The price of alignment: what the UK-EU SPS Agreement means for British businesses

Under the proposed SPS deal, even businesses that never trade with Europe would have to follow EU rules, and Parliament deserves to know the price.

Mike Salem is a Senior Political Adviser for the Kava Coalition and a political and economic analyst.

The second UK-EU Summit takes place in Brussels on 20 November 2026. Ten years have passed since the Brexit referendum, yet Europe remains firmly impressed on the minds of British politicians. For some, it remains a convenient scapegoat; for others, the answer to almost every economic problem facing the country.

Leave campaigners argued that the European Union was responsible for the breakdown in trust between politicians and the public, and that a United Kingdom outside the EU would restore parliamentary sovereignty, allow politicians to enact the will of the people and provide greater freedom to determine the country’s future. Remainers, meanwhile, have been equally zealous in attributing Britain’s economic stagnation to leaving the European Union, arguing that closer integration, or even rejoining, would put the country back on a path to prosperity.

While politicians continue to debate the merits of Brexit, businesses are left dealing with the consequences. Years of uncertainty, shifting regulatory priorities and the constant prospect of either alignment or divergence have made it increasingly difficult for businesses to plan, invest and trade with confidence. Businesses need stability, not another round of political indecision.

One particularly concerning development is the proposed UK-EU Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) Agreement. The agreement is intended to establish regulatory alignment between Great Britain and the European Union across a substantial range of sectors, including food safety, animal health and welfare, plant health, pesticides, food supplements, novel foods and agricultural products.

Its implications extend well beyond reducing paperwork at the border. It has the potential to reshape the domestic regulatory environment in which British businesses operate.

Although the final text has yet to be formally agreed, the Government intends for it to take effect around mid-2027. As the Government itself has acknowledged: “While the timeline is ambitious, the reward is worth the effort.”

More concerning, however, is the Government’s confirmation that: “UK businesses will need to meet EU rules within the scope of the agreement, whether trading with the EU or serving only the UK market.”

Read that again. A business operating exclusively in Britain, selling exclusively to British customers, could nevertheless be required to comply with European regulatory requirements. This is a considerable departure from the promise of Brexit and raises serious questions about the extent to which Britain will retain the ability to determine its own regulatory future.

The implications are particularly significant for future market authorisations. Under the proposed arrangements, relevant applications would move away from the existing UK-specific authorisation process and into the EU framework. Depending on the product and its regulatory classification, this could require applicants to submit scientific dossiers for assessment by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), with subsequent authorisation decisions made through the relevant European Commission and Member State procedures, and yes, that means going through all 27 Member States.

It is important to understand this distinction. EFSA is responsible for the scientific risk assessment of relevant food products; it does not itself grant the final market authorisation. That decision generally sits with the European Commission, operating through the applicable EU authorisation framework.

Nevertheless, applicants would be required to navigate this European process and seek approval from the 27 Member States, with the final decision taken by the European Commission after a vote by member state representatives, rather than relying on a purely domestic route. In practical terms, Britain risks surrendering not just regulatory independence, but also the ability to operate its own proportionate and responsive authorisation system.

Forgive my bluntness, but this is a right farce. Having spent a decade arguing about the benefits of leaving the European Union, are we now prepared to recreate significant elements of its regulatory system through the back door? We risk accepting the obligations of alignment without enjoying the representation and influence that came with membership. That is a particularly uncomfortable position for a sovereign Parliament.

Kava: a practical example of what is at stake

One example I have been working on illustrates the potential consequences particularly well: the market access of kava, a traditional drink originating in the Pacific Islands.

Kava is made from the dried root of the Piper methysticum plant, traditionally prepared by mixing the ground or powdered root with water. It has been consumed across the Pacific for centuries and remains deeply embedded in the cultural, ceremonial and social traditions of countries such as Fiji, Vanuatu, Tonga and Samoa. At the 2024 Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in Samoa, kava formed part of the welcome ceremony, with the King participating in the traditional proceedings.

In Britain, kava has historically been available in various forms, including supplements marketed for relaxation and anxiety. Its regulatory position, however, has been complicated by concerns about potential liver toxicity and the resulting restrictions on its use in food.

There is a legitimate discussion to be had about safety, dosage, preparation methods and the scientific evidence surrounding kava. Indeed, securing a credible regulatory pathway requires taking those questions seriously. The objective should be to establish a proportionate framework that protects consumers while allowing properly assessed products to access the market.

