Stakeholder Input Highlights Broad Unease (Image Credits: Foodsafetynews.com)
United Kingdom – Industry organizations and advocacy groups have voiced strong concerns that the UK-India trade agreement could expose consumers to food imports produced under standards weaker than those enforced domestically.[1][2]
Stakeholder Input Highlights Broad Unease
The Food Standards Agency and Food Standards Scotland conducted a call for evidence from August 1 to September 26, 2025, to assess the agreement’s implications for food safety. Nine organizations submitted responses, which the agencies summarized on February 17, 2026.[1] Their feedback centered on disparities in production practices between the UK and India.
Respondents included farming unions, retailers, and environmental groups. They emphasized risks from increased imports of items like dairy, eggs, spices, and poultry. The summary captured fears that tariff reductions could flood markets with non-compliant products.
- Alliance to Save Our Antibiotics (ASOA)
- Dairy UK
- British Retail Consortium (BRC)
- Fera Science Ltd
- British Egg Industry Council (BEIC)
- Farmers’ Union of Wales (FUW)
- National Farmers’ Union (NFU)
- National Sheep Association (NSA)
- Pesticide Action Network UK (PAN UK)
Antibiotic Overuse Raises Resistance Alarms
Several groups pointed to India’s routine use of antibiotics for growth promotion in livestock and crops, a practice banned in the UK. ASOA warned that lifting tariffs on dairy could exacerbate antimicrobial resistance, noting high reliance on critically important antibiotics in Indian herds.[1] “India permits widespread use of antibiotics for growth promotion in animals and crops, including substances banned in the UK,” the group stated.
Dairy UK highlighted the Indian dairy sector’s lack of an approved residues monitoring plan and fragmented structure, which fosters antibiotic misuse. FUW, NFU, and NSA echoed these issues, citing risks to public health from imports produced under looser controls. They argued that without enforceable minimum standards, UK progress against resistance could stall.
Pesticides and Contaminants Draw Scrutiny
PAN UK flagged pesticide residues in Indian foods exceeding UK maximum residue levels, including banned substances. Fera Science Ltd noted frequent border rejections of Indian products due to residues, mycotoxins, and contaminants, particularly in spices and processed foods.[3]
NSA identified specific banned additives like bromates, formalin, and carbides, alongside poor cold chain management and labeling. Respondents called for bolstered UK testing and certification to verify compliance. These groups stressed that limited domestic surveillance capacity heightens vulnerabilities.
Sectoral Vulnerabilities in Dairy and Eggs
Dairy UK expressed alarm over tariff elimination on Indian dairy, predicting health threats from subpar standards. BEIC focused on eggs, praising the British Lion scheme’s success against salmonella while fearing outbreaks from imports lacking equivalent safeguards.[1]
NFU warned of broader tariff liberalisation flooding markets with lower-welfare poultry and dairy. BRC advocated retailer-led audits but urged government collaboration on high-risk commodities like spices. FUW linked these practices to environmental harm, urging alignment with UK emissions goals.
Authorities Reaffirm Protective Measures
The FSA and FSS joint advice concluded that no changes to UK food laws are needed for the agreement to proceed. Imports must meet existing standards through risk-based border checks, certifications, and inspections.Joint Section 42 advice[2] Enhanced scrutiny applies to high-risk Indian goods like certain spices and nuts.
The Trade and Agriculture Commission similarly found the deal consistent with UK protections. Officials noted autonomy under WTO rules to impose stricter measures, emergency safeguards, and audits. They recommended resourcing border authorities adequately amid potential import surges. Consumer surveys showed low trust in Indian food safety, reinforcing calls for vigilance.[4]
Key Takeaways
- UK border controls ensure imports comply with domestic standards, regardless of origin practices.
- Nine groups identified antibiotic, pesticide, and production gaps but officials see no legislative needs.
- Ongoing monitoring and testing remain essential to address stakeholder risks.
Stakeholder warnings underscore the tension between trade expansion and safeguarding public health, even as regulators insist protections hold firm. The scrutiny process highlights the value of transparency in post-deal assessments. What do you think about these food safety concerns? Tell us in the comments.
