Author: Peacock Carter

Unless a withdrawal agreement is approved (or Article 50 is delayed), the UK will leave the European Union with no negotiated exit – and in a second everything will change.

In Scotland food, health and safety, and environmental protection, regulation has been driven by the EU. There are over 50 separate EU Directives and Regulations alone that govern food standards in the UK, whilst more than 40% of all legislation coming out of EU is food related. 

Below is some information and helpful additional sources of information to help prepare for Brexit. 

Food Safety and Standards

Food Law

The majority of food law currently comes from the EU. Food Standards Scotland (FSS) have been working with the Scottish and UK Governments to make sure the same legal standards and regulations apply to food should the UK leave the EU without a deal. This has involved a lengthy and complex process to implement ‘statutory instruments’ (legislation) bringing existing EU laws over into UK law so that there is a smooth transition, and that standards applied in the EU are carried over to the UK. These proposals have been thoroughly reviewed by the Scottish Parliament’s Health and Sport Committee. FSS have also been consulting on, and making changes to, some domestic food law (Scottish Statutory Instruments), to ensure that food law continues to work effectively after exit.

The Food Standards Scotland website gives more information on what it's been doing to prepare for EU exit.

Food availability

There is concern that food will become more expensive after Brexit, and that food availability or choice may also be affected. Whilst it isn’t possible to predict exactly what might happen as a result of the UK leaving the EU with no deal, it is possible that disruption to well-established supply chains could have an impact on the food environment that consumers are currently used to. 

There may be less choice for a while. Fresh foods with a short life – like lettuce, tomatoes or soft fruit – will probably be affected most, because they aren't 'in season' in the UK in March, which means most will come into the UK from other countries.

As we move into summer, the UK will be able to grow more of its own fruit and vegetables and these shortages should stop.

Any food coming into the UK from outside of Europe shouldn't be affected by EU exit. It may take a little while longer to get into the country because of delays at ports, but there will be no change other than that.

Importing and Exporting

There are actions businesses will need to take if they import or export products between the UK and EU.

Businesses will require to get a UK Economic Operator Registration and Identification (EORI) number so they can continue to import or export goods and apply for authorisations.

Importing animals and animal products

If the UK leaves the EU without a deal, the way UK authorities are notified of these imports will change.

Businesses will no longer be able to use the EU’s Trade Control and Expert System (TRACES) to notify the UK authorities about an import. There will be a new system to replace this, launching in March 2019.

Businesses who import live animals or animal products, fish, shellfish or fish products from non-EU (third) countries directly or transiting through the EU, your consignment will need to be checked at a Border Inspection Post (BIP).

Businesses who import high-risk food and feed not of animal origin from non-EU (third) countries, directly or transiting through the EU, will need to enter the UK via a Designated Point of Entry (DPE).

For more information, see importing animals, animal products and high-risk food and feed not of animal origin after EU exit.

Exporting animal products to the EU

If the UK leaves the EU without a deal, the EU would need to list the UK as a third country and give us approval to export products of animal origin (POAO) to the EU. 

If the UK does become a third country exporters of animals, animal products, fish and fishery products from the UK to the EU will need to follow a new process if the UK leaves the EU without a deal. 

Some of these goods could face large tariffs and businesses should be aware of potential EU trade tariff changes.

The business must complete an Export Health Certificates (EHC). The EHCs must be signed by an authorised signatory (for example, local authority Environmental Health departments) following the consignments inspection.

For exports of fish and fish products businesses will also need a catch certificate.

The consignment must enter the EU via a Border Inspection Post (BIP) within the EU. It is likely that current trade routes could be affected. There is not currently a BIP at Calais, although French authorities expect these to be operational by the end of March 2019. See a list of EU BIPs. 

In addition, businesses must follow the EU’s customs processes for third countries.

The Scottish Government is working with the industry and others within the supply chain to assess the effects of this disruption and work on ways to make sure the impact is minimal.

'5 essential steps to prepare for a no-deal Brexit' has been prepared by Scottish Enterprise, Highlands and Islands Enterprise, Skills Development Scotland and Business Gateway.

