BORDER checks between Scotland, England and Wales could be required because of varying food standards after Brexit, academics have warned.
Issues such as chlorinated chicken and genetically modified (GM) crops in post-Brexit trade negotiations could create wider differences between the nations' food safety standards and require border checks between countries, University of Sussex academics have said.
With the Scottish and Welsh governments pledging to remain aligned to EU standards after Brexit, trade deals made by the UK Government "could complicate and undermine trade in agricultural and food products", the report states.
The university study, carried out for the UK Trade Policy Observatory, said different approaches to food standards would likely have a "significant and detrimental impact" on the ability to strike trade deals and "poses an increased risk of fragmentation" within the UK.
READ MORE: Unite leader Len McCluskey hits out at Johnson’s Brexit deal
Proposed Brexit food safety rules would give UK ministers powers to make policy changes to food safety laws without primary legislation – avoiding the scrutiny of Parliament through the use of Statutory Instruments (SIs).
Such changes have the potential to "vastly increase devolution of food safety regulation", according to the report, creating the prospect of trade barriers between England and Scotland or Wales.
Dr Emily Lydgate, a senior environmental law lecturer at the University of Sussex and one of the authors of the study, said: "Food safety SIs are a potential flash-point for Scotland – which wants to maintain alignment with the EU – and Westminster, which promises to pursue a US trade deal that will alter UK food safety legislation.
"Negotiating a US trade deal that Scotland opposes is certainly not viable and could even fuel a push for Scottish independence.
"If one or more devolved administrations refuses to realign its food safety regulations from those of the EU to comply with US standards after a US-UK free trade agreement, it will complicate the flows of agricultural and food products within the UK.
"This raises the question of how the UK can avoid introducing internal UK regulatory controls and border checks to ensure that products comply with divergent jurisdictional requirements."
The report also suggests EU safeguards on food standards will be weakened as soon as the UK leaves, with the Government planning to scrap the requirement for independent scientific assessments on the safety of pesticides and allowing ministers to lower thresholds for labelling when genetically modified crops are used.
Professor Erik Millstone, emeritus professor in the Science Policy Research Unit at the University of Sussex, said: "Our analysis suggests Brexit SIs will allow ministers to exercise considerable powers of discretion when authorising ingredients in pesticide products, amending GMO authorisations and thresholds for labelling, authorising food additives and approving substances for animal carcass washes.
"Ministers may issue guidance impacting substantive policy content or make new rules governing food safety by secondary legislation, without proper parliamentary scrutiny and using powers that exceed those vested by the EU in the European Commission.
"Those considerable powers could be a way to overcoming parliamentary resistance and public opposition to aspects of a UK-US trade deal."
Recommending that devolved nations have "strong oversight over UK external trade negotiations", the study also calls for primary legislation to be required where there could be major policy changes on food safety.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel