The report on food standards & trade is here: https://www.sustainweb.org/resources/files/reports/Future%20British%20Standards%20Coalition%20-%20Safeguarding%20Standards.pdf

As expected it argues to keep high standards on UK imports.

But sadly it glosses over a number issues related to international trade rules. For the report to be credible, these must be addressed

1 /18 https://twitter.com/vickihird/status/1332241062472151040

I’ll focus only on WTO rules: anything that might be agreed in free trade deals can go beyond WTO rules, or opt out of some constraints.

For example, *IF* the US bilaterally accepts UK animal welfare standards for its exports to the UK, then there’s no issue in the WTO

2 /18

The biggest problem is how the report glosses over the difference between standards of PRODUCTS versus PRODUCTION METHODS.

This is such a complicated issue that it still features in lengthy threads of Twitter debate among trade experts.

Overlooking it weakens the report.

3 /18

The closest the report comes to recognising the difference is where the use of hormones is described as a “production standard”. But this is confused. The EU (and UK) bans imports of “hormone beef” because “hormone beef” is banned domestically.

https://www.sustainweb.org/resources/files/reports/Future%20British%20Standards%20Coalition%20-%20Safeguarding%20Standards.pdf

4/18

Production processes based on — for example — animal welfare are much more complicated, and much more controversial.

Certifying whether cattle have had hormone implants is fairly simple.

Can “welfare” be certified? Only if we agree on what it means, on objective criteria

5 /18

On the subject of “hormone beef”, the report seems to deny that some import bans might violate WTO agreements.

It fails to acknowledge that the ban on “hormone beef” is already WTO-illegal.

US case DS26: https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds26_e.htm
Canada case DS48: https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds48_e.htm

6 /18

The section on “WTO compliance” claims “trade academics have concluded” that rejecting low standards for food is WTO compliant.

For PRODUCTS this is actually written into WTO agreements, with conditions.

But for PROCESSES the debate continues.

https://www.sustainweb.org/resources/files/reports/Future%20British%20Standards%20Coalition%20-%20Safeguarding%20Standards.pdf

7 /18

Bizarrely, the source for the claim about trade academics turns out to be Liam Fox.

The paragraph cites banning battery cages. Something specific like that might be simpler than attempting a broad concept like “animal welfare”. It might still be challenged

8 /18

Still on WTO compliance, the report claims the UK already restricts some food on animal welfare grounds. It would be good to see some examples — I’m not aware of any but perhaps that’s my ignorance.

https://www.sustainweb.org/resources/files/reports/Future%20British%20Standards%20Coalition%20-%20Safeguarding%20Standards.pdf

9 /18

It goes on to say the UK could defend import bans based on animal welfare under the WTO’s SPS Agreement (food safety, animal/plant health).

I’d say the jury’s out on this. Animal welfare is not mentioned in the SPS Agreement, only health

https://www.sustainweb.org/resources/files/reports/Future%20British%20Standards%20Coalition%20-%20Safeguarding%20Standards.pdf

10 /18

Then, GATT Art.20.

This creates exceptions, not for “animal welfare” and “environmental controls”, but “human, animal or plant life or health”, “the conservation of exhaustible natural resources”.

Expect a legal debate. Welfare = health?

https://www.sustainweb.org/resources/files/reports/Future%20British%20Standards%20Coalition%20-%20Safeguarding%20Standards.pdf

11 /18

Here’s GATT Art.20 and jurisprudence: https://www.wto.org/english/res_e/publications_e/ai17_e/gatt1994_art20_jur.pdf

Note the EU justified banning seal products under “(a) necessary to protect public morals” (see jurisprudence in that document)

And here’s more on Art.20 and environmental measures: https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/envir_e/envt_rules_exceptions_e.htm

12 /18

More broadly, the report argues that the UK could be a leader in the WTO in pushing for rules that allow measures based on higher standards

This feeds into the government’s vanity-narrative about “UK leadership”. Far too soon to talk about that

https://www.sustainweb.org/resources/files/reports/Future%20British%20Standards%20Coalition%20-%20Safeguarding%20Standards.pdf

13 /18

The report totally misunderstands what happens at WTO ministerial conferences. It would be amazing if ministers discussed the operation and implementation of the SPS Agreement. At best, there’ll be a dry bureaucratic report

https://www.sustainweb.org/resources/files/reports/Future%20British%20Standards%20Coalition%20-%20Safeguarding%20Standards.pdf

14 /18

The report calls for the UK to spearhead amending the SPS Agreement. No chance. So far members have decided the agreement does not need amending, preferring to focus on improving implementation. It was not in the Doha Round package of negotiations

https://www.sustainweb.org/resources/files/reports/Future%20British%20Standards%20Coalition%20-%20Safeguarding%20Standards.pdf

15 /18

It’s also confused about the relationship between the WTO and WHO/FAO Codex Alimentarius

They’re entirely separate

The WTO SPS Agreement just recognises Codex as the international standards-setter for food safety

Standards aren’t set in the WTO

https://www.sustainweb.org/resources/files/reports/Future%20British%20Standards%20Coalition%20-%20Safeguarding%20Standards.pdf

16 /18

And yet animal welfare HAS been discussed in the WTO—in the Doha Round farm talks, in relation to subsidies. The response? A chorus of objections from developing countries who said their priority was human welfare. They will need to be persuaded.

https://www.sustainweb.org/resources/files/reports/Future%20British%20Standards%20Coalition%20-%20Safeguarding%20Standards.pdf

17 /18

Finally, it’s unclear if the dual tariff system would cause problems in the WTO, also debated at length.

Perhaps if products meeting welfare standards were re-categorised as separate “products” from those that don’t. Not simple to do.

https://www.sustainweb.org/resources/files/reports/Future%20British%20Standards%20Coalition%20-%20Safeguarding%20Standards.pdf

18/18 ends