For more information, see exporting animals, animal products, fish and fishery products to the EU after EU Exit.

Food labelling

The rules for what you must show on food labels will change for some food and drink products if the UK leaves the EU without a deal.

The changes include:

·      Food business operator (FBO) address labelling

·      Country of origin labelling

·      Use of the EU emblem

·      Use of the EU health and identification marks

·      Use of the EU organic logo

·      Use of the geographical indication (GI) logo

Food business operator (FBO) address

Pre-packaged food sold in the EU exported for the UK, must include an EU address for the FBO or EU importer on the packaging or food label.

Country of origin labels

It will be inaccurate to label UK food as origin ‘EU’. UK food should not be labelled as origin ‘EU’.

There are also additional EU rules on food labelling required by April 2020 regarding the origin of food.

EU emblem

The EU emblem on goods produced in the UK must not be used unless it has been authorised by the EU to do so.

EU health and identification marks

The EU oval health and identification marks must be replaced with new UK health and identification (ID) markson certain food products of animal origin (POAO).

Following a consultation exercise with the food industry, discussions with the European Commission, and agreement with Defra the final design for the new health and ID marks has been agreed. This will ensure the UK continues to have the ability to export POAO to the EU.

For businesses who export POAO to the EU, the health and ID marks must carry either: 

·      the official two-digit ISO Code GB or 

·      the full country name in capital letters UNITED KINGDOM. 

More information is available here.

Organic food

If the UK is able to achieve equivalence with the EU before the UK leaves on the 12 April, then UK organic goods will be able to enter the EU and continue to use the logo.

If the UK does not achieve recognition from the EU, the EU market will be closed to UK organic certified produce.

Read more about trading and labelling organic food if there’s no Brexit deal.

Geographical Indication (GI) logo

The UK government anticipates that the EU GI schemes will continue to protect all current UK GIs after the UK leaves the EU in a deal or no deal scenario. But, if the UK leaves with no deal, it’s possible that the EU may not continue to protect UK GI products.

In the event of no deal, business will need to be prepared to apply to the European Commission to regain:

·      EU protection

·      the right to use the EU GI logo

GI-protected food or drink product (except wine or spirits) produced in UK, must use the relevant UK logo (to be released) on any products for sale in the UK. For GI-protected wine or spirits, the logo use is optional.

Businesses have three years from the launch of the UK schemes to adopt the relevant UK logo on food and agricultural product packaging.

Find out more about protecting food and drink names if there’s no Brexit deal.

Health and Safety 

Health and safety protections, and business duties to protect the health and safety of people, will not change with Brexit.​

The Health and Safety Executive have made minor amendments to regulations to remove EU references but legal requirements, and the protections these provide, will be the same as they are now.​

After Brexit businesses should continue to manage their business and employees in a proportionate way to reduce risk and to protect people and the environment.

Therefore whatever the deal the UK leaves the EU with, or in the event of no-deal, Environmental Health at Local Authorities approach to health and safety regulation will remain the same. 

Environment

Scotland has measures in place to protect the environment, and these measures are supported by EU laws and standards. These EU laws and standards may be affected by EU exit.

The Scottish Government is committed to making sure it meets EU environmental standards after EU exit.

Environmental legislation is being corrected to make sure the law keeps working as it has been in key areas. The Scottish Government is working on this with public bodies like the Scottish Environment Protection Agency and Scottish Natural Heritage.

These areas include:

·      air quality

·      chemicals

·      flooding

·      habitat and species protection

·      noise

·      pollution prevention and control

·      statistics and data

·      waste

·      water

·      wildlife management

Environmental laws and principles

The European Commission and the European Court of Justice currently help monitor and enforce environmental laws in Scotland.

The Scottish Government is discussing ways to make sure environmental laws are still monitored and enforced in an effective way after EU exit.

EU law is shaped by environmental principles – for example, that pollution should be prevented and dealt with at the source where it takes place, and that the polluter should pay for the cost of this.

These principles influence environmental law and policy in Scotland, and the Scottish Government is discussing ways to make sure this continues after EU exit.

