It’s more important to have access to cheap food than to protect Britain’s failing farmers

Those protesting about the threat of post-brexit trade deals must seek out global opportunities

Musical horns, bells, and sirens screeched throughout Westminster on Monday evening. This was not another Extinction Rebellion sit-in, but rather a disruptive peak-hour convoy of tractors calling for “fairness for British farmers”.

It has undoubtedly been a difficult few years for many farmers, who have struggled with higher fuel and energy costs, as well as increased fertiliser and animal feed prices. There has also been a marked failure to reassess unnecessary, unscientific and costly regulations after Brexit. Even the effort to allow gene editing has come to little due to the glacial pace of the Food Standards Agency. This bleak picture, however, is far from universal.

According to official government statistics, British farming business incomes reached “exceptional highs” in 2022/23 because of higher global food prices.

Nevertheless, the protesters are reportedly particularly concerned about the threat of post-brexit trade deals with Australia and New Zealand, which cut tariffs and reduce quotas on various agricultural goods.

These deals enable Britons to access a greater variety of food at lower prices and give British car, whisky and biscuit makers tariff-free access to the Aussie and Kiwi markets. Waitrose began selling the Aussie cult favourite biscuit, Tim Tams, just this week. In a small but significant sign, the product sold out online in just days. Britain’s farmers, however, assert they are being undercut by lower-quality produce. This is entirely absurd and not believed by the public.

A previous poll indicated that around two-thirds support deals with Australia and New Zealand and consider those countries to have high food safety and animal welfare standards. Tens of millions of Britons who have travelled to the Antipodes and experienced the food first-hand over the years can attest to that.

In any case, a food product imported into the UK must follow the same food safety and animal welfare standards – along with additional burdensome import paperwork. There is also an extended 15-year adjustment period for the most difficult sectors, such as beef and lamb, which gives the industry plenty of time to adapt.

Protesters have also raised concerns about Britain’s food security because of a lack of domestic production. But shutting ourselves off from the rest of the world would risk higher prices, less choice and, ultimately, much more risk. Britons might come close to starvation without imports. Nearly half of the food we consume comes from overseas, despite over two-thirds of the UK’S land area already being used for agricultural production. Fresh food, in particular, disproportionately comes from overseas, including half of all veggies and an even higher proportion of fresh fruit.

These imports aren’t bad for food security – quite the opposite. The benefit of all this international trade is that in a poor year for domestic production, we can still access all the food we need by relying on diverse sources.

At the heart of this debate is whether Britain should return to the farming policy of our days in the European Union. It is notable that Liz Webster, the anti-brexit activist behind the “Save British Farming” campaign, helped organise this week’s convoy. Webster, who likes to blame Brexit for Britain’s farmers’ woes, may have missed the much bigger tractor protests across European capitals in recent months. Nevertheless, she explicitly wants the UK to rejoin the single market, which presumably means again partaking in the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), the EU’S farm subsidy regime.

The post-brexit farm subsidies are being maintained at £2.4bn but transforming from being land-based, which has always benefited the largest property owners, to payments for conservation and biodiversity activities. This is far from perfect – but ultimately, a system of payments for nature protection is a more sensible policy than what came before. No other industry is entitled to large taxpayer funds just for existing.

The CAP made British farming less productive, as the subsidies blunted the incentive to plant the most efficient crops or invest in new technologies.

This has ultimately led to a less financially sustainable industry.

Food prices can be cheaper in Australia and New Zealand not only because they have a greater scale but also because the domestic subsidies were abolished in the 1980s.

Farmers heavily protested about their lost taxpayer funds but ultimately moved towards more efficient crops, invested in the sector and have become much more efficient in competing on the global stage. The production efficiency means that even after considering transport emissions, the likes of imported lamb from New Zealand have a lower carbon footprint.

In this post-brexit era, it is incumbent on British farmers to seek out global opportunities, particularly in the Asia Pacific, where a growing middle class is hungry for Britishmade products. Closing off from the rest of the world and becoming less efficient cannot be the solution.

The Government could do far more to take advantage of Brexit, but a closed-minded approach that rejects trade deals hurts British consumers and reduces our food security is far from the right response.

‘Britain’s farmers assert they are being undercut by lower-quality produce. This is entirely absurd’