Recent press reports have misrepresented CropLife UK's position regarding the proposed new SPS Agreement between the UK and the EU. The following statement clarifies our position.
Some press articles have misrepresented the CropLife UK position in relation to the proposed new SPS Agreement between the UK and EU and how plant protection product (PPP) regulation would change. The key point is that we are arguing for an approach to future regulatory alignment that follows the principles of good regulatory practice and fulfils the terms of the Common Understanding Agreement between the UK & EU that was published in May 2025. We are not, as suggested, calling for a ‘delay’ to implementing any SPS agreement. The journalists were informed that the underlying analysis misrepresented our position.
In Detail
The regulation of plant protection products is complex - whilst the requirements are the same, the current GB regime is independent of, and operates separately to, the EU regime. The journalists’ analysis simplifies and misrepresents the CropLife UK position.
We commissioned The Andersons Centre to analyse the economic outcomes of different approaches to dynamic alignment in a possible SPS agreement. The report provides evidence to enable a debate around the approaches that might be taken to deliver a new plant protection product (PPP) regulatory regime as part of a new SPS agreement. The scenarios modelled include differences only in a few high-level assumptions for the purpose of keeping the research to a manageable scale. We want an open debate on the net benefits of different approaches that could be taken in reaching a new SPS Agreement.
The Andersons Centre report scenarios provide an independent analysis of the economic consequences of different options. They do not reflect our detailed positioning on how a future regulatory regime should work. The misleading press articles do not make this distinction. There are many other issues and choices of detail in the way that a new regime might be implemented, to deliver its goals of protecting people and the environment, and to enable PPP suppliers to deliver innovative crop protection solutions to allow UK growers to produce sufficient healthy, affordable food.
The only scenario modelled by The Andersons Centre report that is compatible with the Common Understanding Agreement (CUA) is the one we have termed ‘managed alignment’ where future GB/EU regulatory decisions would be taken following good regulatory practice. The broad principles that we advocate are that any future combined GB/EU regulatory regime should be forward looking, making joint decisions from the point the regime begins to operate and where it considers GB usage & conditions before those joint decisions are taken. Nevertheless, there are many ways in which this simple starting point could be built into an efficient and effective joint GB/EU regulatory regime.
The two scenarios in The Andersons Centre Report that model ‘retrospective alignment of decisions’ were included because UK Government have suggested these as possible options but, in our view, these are not compatible with the terms of the Common Understanding Agreement or good regulatory practice. These scenarios, if implemented badly, could jettison thousands of legitimate GB regulatory decisions. They would be replaced by EU decisions, but these would not be equivalent as there would have been no consideration of GB usage or conditions, thereby not meeting the CUA criterion for involvement in the decision-making process for any decisions that will apply in GB.
The ‘rules’ that operate in GB are the same as the EU as current UK law is based on EU law. The standards operated in the UK are therefore the same as in the EU, though there are some that argue that the UK regulator has become more cautious in some respects since EU Exit, leading to UK growers being denied access to products that are available to EU growers.
What has diverged since EU Exit are thousands of detailed decisions that are different because regulators in GB & the EU have been considering different questions by virtue of considering different applications from companies. Simply replacing GB decisions with non-equivalent EU decisions overnight would create the kind of negative impact illustrated by The Andersons Centre Report.
These press reports focus on active substances where the UK regulator has yet to complete a renewal (routine review) process, but where the EU has already completed that process. That narrow focus has nothing to do with the negotiation of a new SPS deal and ignores the much broader issue linked to the wide range of divergent decisions taken since EU Exit. This difference in timing on substance renewal decisions has occurred because the EU has continued (slowly) with its Renewal programme, whereas UK Government has not implemented the legal requirements for renewal of substances in GB since EU Exit - despite our requests to put a programme with a clear schedule in place. However, the UK regulator claims to consider all EU non-renewal decisions and is reviewing some (possibly all, but the process is not transparent) of the active substances mentioned in the press reports. It is within the gift of UK Government to make appropriate considerations in relation to these substances at any time, though we think that it should do so as part of a more transparent process. With the additional resources added to the regulator post-EU Exit it could have done this by now and it is possible that many of those decisions could be made before a new SPS deal with the EU enters into force. This aspect, in relation to these few active substances, is completely within the remit of the UK Government to prioritise the work programme as it sees fit. That it has not yet done so is not a good reason to consider signing up to a bad SPS deal that could put GB growers out of business and favour EU food production over our own domestic production.