Further advice

Please see the following links for further information. 

PrepareforBrexit.Scot– Brexit planning for businesses in Scotland- this tool helps businesses identify what they can do to prepare their company for business post- Brexit.

MyGov.Scot– Information and guidance to help prepare for EU exit, including a “no deal” situation. 

EU exit has not happened, and many of the details are not yet known or are regularly changing. So please keep checking the additional sources given for updates.

On March 11th 2019, the Scottish Government launched Count 14, a national alcohol public information campaign. The campaign aims to raise awareness of the recommended alcohol limits, as research shows only around a fifth of people in Scotland (17 per cent) know what they are.

The ‘Count 14’ awareness campaign has been developed to demonstrate what 14 units actually means in terms of alcoholic drinks, in a bid to encourage people to think about how their weekly drinking adds up.

A unit is the best way to describe the quantity of pure alcohol in a drink. Fourteen units is the equivalent of six pints of medium strength beer, lager or cider, six medium glasses of wine or seven double measures of spirits.

The guidelines, revised in 2016, also highlight that if people do regularly drink around 14 units per week, it should be spread over three days or more, with some alcohol free days.

Research to support the campaign interviewed 840 Scottish adults.  The research found only 17 per cent aware of the 14-unit-a-week limit and revealed Scots bought enough alcohol for every adult to drink nearly 20 units of alcohol a week.

It also showed that half of people (53 per cent) in Scotland agree they don’t really think about the amount of alcohol they drink. However, 57 per cent agree that monitoring the amount of alcohol they consume is important, and over a quarter (27 per cent) stated they are looking at ways to try and cut down the amount they drink. 

Chief Medical Officer Dr Catherine Calderwood said: “The guidelines are based on scientific evidence on the short and long term impacts drinking alcohol has on health.

“Regularly exceeding the recommended maximum amount can lead to serious problems, including cancer of the mouth, throat and breast. If men and women limit their alcohol intake to no more than 14 units in a week, it keeps the risk of developing these conditions low.

 “This important campaign has launched not only to make people aware of the guidance, but to help them understand what 14 units means in terms of what they drink, so they can make informed choices and reduce the risk of harm.”

Public Health Minister Joe FitzPatrick said: “Scotland has a troubled relationship with alcohol. Last year, Scots bought enough alcohol for every adult to drink nearly 20 units of alcohol per week. This means that, on average, every adult in Scotland is drinking 40 per cent more than the lower-risk guidelines of 14 units per week.

“Through the measures in the Alcohol Framework, our aim is to create a cultural shift toward a more balanced relationship with alcohol across our society. That needs to start with people having an understanding and awareness of what they are drinking on a weekly basis, and the impact that is having on their health.

“Sticking to the recommended maximum guidelines, and spreading drinking over three days or more, can lower the risks of harm. I hope as a result of increased awareness through this campaign, people start to consider how their drinking is adding up.”

Scotland’s Alcohol Framework 2018: Preventing Harm was launched in November 2018, which set out the Scottish Government’s national prevention aims on alcohol.

“Fundamental change” is required to ensure Scotland’s councils deliver services in the face of ever decreasing funding, according to the local authority public spending watchdog.

The Local Government Overview 2019 report by the Accounts Commission found that despite reducing funding and increasing demands, across local government, councils are either improving or maintaining most services, although it is clear some services are showing signs of pressures. 

It states that main challenges and uncertainties for councils haven't changed, but pressures are continuing to build. For example, councils are having to plan for withdrawal from the EU, continue to tackle a growing gap between demand and resources, and contend with less flexibility over where money is spent.

With the Scottish Government funding to councils likely to reduce in future in order to continue to maintain and improve outcomes for their communities, councils need to be open to transformational change and implement new ways of working and delivering outcomes. 

There is also a need for councils to improve the quality of data, supporting them to make decisions and improvements, as well as better demonstrate how spending decisions and priorities have impacted on service performance and outcomes for communities.

Nearly 70% of councils’ spending is on social care and education, and more money is being committed to Scottish Government priorities. This leaves councils less flexibility in where to spend and where to save.

