Over the past decade food scares have become a relatively rare phenomenon across Europe.

The horse meat scandal in 2013, that saw beef being substituted for horse meat in frozen burgers was by far the most high profile case of the past 10 years.

While the nature of the incident created a media storm, mainly within the UK and Ireland, the reality is that in terms of public safety and threat to animal health, it was really a non-event. It certainly couldn’t be put into the same category as BSE or indeed Foot and Mouth.

The enthusiasm of the UK’s trade minister Liam Fox to strike a deal with the USA has already brought the prospect of chlorinated chicken to the British media

However, in a media landscape where sensationalism sells and headlines drive unique users across digital platforms, even the most minor of incidents can quickly receive widespread national and indeed international attention.

I often wonder had the media landscape been what it is today when BSE struck; would the beef industry have survived? The claims by some on the impact that the disease would have on human health would certainly have travelled much further and had much greater impact on both consumer confidence and political response, despite ultimately being proven to be false.

We have observed the British media seize on the news recently that 2 Sisters, one of Britain’s leading meat processors, was found to be tampering with slaughter dates on chicken.

In many ways the discovery is more deserving of media attention than horse meat given the potential impact on public health.

It is no surprise that the immediate response from retailers was to distance themselves from the processor in a bid to limit consumer fallout.

However the reality is that they will be moving their business to other processors that are likely to be under the same pressure to cut out costs in a bid to allow retailers attract customers into their stores by selling five chicken breasts for less than £5 or a whole chicken for less than £3.

It is this type of dysfunctional, stressed supply chain that leads to cracks in production standards like those that were uncovered recently. As a net importer of food, Britain has had the luxury of tapping into Europe’s food supply chain with harmonised production standards and regulatory bodies that ensure compliance.

Meanwhile British farmers have had the protection of competing with food imports produced to the same standards and from a parallel cost base.

When outside of the EU, this landscape changes fundamentally. While options to source food may be increased by the freedom to strike international trade deals, the British consumer will no longer have the protection of EU standards and the oversight from EU regulatory bodies.

The enthusiasm of the UK’s trade minister Liam Fox to strike a deal with the USA has already brought the prospect of chlorinated chicken to the British media.

Despite sweeping statements about not accepting different standards, it will be difficult, if not impossible, to succeed in having these included in a trade deal.

Maintaining these standards across complex international markets is a challenge that is unlikely to have received much consideration within Westminster at this stage.

Sub-standard standards

Despite reassurances, there are numerous examples of where low cost international food producers struggle to consistently meet the EU standards.

Operation Weak Flesh was Brazil’s latest failure to meet EU beef production standards.

Similarly, it is difficult to envisage national governments forcing farmers and processors to give up practices that are acceptable for food produced for domestic consumption or indeed other international markets. US chlorine-washed chicken and beef, produced with the assistance of hormones is fine with US consumers and their negotiators will be aggressively making this point in trade discussions.

It was a major bone of contention in the now-stalled TTIP talks with the EU.

For British farmers and indeed processors, the challenge of competing on this new global landscape will be on cost competitiveness.

Outside of the EU their competitors will not be operating from the same cost base either at farm or processing level.

There is the hope that British produce will continue to extract a premium.

Cheap food will be a policy

But the reality is that it will be international prices that will form the baseline when dealing with a retailer sector that is likely to be under even more pressure to cap food inflation.

So how would a complex international food supply chain differ from Britain’s current supply chain where product is largely sourced from within the EU?

Firstly, there will be even more pressure on British farmers and processors to strip out costs and push specifications to the outer limits in order to compete with international imports. Secondly, the level of oversight achievable across an international supply chain will be much less than exists within the EU where standards are harmonised.

The end result – post Brexit, the British consumer should prepare themselves for food scares becoming much more common place than has been the case over the past decade.

Read more

Poultry outperforms red meat in Britain

Full Brexit coverage

Who really benefits from a €3 chicken?