At present, this work involves engaging with the Food Standards Agency (FSA) and navigating the relevant UK market authorisation requirements. It is not an easy process. Different products can fall under different regulatory categories, and the FSA’s role can involve scientific assessment and recommendations to ministers, with formal authorisation decisions depending on the applicable legislation.

Nevertheless, it is a process operating within a domestic regulatory framework, where British institutions can assess the evidence and make decisions in the interests of the British market.

Photo by Jack Lee on Unsplash

The proposed SPS arrangements threaten to complicate this considerably. If the agreement removes the relevant UK-specific authorisation route, applicants seeking to introduce qualifying products to the British market could instead be required to pursue authorisation under the EU system. This is not simply a change of paperwork. It potentially means a more demanding scientific dossier, additional administrative requirements, greater expense and a longer route to market.

For smaller businesses and producers in the Pacific Islands, these are not insignificant obstacles. The cost and complexity of navigating an EU-level process could place market access beyond their reach, even where their ambitions are limited entirely to the British market.

There is another particularly troubling aspect: the position of products that have already obtained UK approval. The FSA’s update to its board indicates that existing GB authorisations within the scope of the agreement would cease to apply unless an exception is agreed. Depending on the product category, applicable transitional provisions and final agreement, businesses could face the prospect of having to seek authorisation again under the EU framework to maintain their access to the British market.

Consider the implications. A business that has already invested considerable time and money in satisfying British regulators could find itself having to navigate an additional European process. What incentive does this create for innovation, investment or bringing new products to market? Businesses need certainty that regulatory decisions made in good faith will not simply be rendered obsolete by a subsequent political agreement.

It also raises questions about the future role of the FSA itself. The agency will continue to have important domestic responsibilities, including food safety monitoring, enforcement and policy functions. However, where authorisation decisions become subject to EU rules and procedures, its ability to independently determine the regulatory pathway for relevant products could be substantially reduced. The very purpose of having an independent British food regulator becomes harder to distinguish if its discretion is increasingly constrained by an external regulatory framework.

Kava is just one example. The same questions could arise for other traditional products, emerging food businesses and innovative ingredients seeking access to the British market. The issue is therefore considerably larger than one Pacific drink. It is about whether Britain retains the freedom to assess new products according to its own evidence, priorities and economic interests.

Where is parliamentary scrutiny?

This is precisely the sort of agreement that deserves serious scrutiny in the House of Commons. The Government should not be permitted to present regulatory alignment as a straightforward technical arrangement designed to make trade easier. There are benefits to reducing unnecessary border checks and facilitating trade with our largest trading partners. But those benefits must be weighed against the longer-term consequences of surrendering domestic regulatory discretion.

MPs on all sides have a responsibility to scrutinise the agreement, not necessarily because every element of alignment is undesirable, but because the constitutional and economic implications demand proper examination. MPs should be asking what legislative powers are being constrained, how much freedom Parliament will retain to diverge, what role British regulators will have in future decisions and whether businesses serving only the domestic market will genuinely benefit.

The UK would not necessarily be surrendering its formal sovereignty or transferring Parliament’s legislative powers to Brussels. Parliament would remain sovereign in law.

However, agreeing to maintain alignment with a substantial body of EU legislation, particularly where future changes to those rules have consequences for the UK, significantly constrains the practical freedom to diverge. The ability to make an independent decision is of limited value if exercising it carries substantial economic or legal consequences under an international agreement.

Most importantly, Parliament must establish whether Britain will have any meaningful ability to influence the European rules to which its businesses will be expected to adhere. There is little democratic comfort in following rules over which we have limited influence. Regulatory alignment has a price, and the public and Parliament deserve to know precisely what that price is.

Brexit was supposed to restore the ability of the UK to make its own decisions. That did not mean every British regulation had to be different from its European counterpart. It meant that the choice to align, diverge or develop an entirely different approach would ultimately rest with British institutions. If the SPS Agreement removes much of that practical choice across such a broad range of sectors, then we must be honest about what is being negotiated. This is a return to the EU at our own cost.

The Government may call it a pragmatic agreement. Businesses may welcome some of its trade facilitation measures. But if British businesses must follow European rules even when they have no intention of trading with Europe, and if British regulators lose the ability to independently determine the authorisation pathways for products entering the British market, then we should at least have the courage to ask (again) whether this is Brexit in name only.

In the meantime, the FSA has paused or deprioritised many applications while it awaits the outcome of the negotiations, creating delays and costs for many crucial businesses that enable us to put food on the table.