UK crop sector faces rapid change under EU alignment

The changes stem from 'Dynamic Alignment', a mechanism within the new UK–EU Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) Agreement designed to support smoother trade. Under the approach, the UK would keep its plant and animal health rules in step with evolving EU legislation, despite no longer being directly involved in the decision-making process.

Concerns about the implications were aired during a Question Time session at the recent Association of Independent Crop Consultants (AICC) conference, where panellists suggested that many growers remain largely unaware of how quickly the effects could be felt on farm.

Oxfordshire-based independent agronomist Luke Cotton told the audience: “This is a massive threat to the industry, and another blow is coming farmers’ way. Most don’t realise it’s happening, and that is the most worrying part.”

Speakers explained that the alignment process has already moved beyond theory and is now focused on implementation. Jenny Brunton, senior European policy adviser at the British Agriculture Bureau, said negotiations were now centred on timescales and scope.

“This is not about whether it happens,” she told delegates. “It is happening. What is being negotiated now is the timeline and whether there are any exemptions.”

She also cautioned against expectations that the EU would offer special concessions.

“The EU are tough negotiators. We know that. The idea that the UK will be given flexibility simply because we ask for it is naïve.”

A key issue raised was the UK’s loss of voting rights under Dynamic Alignment, raising questions about how influence could be exerted over future regulatory decisions. Panellists argued that earlier engagement in EU processes and rebuilding technical credibility would be essential.

Before leaving the EU, the UK played a major role in evaluating pesticide active substances and was widely respected for its science-based regulatory expertise. Restoring a position that allows UK scientists to contribute evidence and assessments to EU discussions was seen as increasingly important.

“We will not have a vote, so we have to work the system differently,” Ms Brunton said.

“That means being credible, science-led and having the right people in the room, building alliances, particularly with countries like Ireland.”

From an agronomic standpoint, consultants warned the policy could directly affect crop protection strategies, particularly for weed control and disease management.

AICC chairman Andrew Blazey said the lack of clear communication had left growers unprepared for the speed of change.

“Crops in the ground now could potentially be affected,” he said. “The boat has already sailed, but farmers were never properly told.”

He highlighted uncertainty around active substances that are currently approved in the UK but face restriction or rejection in the EU, alongside newer products authorised since Brexit that could come under review within the next few years.

“Against grassweeds, if we lose those last one or two percent of chemical control, the cost to the industry could run into hundreds of millions of pounds,” Mr Blazey warned.

Panellists also noted potential tensions between tighter regulation and wider policy ambitions such as reduced cultivation, increased cover cropping and environmental delivery, particularly if further controls are placed on glyphosate.

Concerns were also raised that Dynamic Alignment could slow innovation, an area where Brexit had been expected to deliver regulatory flexibility.

Yorkshire farmer and Standing up for Science board member Paul Temple said: “The US, South America and China have moved at phenomenal speed. We are still standing on the sidelines, and dynamic alignment risks locking us back into slow, political approval systems just as we need flexibility.”

As the session drew to a close, speakers agreed that awareness was the immediate challenge facing the industry.

“Farmers do not realise what is coming,” Mr Cotton said. “That is why this is so depressing. If people do not understand the scale of the change, they cannot prepare for it.”

Panellists concluded that clearer guidance is urgently needed on how Dynamic Alignment will operate, how quickly regulatory changes may follow, and what it could mean for the future of UK crop production.