It is anticipated that, under the SPS agreement, the EU’s animal health law (Regulation (EU) 2016/429) will likely be subject to dynamic alignment and therefore apply directly to farmers in Great Britain. This regulation is an overarching legal framework laying down harmonised principles across the European Union with the aim of preventing and controlling animal diseases that can be transmitted to other animals or humans.
How do animal exports work now?
Since the UK left the European Union, we have largely maintained equivalence, or exceeded, EU animal health legislation. As a non-EU country, the UK already demonstrates that it meets certain health and biosecurity measures to export into the EU single market.
Dynamic alignment with the EU’s Animal Health Law would require farmers in Great Britain to ensure that they receive regular animal health visits from a vet. This is already a requirement for farmers rearing animals, the products of which, are exported to the EU; however, it could become compulsory for all animal keepers.
To date, farms which are part of certain voluntary qualifying assurance schemes do not need to complete a veterinary declaration. These schemes include:
- Red Tractor
- Quality Meat Scotland
- Farm Assured Welsh Livestock Beef and Lamb scheme Welsh Lamb and Beef Producers Ltd
Membership of these farm assurance schemes is accepted as evidence that a ‘premises of origin’ meets the requirement for regular health visits from a vet. Additionally, voluntary uptake of an annual vet visit through the government’s animal health and welfare pathway has also been accepted as evidence of compliance.
However, the NFU is aware of two issues which could impact upon wider animal health in Great Britain under dynamic alignment that we are lobbying the government on.
Bovine TB
In addition to the hugely detrimental financial impact it is has upon farm businesses, the impact that bTB has on the mental health of the farming community cannot be overstated. That is why the NFU continues to support allowing producers access to all available tools to combat TB including vaccination.
EU legislation currently prohibits the use of vaccines against infection with MTBC (Mycobacterium tuberculosis complex) in cattle. We are concerned there is a risk that we may lose the ability to vaccinate cattle against MTBC in the future should Great Britain align with the EU’s Animal Health Law under the SPS agreement.
Vaccination may play a significant role in the long-term solution to this disease, and the work being conducted in this area in Great Britain is truly world-leading.
However, in the longer term, the sector is also clear that it cannot support the vaccination of cattle in Great Britian if it results in trade restrictions on British POAO (products of animal origin), such as meat and dairy, being exported to the EU.
NFU key ask
The NFU is therefore lobbying the UK Government to secure an SPS agreement with the EU which will ensure that the trials, and, if successful, rollout of the bTB vaccine can continue in Great Britian, while preserving the ability to export British POAO to Europe.
Veterinary medicines
The Common Understanding, agreed in May, outlines the UK Government’s intention to align with EU sanitary regulations, this is likely to encompass some legislation that relates to veterinary medicines, such as maximum residue levels in POAO. While the NFU would prefer that veterinary medicines were not covered by the SPS agreement, it appears likely that the industry will be able to adapt to most of these regulations.
However, the NFU has significant concerns that the SPS agreement could lead to producers in Great Britain having to align with new EU AMR (Antimicrobial Resistance) provisions.
In 2019, the EU updated its veterinary medicines regulations through two new pieces of legislation; the Veterinary Medicinal Products Regulation (Regulation (EU) 2019/6) (VMPR), and Regulation (EU) 2019/4 on the manufacture, placing on the market and use of medicated feed. These regulations place significant restrictions on the use of antimicrobials, including limiting the preventative use of antimicrobials to single animal only, even when other animals in a flock or herd may be infected.
We are concerned that, in practice, this could act as a serious barrier to animal health and welfare, preventing the rapid treatment of a flock or herd of animals exposed to disease.
As a Member State within the EU, the UK lobbied against these restrictions as the scientific evidence linking antimicrobial resistance to responsible prescribing of antibiotics was weak. Due to the UK’s withdrawal from the EU, these regulations were never incorporated into UK law.
In Great Britain, the Veterinary Medicines Regulations were revised last year and took a more balanced approach, which enables, when necessary, the preventative treatment of a group of animals exposed to disease under veterinary supervision. This ensures animal health and welfare is protected while reducing the development of antimicrobial resistance. The effectiveness of the approach in Great Britain is evidenced by monitoring conducted by the Veterinary Medicines Directorate, which has consistently shown that resistance to the highest priority critically important antibiotics has been low, very low, or not detected since 2014.
We are concerned that the EU may attempt to include elements of these regulations within the scope of dynamic alignment, as is the case in the EU-Swiss SPS agreement, and therefore restrict possible usages of antimicrobials within GB.
NFU key ask
The NFU is therefore lobbying the government to retain the current GB legislation and ensure that these key antimicrobial resistance provisions are not subject to dynamic alignment within the SPS agreement.