Councils need to ensure they have the staff, skills and leaders to deliver change. This requires effective workforce planning, but the quality of planning is inconsistent across councils. An increasing proportion of the workforce is nearing retirement. If there is insufficient succession planning, skills and knowledge will be lost as these people retire. The Society of Chief Officers of Environmental Health in Scotland report that the number of professionally and technically qualified environmental health staff has decreased by 12 per cent from 2016 to 2018. 

Savings programmes and staff reductions mean some uncertainty for council staff. Unless managed well, this could have an impact on the morale of the workforce and individual staff’s wellbeing. Surveys carried out by Unison found that in 2018,75 per cent of Environmental Health employees interviewed reported that morale in their organisation was low.

Graham Sharp, chair of the Accounts Commission, said: “It’s important to recognise that councils are working hard to maintain and, in some cases, improve services. Now fundamental change is needed to ensure services meet the shifting demands of local communities, with councils working and collaborating with communities to deliver the change needed. Councils must now focus on changing how front-line services are designed and delivered.”

Local government body COSLA has welcomed the report which it said chimes heavily with similar recent reports showing that despite substantial cuts in funding councils continue to show strong performance in key service areas and deliver essential services for their communities.

Gail Macgregor, resources spokeswoman for local authority umbrella body Cosla, said the report "clearly shows that councils have performed well and continued to deliver essential services for their communities over the last year despite the severe financial challenges that they face".

She added: "Today's report also makes clear that difficult times and choices lie ahead – coupled with continuing pressure on our finances."

Concerns have been raised about the sale of World War II gas masks on the internet, as WW II gas masks and World War I “Brodie” helmets may contain asbestos.

The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) has previously advised schools, that it was not appropriate for children or teachers to wear or handle a Second World War gas mask unless it can be clearly demonstrated that the particular mask does not contain asbestos. ​

Since issuing this advice, HSE has analysed a number of vintage masks for the presence of asbestos. This work has confirmed that no gas masks should be worn or handled by children or teachers.​

The analysis showed that the majority of vintage masks did contain asbestos and often the more dangerous crocidolite, or blue, asbestos. Only a minority did not, and it is not possible to say which types or models do, or do not, contain asbestos. 

It is also very difficult to decide whether or not a mask contains asbestos from a simple visual examination, and in addition it is likely that some masks will be in very poor condition.

The Imperial War Museums (IWM) have also reviewed the collections selected for their First World War Galleries and they discovered that the majority of the British Army (‘Brodie’) helmets below, issued during the First World War, contain chrysotile (white) asbestos in the helmet liner. 

IWM advise that their policy is to assume any mask, whatever the vintage, contains asbestos as well as potentially other toxic or otherwise hazardous materials, and so should not be worn and only handled if clearly certified as safe to do so.

The supply of items containing asbestos is illegal. Individuals concerned about the sale of items that may contain asbestos, including from online sales, should contact their Local Authority Trading Standards team.

More advice can be found here.

The Chief Medical Officer (CMO) has issued an alert to colleagues including Environmental Health teams regarding recent hospitalisations and deaths reported across the UK relating to the consumption of 2,4- Dinitrophenol (DNP).

DNP is an industrial chemical that is unfit for human consumption and illegal for use in foodstuffs. Despite best efforts to remove products from sale, this product is still available and may be used by people trying to alter their appearance, such as body builders and those attempting to achieve rapid or extreme weight loss, including some who may be vulnerable.

DNP is usually sold as a yellow powder, sometimes in capsule form and is marketed as a ‘fat burner’ or weight loss supplement. The DNP may be mixed with ‘bulking agents,’ so the dose of DNP may not be apparent to users which, coupled with the cumulative effect of subsequent doses, can significantly increase the risk to health. 

Suppliers of DNP target chatrooms on social media and may lead discussions on so-called ‘safe’ dosage. DNP, however, is highly toxic, there is no defined ‘safe’ dose and the chemical and should not be consumed under any circumstances. 

