UNITED STATES farmers want the UK to accept growth hormone-fed beef and genetically modified crops as part of any post-Brexit trade deal.

Asked by the Office of the US Trade Representative to set their red lines for UK trade negotiations, lobby groups representing key US industries highlighted the 'once-in-a-lifetime opportunity' to establish transatlantic common standards that could act as a 'bastion' against the EU’s 'aggressive attempts' to impose its precautionary approach to food, medicines and chemicals on the rest of the world.

Leading the charge, agriculture firms stated that they want UK standards to be closer to those of the US, changing the UK position on controversial topics like growth promoter use, genetically modified crops, antibiotics in meats, and the licensing of pesticides and herbicides, such as glyphosate.

The National Cattlemen's Beef Association noted that US beef sales to the EU had been flat over the past few years, because of the continued application of 'non-science-based standards' on imports.

The NCBA said that a successful US-UK trade agreement must therefore include the elimination of beef tariffs; the elimination of beef quotas; the elimination of beef subsidies; science-based standards based on risk-based decision-making supported through risk-based analysis; and mutual recognition of equivalence in safety standards.

"The uncertainty of trade and availability of food in a post-Brexit UK has spurred some critics in the UK to raise concerns about the safety of imports and the future livelihood of farmers," noted the NCBA. "This includes unsubstantiated claims about US beef production that make it appear as if US beef is harmful to consumers and the environment, and that allowing US beef into the UK will be the downfall of UK farmers.

"The truth is US beef is produced with some of the highest standards in the world and our beef producers go to great lengths to care for their animals, the environment, and our consumers. US producers have consistently demonstrated a willingness to improve beef production practices to meet consumer demand. Unlike in the EU, these improvements are driven by the private sector and are not the result of government subsidies or regulations."

The United States Animal Health Institute, which produces animal antibiotics, was another groups that said it would not support any UK trade deal that did not address demands by the US agricultural sector: "We have noted with concern statements by certain UK officials indicating a desire to exclude the agricultural sector from the negotiation and an intention of maintaining regulatory harmonisation with the European Union," it said. "Should the UK adopt such policies, we see little basis for the negotiation of a bilateral trade agreement."

In a joint statement, the National Grain and Feed Association and the North American Export Grain Association, were equally strident: "NAEGA and NGFA see this upcoming negotiation as a long-awaited opportunity to gain a foothold for science-and risk-based trading policies on the European continent.

"The EU’s inappropriate use of the 'precautionary principle' when addressing regulatory measures is a challenge to both internationally agreed-upon commitments to science-based regulation and international rules and norms and has disrupted transboundary trade in agricultural products.

"We view a trade agreement with the UK as an opportunity for US negotiators to seek the resolution of several non-tariff trade barriers stemming from the EU’s protectionist use of precaution that have plagued US-EU bilateral trade, as well as global progress in meeting food and nutrition needs, to the detriment of US farmers and European consumers.

"Especially relevant and essential to any successful trade agreement is the need to address long-festering EU non-science-based policies that have restricted or prevented import of safe agricultural products derived from modern biotechnology," added the US cereal producers.