FARMERS and consumer groups have long held fears over Boris Johnson's trade deal with Australia.
The details of the agreement, struck last night, have yet to be set out but producers are concerned that cheaper imports (produced under lower food, animal welfare and environmental standards) will put them out of business.
And they are worried the issues they raise will be being disregarded while ministers focus on reaching a deal that will benefit other parts of the economy, such as technology and engineering.
READ MORE: Boris Johnson blasted over 'secret' trade deal with Australia
One of the main concerns among both farmers and consumers relates to the use of hormones which are injected into cattle in Australia to speed up their growth – a practice banned on human safety grounds by the European Commission since 1998.
While the UK was in the EU, the use of these hormonal growth promotants (HGPs) had to be banned in the UK but post-Brexit the Government can review this prohibition.
The Australian authorities say the science doesn't back up the view taken by Brussels that hormone treatment is carcinogenic and therefore a risk to humans.
Around 40% of cattle in Australia are given HGPs, according to Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ), when a small implant is placed under the skin on the back of the ear, slowly releasing a low dose over 100 to 200 days.
Studies have shown that cattle treated with HGPs have an increased weight gain of between 10–30%.
Lower standards also exist on the safety of pesticides in Australia compared to the UK, by virtue of its former EU membership.
For example, neonicotinoids used on Australian crops – including cotton, canola, cereals, sunflower, potato, many vegetable crops and fruits – are banned in the UK and EU because of concerns they cause harm to bees.
In the UK, pesticides are given a maximum licence of 15 years before having to undergo a review process. In Australia, there is no set time period.
Animal welfare standards are also lower in Australia. For instance, there is no ban on battery cages for chickens.
Pigs too are kept in poorer conditions than in the UK, with sows spending less time in stalls in the UK while they can be confined in them in Australia.
The UK banned sow stalls in 1999, while the Australian pork industry has undergone a voluntary phasing out of sow stalls in recent years.
There are fears that the Australia deal will set a dangerous precedent for future trade deals, leading to the UK lowering its standards across the board and opening the door to hormone-reared beef and chlorinated chicken from other countries like the US or from places around the world with fewer regulations governing the use of pesticides.
Environment Secretary George Eustice and Cabinet Office minister Michael Gove have privately expressed reservations about the deal.
Australia pays tariffs of 20% on all exports of beef to the UK (which must comply with current UK rules over food standards and animal welfare).
It is understood that under the plans being negotiated these would be phased out over the next 15 years to zero, in line with the terms for the EU.
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