The letter states that prior to 2012, enquiries to the National Poisons Information Service (NPIS) regarding cases of DNP toxicity were rare, but the number of cases referred, and documented fatalities, have increased sharply since then. The majority of cases have involved younger adults, with more males affected than females. During 2018, the NPIS recorded the highest number of DNP exposed cases (20) and DNP related deaths (six) since 2015.

Health professionals presented with any product that is suspected of containing DNP are being asked to retain it and contact Food Standards Scotland (FSS), who will arrange for collection. Members of the public who possess DNP at home should also be advised to contact FSS to arrange collection. 

The Scottish Government is working with Food Standards Scotland (FSS), Health Protection Scotland (HPS), NHS boards and local authorities to raise awareness of the dangers of this chemical and to remove products containing DNP from sale.

Further information is available from the FSS website.

Food Standards Scotland (FSS) and the Scottish Food Enforcement Liaison Committee (SFELC) met with the Specialist Cheesemaker’s Association (SCA) recently (6 March 2019) to discuss the concerns raised by some of the SCA’s members regarding guidance for Environmental Health Officers on the production of cheese made from raw (unpasteurised) milk in Scotland.

The SCA represents raw milk cheese producers in Scotland, England, Wales and Ireland, including Galloway Farmhouse Cheese, Errington Cheese, Finlay’s Farm, St Andrews Farmhouse, Cambus O’May Cheese Company and Loch Arthur, who were also present at the meeting, together with representatives from Scotland Food & Drink and the Scottish Agricultural Organisation Society.

The guidance was produced by Environmental Health Officers with significant experience in the application of food law for their local authority counterparts across Scotland. Feedback from industry representatives and local authorities, who were invited to participate in a consultation at the early stages of development of the guidance, has been incorporated into the guidance, which was published in December 2018.

During the meeting, the cheesemakers made a number of proposals for changes to the guidance and it was agreed that those would be collated by the SCA and fed back separately to FSS and SFELC. FSS and SFELC agreed that it will be possible to make some of these changes quickly and that they would continue to review the guidance, in light of input from the SCA and its members, prior to its finalisation in December 2019.

The meeting noted the support available to Environmental Health Officers in their interpretation of the guidance and the need to refer issues arising in the course of implementation, in order to ensure consistency of application.

Whilst there remain some differences of views, all parties to the meeting wish to state that they will continue to work together to resolve those, and share the same aims: to ensure food being produced in Scotland is of the highest quality, and to produce safe food through robust but proportionate regulation.

Source: Food Standards Scotland

The Scottish Government’s consultation on a deposit return scheme (DRS) has found a high level of support and marks the next big step forward towards creating Scotland’s deposit return scheme. 

The consultation gathered more than 3,000 responses from a wide range of organisations and individuals, testament to the interest that deposit return has generated among the public and stakeholders alike. The organisations comprised of public sector, food and drink producers, as well as environmental, conservation, food and health charities. 

The consultation found high levels of support for a scheme which includes the widest range of materials possible, with 45% of respondents agreeing that the scheme should include PET plastic containers, metal cans, glass containers, HDPE plastic containers, cartons and disposable cups. 

In addition, in terms of deposit more than half of all respondents signalled support for deposit levels between 15p and 20p. 

Despite the support for a DRS covering a wide range of materials; organisations were more likely to favour a scheme with limited set of materials- typically PET plastic, metal and/or glass. The reason cited was avoiding competition with existing local authority kerbside recycling schemes.

In addition, the analysis found that, the overall balance of opinion was “strongly opposed to a scheme limited to on the go products”. However, this was a mixed picture among organisations, with public sector bodies, recycling and waste management organisations and the hospitality trade being particularly supportive of an ‘on the go’ DRS. Those in favour of an ‘on the go’ scheme thought that this would avoid duplicating existing kerbside collections, the report states.

Overall, the consultation found there was widespread agreement amongst both organisations and individuals that a “well-run and appropriately targeted” DRS could provide opportunities in relation to improving the environment, changing people’s attitudes to recycling and littering, and building the circular economy.

There was also widespread agreement that deposit return should be seen as a form of ‘producer responsibility’.

