British farmers, consumers and animal advocates have made their position crystal clear: if the UK bans cruelty at home, we shouldn’t import it from abroad. In our recent survey of current and former UK farmers, 92% of livestock farmers (n=115), and 85% of arable farmers (n=55), said they support government policies to restrict the import of low-welfare animal products into the UK.

This is one of the strongest signals we have seen from the farming community on a trade issue — and they are not alone. Across political lines, consumers also overwhelmingly back the principle that British standards should apply to imports.

Our 2023 polling found that 84% of the British public support restrictions or bans on imports that don’t meet UK animal welfare standards, including 87% of those who describe themselves as “Liberal” or “Very Liberal”, 81% of those who describe themselves as “Moderate”, and 84% of those who describe themselves as “Conservative” or “Very Conservative”.  There are not many issues on which consumers, animal advocacy groups, and farmers are united — but opposing the import of low welfare animal products is an issue with near universal agreement.

Yet, many are unaware that a significant portion of the meat, dairy and egg products on UK supermarket shelves comes from systems that would be illegal in the UK. This includes:

• Pork from pigs kept in sow stalls (banned in the UK in 1999)
• Eggs from battery cages (banned in the UK in 2012)
• Foie gras from force-fed ducks and geese (production is banned in the UK but imports are still legal).

Without mandatory welfare labelling or trade restrictions, consumers are unknowingly buying into practices that go against UK law and public values.

Despite the UK’s reputation for high animal welfare, there are currently no legal requirements for imported animal products to meet equivalent production standards. This is a huge loophole given the fact that 95% of the 88 countries with access to the UK market have lower farmed animal welfare standards. While the low-welfare imports issue is not new, several imminent trade deals risk widening the welfare gap even further. 

Ongoing negotiations with the EU could affect long-promised bans on live animal exports and foie gras imports. Simultaneously, a UK-US trade deal is being explored, with the likely inclusion of meat from animals raised in systems still legal in the US, such as hormone-treated beef, pork from sow stalls, and chlorine-washed chicken.

This creates a dangerous precedent. If these imports are allowed in unchecked, British farmers will be forced to compete on unfair terms, undercut by products produced using methods they are not legally allowed to use. Over time, this risks creating a slippery slope where current UK welfare standards are not only undermined by trade, but eventually weakened domestically under the guise of ‘fairness for domestic producers’. Welfare rules that once defined the UK’s global leadership could be lost, not because they lost public support, but because the market shifted beneath them.

Preventing this outcome requires action now — and the UK has valid reason to act. WTO rules explicitly permit trade restrictions on public morals grounds, making bans on low welfare imports not only possible, but a justified and necessary course of action. 

By enforcing clear, welfare-based import restrictions and aligning trade policy with UK law, the government can safeguard not only the UK’s animal welfare standards, but also the farmers and consumers who uphold and support them – sending a message that the UK’s values cannot be traded away. 

Moreover, by insisting on British standards for animal products  sold in the UK, we can actually start to export those high welfare standards to the rest of the world. If we allow access to the British market only for those producers who meet British standards, we will soon see producers in Europe, the US, and elsewhere adhering to UK welfare standards. This is what true global leadership on animal welfare looks like.

The current government was elected with a promise to maintain, if not strengthen, the UK’s animal welfare laws while supporting British farmers through post-Brexit changes. Ministers repeatedly assured the public and farmers that, in the UK’s new trading relationships, animal welfare would not be compromised.

Nonetheless, deal after deal has failed to deliver on those assurances. 

• Trade agreements with Australia and New Zealand went ahead without enforceable animal welfare conditions. 
• Bans on foie gras imports and live exports — both backed by overwhelming public support — are delayed or quietly deprioritised. 
• And no legislative action has been taken to stop low-welfare products entering the UK, despite repeated warnings from farmers and animal advocates alike.

Meanwhile, British farmers are being asked to uphold high welfare standards while competing against products made under conditions banned in the UK. The very people the government claimed it would champion, are now left exposed to economic pressure and policy inconsistency. This comes as farmers already face growing uncertainty: the phase-out of CAP subsidies, paused SFI applications, and looming changes to inheritance tax relief have left many questioning whether the government is truly on their side.

This is more than just a policy failure, it is a breakdown in trust. If the UK wishes to remain a leader in global welfare standards, it must match its words with action. 

That’s why we are calling for three simple and clear steps:

1. Legislate core animal welfare standards that all imports must meet, ensuring British farmers are not undercut by lower-welfare products.
2. Utilize the World Trade Organization’s “public morals” exemption to defend such standards, aligning trade policy with the ethical values of the UK public.
3. Implement mandatory animal welfare labeling on all animal products, empowering consumers to make informed choices. This is another issue with strong support from the majority of the public – and British farmers.

This moment demands political courage. Failing to act now would not be a matter of trade necessity but also a conscious decision to abandon animals to suffering, farmers to unfair competition, and consumers to a marketplace fully stripped of transparency and any British values we think our food adheres to. With broad consensus, legal justification, and practical solutions already on the table, the correct course of action is clear.

One path strengthens trust, protects livelihoods, and raises global standards. The other risks losing all three.