Lobby groups are keeping up the pressure on government

This is potentially the biggest threat around for UK agriculture. In pressing for recognition of the need for equivalent standards for imports the farming lobby is reflecting the views of its members.

This is linked to Brexit, but it is not about being for or against that policy. This is a simple reworking of the issues that surrounded imports of Brazilian beef, but with the United States this time the potential suppliers of products that do not meet UK or EU-27 standards.

Trade is a complex issue, but securing deals is not about the government allowing itself to be bullied into accepting lower standards as the price of a deal. Whether it is the US or any other country, trade equivalence has to go well beyond the production and processing methods used. To be valid it has to include issues such as labour laws and environmental standards. These were always an issue with Brazil and the US is no different.

With the farm unions’ call for a trade and standards road map to trade negotiations its clear politicians scored an own goal by failing to support the Agriculture Bill amendment. This would have guaranteed standards with robust legislation. Sticking with the sporting analogy, they fell victim to a dummy in the shape of warnings that delay would affect farm payments. This was never an argument that held up, and we can see now that the Johnson government is capable of U turns, despite its massive majority in parliament. We saw that over charges for migrant workers in the NHS and more recently over free school lunches for vulnerable children. A hard political push might have delivered a U turn on legislation to protect food standards. Instead the government turned in the opposite direction to back down to pressure from the US.

This week brought claims in a controversial book that to win the support of farmers in the US Donald Trump was willing to do a very dodgy deal with China. This was allegedly about access to Chinese markets for US grain and soya. This confirms the high stakes in an election year and farmers in the Midwest played a role in Trump’s 2016 victory. On that basis his administration would never accept a trade negotiation, let alone a deal, that allowed the UK to reject American food. That is however no excuse for the UK to roll over as quickly as it did over US beef and poultry imports.

The government has played it tough with the EU, finally forcing it to admit there will be no extension beyond December of the Brexit transition period. This was achieved partly because Michael Gove played a good game, convincing Brussels the UK really was ready to walk away without a deal – despite this being an outcome neither side can afford. However when it comes to the US there is no such belligerence from London. It is true that the trade minister, Liz Truss, is a much less impressive player than Gove. She was too easily bullied by the Trump administration into a U turn on food standards. Having done that, it is difficult now to see how the food import juggernaut can be stopped for the US or any other country.

This is potentially the biggest threat facing UK agriculture and always has been. Truss has sought to spin the potential benefits of a trade deal with the US, claiming it could give farmers access to cheaper inputs from escaping EU anti-dumping regulations. She also suggested some British food would sell well on the shelves of US supermarkets. That may be so, but these are export claims focussed mainly on niche products. The EU-27 is in reality a much better market. It is a high value, high price food market, with prices reflecting the standards imposed, compared to the US and many other countries with sights set on the UK food market. What the farm unions want is a commission to monitor what happens in trade deals. This would act as an honest broker or referee to ensure farmers and the food industry do not lose out in the political panic to secure trade deals to prove Brexit delivers. That is a sensible suggestion – but it falls far short of the legislation MPs rejected.