The scheme has also been praised by Truls Haug, UK boss of Norwegian firm Tomra's deposit return business, said of the Scottish government plan: "I'm quite a fan of what they are presenting.

"I think if they act on what they have stated earlier, I believe this could be a leading example going forward."

He told BBC Radio's Good Morning Scotland programme: "They are one of the first states that focus on the recycling more than reducing littering.

"If you focus on recycling, the littering will automatically be reduced.

"But if you only focus on littering, that doesn't mean you recycle the material. 

"So I think they have the correct approach to a deposit return scheme."

Scotland was the first part of the UK to commit to a deposit return scheme, and the UK, Welsh and Northern Irish governments have now set out their own plans.

The Environment Secretary Roseanna Cunningham announced the publication at the International Marine Conference in Glasgow and also announced the establishment of an Implementation Advisory Group to advise on the implementation of the scheme.

You can find the full consultation analysis on the Scottish Government website.

Jaguar Land Rover is recalling 44,000 cars in the UK over greenhouse gas emissions, the car maker has said.

The Vehicle Certification Agency found ten models were emitting more of the carbon dioxide gas than they had been certified to emit. Jaguar Land Rover then informed the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency, which handles recalls, of the findings.

Recalls of cars to fix safety defects happen fairly often, but full product recalls because of exhaust emissions are rare. It is thought to be the first carbon dioxide-related recall for Jaguar Land Rover.

It will affect versions of the Land Rover Discovery, Discovery Sport, Range Rover Sport, Velar and Evoque made between 2016 and 2019. Jaguar models affected include the E-Pace, F-Pace, F-Type, XE and XF. Most models are petrol, while some are diesel.

The car maker will have to carry out free repairs of the models. The repairs could include software updates as well as physical alterations, and some Range Rover Evoque models will need new tyres.
Vehicle emissions have come under more scrutiny since Volkswagen’s diesel scandal, in which it was found to have installed software to trick emissions tests.

At the same time, international agreement on reducing greenhouse gas emissions has prompted multiple governments to announce plans to ban the sale of new fossil fuel-powered cars, with the UK to do so from 2040.

European manufacturers are under pressure to reduce the average emissions of their new cars from 118.5g of CO2 per kilometre to less than 95g by 2021.

Following a meeting with airlines and allergy sufferers, the UK Government wants to see improved clarity and consistency in how the aviation industry deals with allergies. 

The Aviation Minister, Baroness Liz Sugg, has met with allergy sufferers, medical experts and airlines to explore options for improving the flying experience for those who suffer from nut allergies.

While passenger numbers continue to grow, barriers remain for people with additional needs, such as those suffering from allergies, meaning they are less likely to choose to fly or find the experience more difficult when they do.

The meeting follows the publication of the consultation on the future of aviation, Aviation 2050, which proposes the introduction of a passenger charter. The charter will set out clear standards for a range of passenger issues which could include more consistent information for consumers with allergies.

Baroness Sugg said: “Passengers with nut allergies can face potentially life-threatening challenges when travelling which can cause significant stress and anxiety, especially for families with children. We want to see improved clarity and consistency in how the sector deals with allergies because it is vital that sufferers have the confidence to travel. It is clear that airlines want to help too and build on the good practice that already exists. They will now meet with food allergy sufferers to explore further what more can be done. The Department for Transport will work with industry, the CAA and allergy groups to ensure there is a central point where people can access the allergy policies of individual airlines and the procedures for alerting airlines when there are passengers travelling with allergy needs.”

Some airlines have stopped serving nuts on flights, which provides some reassurance for those with allergies, but the possibility of exposure cannot be fully ruled out. Airlines already take the welfare of their passengers very seriously and have processes in place to enable passengers to notify them in advance of their flight of any allergies to reduce risk and mitigate against potential exposure.

The Government is currently consulting on measures to improve the flying experience for those with nut allergies as part of the Aviation Strategy green paper, and welcomes contributions from interested parties.

In the Daily Telegraph, the US Ambassador to the UK, Woody Johnson, has urged the UK to embrace US farming methods.

