used to assess cognitive function — to the 40th president. Trump's doctors have given him a different cognitive test, the Montreal Cognitive Assessment. But cognitive tests are not standard practice. Neither George W. Bush nor Obama took one, Kuhlman said. But they were much younger while in office than Biden. 'I was fortunate to have 50-year-old patients instead of 80-year-old ones,' Kuhlman said.

USA Today
2 hours ago
- USA Today
Cheap, fast and armed: U.S. looks to thwart Ukraine-style drone swarms
Cheap, fast and armed: U.S. looks to thwart Ukraine-style drone swarms Ukraine recently used inexpensive drones to inflict serious damage to Russia's strategic bomber fleet in an audacious attack. Show Caption Hide Caption Ukrainian drone attack hits Russian air force bases A large scale Ukrainian drone attack hit multiple Russian air force bases, significantly setting Russia back. A senior U.S. military official said it was only a matter of time before drones were used in a "mass casualty event" in the U.S. Last year, the military tallied 350 drone incursions on domestic bases. Most were thought to be the work of hobbyists who strayed into restricted airspace. WASHINGTON − Cheap weaponized drones pose a threat to military bases and civilians, leading a senior military official to predict they'll be used soon to inflict a 'mass-casualty event.' Ukraine underscored the risk to advanced military powers on June 1 when its inexpensive drones damaged or destroyed strategic warplanes across Russia. U.S. military bases, and targets like major sports events, share similar vulnerabilities, officials say. Neither the Pentagon, nor the militaries of other developed countries, has figured out how to defend against swarms of small drones packed with explosives, according to the military official, who has been briefed on counter-drone efforts but was not authorized to speak publicly. More: Russia's 'Pearl Harbor': What to know about Ukraine's audacious drone strike We're not even close, the official said. No one is. The threat from drones to military isn't just overseas. Last year, the military tallied 350 drone incursions on domestic bases, according to U.S. Northern Command. Most of those were probably hobbyists who strayed into restricted airspace, the defense official said. Some, however, could have been from foreign adversaries spying on the military. And some wonder if they could have carried explosives. More: Ukraine drone attack shows familiar-looking drones can be terrifying weapons How does the Pentagon, which spends nearly a trillion dollars a year on defense, have such a vulnerability? What's being done to address it, and how future of drone warfare plays out gains greater and greater urgency for lawmakers and military planners as technology improves almost daily. For the better part of two decades, the Pentagon had unmatched superiority in drone technology. Early in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Predator and later Reaper drones armed with Hellfire missiles allowed pilots in dark bases in the Nevada desert to attack militant targets in the Middle East. A Reaper costs about $28 million, according to the Congressional Research Service. For a fraction of that cost today, a small drone can be weaponized and flown to its target and deliver devastating effects, too. 'At a cost of a mere tens of thousands of dollars, Ukraine inflicted billions in damage, potentially setting back Russia's bomber capabilities for years,' Army Secretary Dan Driscoll testified to Congress this week. 'The world saw in near-real time how readily available technology can disrupt established power dynamics.' Ukraine has been at the forefront of militarized drone development. By necessity, it needs a cheap alternative to thwart Russia, a country with a far larger military force that has advantages in conventional weapons like warplanes, tanks and artillery. Ukraine deployed first-person view, or FPV drones, in its attack on the Russian airfields. FPV drones allow a pilot with a headset to steer the aircraft to its target. That technology has proliferated and gotten relatively cheap in recent years. You can buy an FPV drone on Amazon for under $700. The Ukrainian military has refined technology for small drones and improves nearly weekly to offset Russian countermeasures, the defense official said. Fatal attack The Pentagon is painfully aware of the threat. In January 2024 militants in Jordan launched a drone attack on an outpost in the desert as soldiers slept in their quarters. Three died when the drone slammed into their building. Realizing the urgency of the threat, the Pentagon began funneling hundreds of millions of dollars into counter-drone weaponry. That includes electronic jamming devices that can sever the link between the operator and the drone, rendering it harmless. Small missiles can be fired at drones at a distance, and shotgun-type weapons can be used for those closer in, the official said. Even nets can be used to snag drones in the air before they reach their target. Defending against a swarm of small drones is a tough problem, the official said. There's no simple solution. On Capitol Hill, Sen. Roger Wicker, the Republican chairman of the Armed Services Committee, assured Army officials that Congress is prepared to spend billions on drone defense. Before senators and Army officials retreated to discuss the drone threat in secret, Driscoll raised another alarm about the threat. 'We are not doing enough,' he said. 'The current status quo is not sufficient.'
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Here are the forecasts for Tesco shares out to 2028
Tesco (LSE: TSCO) shares have gained 35% over the past five years, though the price has been a bit volatile along the way. Pressure on the retail sector has had an effect on Tesco in recent times. But against that, investors often see companies selling essentials as safe havens in times of stock market uncertainty. Tesco has held on to its market-leading position as number one in the UK groceries business. In fact, the latest Kantar survey showed market share actually growing to 28%. Tesco seems to be holding off the threat of competition from cheapies like Aldi and Lidl nicely enough. We're increasingly seeing price competition creeping back to our high streets again. So what's the outlook like for Tesco in the current year and beyond? A first-quarter trading update due on 12 June will give us an idea how the current year is starting out. At 2024/25 results time, the company told us it expects adjusted operating profit for the 2025/26 year within a range of £2.7bn to £3.0bn. That's a little below the £3,128m in the year just ended, and reflects 'a further increase in the competitive intensity of the UK market' seen in the first few months of the year. Currently, broker forecasts show that turning into earnings per share (EPS) of around 26p. That would be approximately 12% ahead of the 23.13p diluted EPS figure reported for 2024/25. Maybe it's a bit optimistic considering the company's own outlook? It can sometimes take months for broker updates to feed through. City analysts expect earnings to grow to 32p per share by 2028. And that would be an impressive 38% rise in just three years. They must surely have factored several optimistic possibilities into that. Interest rates should fall further in the next three years. Where their new steady level will be remains to be seen, but I can't see us getting back close to those lovely old 0.5% levels for quite a long time. I think it would also need today's US-led trade wars to settle down, and for the economic growth outlook to get back to strength. Will those both happen by 2028? Maybe I'm an optimist, but I put my investment money on it however long it takes. Do I think we should consider buying Tesco now, on the back of these upbeat forecasts? Well, I can't remember a time when I haven't had Tesco down as a candidate buy on my list. Every time I have money to invest though, I seem to find something I like better. I'm still bullish, as always. We're looking at a forward price-to-earnings (P/E) ratio of around 14.5, very close to the FTSE 100 average. And it could drop to 12 by 2028 if the analysts have it right. With valuations like that, and dividend yields of around 3.5%, I can understand why Tesco shares hold a cornerstone position in so many Stocks and Shares ISAs. I'm considering finally adding some to mine. The post Here are the forecasts for Tesco shares out to 2028 appeared first on The Motley Fool UK. More reading 5 Stocks For Trying To Build Wealth After 50 One Top Growth Stock from the Motley Fool Alan Oscroft has no position in any of the shares mentioned. The Motley Fool UK has recommended Tesco Plc. Views expressed on the companies mentioned in this article are those of the writer and therefore may differ from the official recommendations we make in our subscription services such as Share Advisor, Hidden Winners and Pro. Here at The Motley Fool we believe that considering a diverse range of insights makes us better investors. Motley Fool UK 2025 Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data