The US Ambassador says US practices such a chlorinated- washing of chicken and feeding growth hormones to cattle are the “future of arming” while the EU’s “traditionalist approach” belongs in the past. 

The article goes on to say, “You have been presented with a false choice,” he wrote. “Either stick to EU directives, or find yourselves flooded with American food of the lowest quality. Inflammatory and misleading terms like ‘chlorinated chicken’ and ‘hormone beef’ are deployed to cast American farming in the worst possible light.

“It is time the myths are called out for what they really are. A smear campaign from people with their own protectionist agenda.”

He also said the EU’s “Museum of Agriculture” approach was not sustainable adding: “American farmers are making a vital contribution to the rest of the world. Their efforts deserve to be recognised. 

He also said the EU’s “Museum of Agriculture” approach was not sustainable adding: “American farmers are making a vital contribution to the rest of the world. Their efforts deserve to be recognised. 

He also notes that using chlorine to wash chicken was the same as that used by EU farmers to treat their fresh produce and describing it as a “public safety no-brainer”, he insisted it was the most effective and economical way of dealing with “potentially lethal” bacteria such as salmonella and campylobacter.

The comments were made after the US published its objectives to a potential trade deal with the UK. The US government has called for comprehensive market access for produce to reach Britain. This includes removing certain sanitary and phytosanitary standards on imported goods.

The EU currently limits US imports of certain food products, including chicken and beef.

The UK Government has repeatedly denied it will accept lower food standards. A spokesperson said: “We have always been very clear that we will not lower our food standards as part of future trading agreement” 

The National Union of Farmers (NUF) says it isn’t surprised that the US is pushing for a trade deal which accepts US production standards and practices.

“It is imperative that any future trade deals, including a possible deal with the US, do not allow the imports of food produced to lower standards than those required of British farmers,” says NFU President Minette Batters.

“British people value and demand the high standards of animal welfare, environmental protection and food safety that our own farmers adhere to. These world-leading standards must not be sacrificed in the pursuit of reaching rushed trade deals. We should not accept trade deals which allow food to be imported into this country produced in ways which would be illegal here.”

What is chlorine-washed chicken?

In the US, it is legal to wash chicken carcasses in strongly chlorinated water.

Producers argue that it stops the spread of microbial contamination from the bird's digestive tract to the meat, a method approved by US regulators.

But the practice has been banned in the EU since 1997, where only washing with cold air or water is allowed. This ban has stopped all imports of US chicken meat which is generally treated by this process.

However, it is not consuming chlorine itself that the EU is concerned about, in 2005 the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) said that "exposure to chlorite residues arising from treated poultry carcasses would be of no safety concern."

Chlorine-rinsed bagged salads are common in the UK and other countries in the EU. However, the EU believes that relying on a chlorine treatment as a solution at the end of meat production process could be a way of compensating for poor hygiene standards- such as dirty or crowded abbattoirs.

In the EU, chicken farmers tend to manage potential contamination issues by adopting higher welfare standards. There are also increasing consumer trends demanding a high level of animal welfare. 

However, with the UK on the verge of exiting the EU and with it, it’s strict food safety regulation, there are many opportunities and challenges which need to be addressed in terms of good agricultural practices, market access and trade with third-party countries. 

This includes US poultry farmers who want access to the UK market post-Brexit. 

Analysis from Churchill Home Insurance reveals that 118 calls a day are being made about statutory nuisances across Scotland.

Analysing figures from Freedom of Information requests to councils, Churchill Home Insurance contacted local councils to find out which ones have the most nuisance complaints – and found that noise is the top bugbear.

The research reveals 43,222 statutory nuisance complaints were made to local councils in Scotland between August 2016 and July 2017. 

More than half (51 per cent) of all complains were about noise, followed by light (18 per cent), plants (12 per cent), rubbish (six per cent) and air pollution (five per cent).

There were 130 noise abatement notice issued which was down 21 per cent on the previous year. Eight of the noise abatement notices were not complied with which included four in Shetland and resulted in an average fine of £144.