Brexit: What it means for the food and drink industries
What Britain’s exit from the European Union (“Brexit”) means for food and agriculture is worth attention.
As The Guardian put it,
It is no coincidence that food and drink is at the heart of so much of the debate about whether we are better off in or out of the EU. Worth £80bn a year and employing 400,000 people, it is our largest manufacturing sector and a big exporter and importer. Moreover, 38% of its workers are foreign-born, placing its demand for cheap labour at the centre of arguments about immigration.
The common agriculture policy (CAP) swallows up nearly 40% of the total EU budget…Britain produces just more than half what it consumes and depends on Europe to provide more than a quarter of the rest, while the EU’s population of more than 500 million people provides the UK’s most significant export market for food.
Agrimoney, a London-based concern that reports on commodity markets began its report on Brexit’s impact with these words:
Oh dear.
Tim Lang, professor at City University London’s Centre for Food Policy, told Food Navigator:
People will pay more for food. The British people have voted to raise the food prices…Where do they think their food comes from? Planet Zog?
Bakery & Snacks is especially interested in the meaning of Brexit for the food and drink industries.
It produced a Special Edition highlighting its articles on the topic.
The UK’s decision to leave the European Union goes against the wishes of 71% of the UK food & drink industry, according to a poll by the Food and Drink Federation. William Reed Business Media publications assess the impact for individual sectors such as snacks, confectionery, dairy, bakery and feed as well as food ingredients suppliers. What will Brexit mean for the food, feed and drink industries?
- Britain votes to leave the EU: What now?: Britain has voted to leave the European Union and Prime Minister David Cameron has resigned as a result. Across Europe and the UK, the food industry is coming to terms with the outcome… Read
- Brexit fallout: Snack sales face threat of drop in discretionary spend: Sweet and savory snacks will be among the hardest hit UK food categories as a result of the Brexit vote, according to analysts Euromonitor International… Read
- Brexit: The industry responds: As snacks and bakery businesses across the globe come to terms with the ramifications of the UK’s impending exit from the European Union, we gather responses from businesses, trade bodies and stakeholders… Read
- Confectionery to be worst hit UK food sector after Brexit, says Euromonitor: Confectionery volumes are forecast to decline faster than any other packaged food category after the UK voted to leave the European Union… Read
- Dairy reacts to Brexit vote: Following the decision of the British public to leave the EU, attention has turned to how business will be affected, how negotiations will take place and the timescales involved… Read
- BREXIT: Leave vote poses huge questions for Britain’s agricultural supply industry, says UK feed lobby: The result of the Brexit referendum was announced this morning with a vote in favor of the UK leaving the EU, and the British prime minster, David Cameron, subsequently announcing he is going to step down. Sterling has hit a 30 year low and uncertainty now reigns in the UK feed and agribusiness sector… Read
- Industry reaction: What #Brexit means for UK & EU nutrition sectors: For the first time the European Union has lost a member after the British people yesterday voted to leave the bloc which began life as the European Economic Community in 1951… Read
And here is one more.
- British food firms set to increase trade with US following Brexit vote: UK confectionery and snack businesses may look to ramp up their trade with the US in light of last week’s vote to leave the European Union… Read
It’s obvious from reading all this that the effects of the Brexit decision are largely unknown. not easy to predict, but unlikely to be good. The follow-up will be interesting to watch.
Fingers crossed that the fallout won’t be as bad as predicted.
Additions
- Bee Wilson’s eloquent elegy for the benefits of European Union food for British palates in the New Yorker
- Tim Lang’s expanded and referenced discussion in The Guardian
Americans these days don’t want artificial and unsustainably produced ingredients in the food they buy and eat. For the makers of highly processed foods – ultraprocessed in today’s terminology – there isn’t a lot that they can do to make the products appear fresh and natural.
But Campbell’s is certainly trying. A few months after announcing that it will phase out genetically modified organisms (GMOs), the iconic soup company said on Friday that it will remove Bisphenol-A (BPA) from its cans by next year.
BPA, you will recall, is a chemical typically used in polycarbonate plastic containers and in the epoxy linings of food cans. It’s also an endocrine disrupter, which means it can interfere with the work our hormones are doing. Some research finds BPA to have effects on childhood development and reproduction.
Although the FDA doesn’t believe evidence of potential harm is sufficient to ban BPA from the food supply, the agency discourages use of BPA-polycarbonate or epoxy resins in baby bottles, sippy cups or packaging for infant formulas. For the past year or so, other retailers have been working hard to phase out BPA and to reassure customers that their cans and packages are safe.
All of these companies sell highly processed foods in an era when the public is demanding – and voting with their dollars – for fresh, natural, organic, locally grown and sustainably produced ingredients.
They can’t provide those things, but they can tout the bad, or unpopular, things that aren’t part of their product, the “no’s”: no unnatural additives, no artificial colors or flavors, no high fructose corn syrup, no trans fat, no gluten and, yes, no GMOs or BPA.
Let me add something about companies labeling their products GMO-free. In my view, the food biotechnology industry created this market – and greatly promoted the market for organics, which do not allow GMOs – by refusing to label which of its products contain GMOs and getting the FDA to go along with that decision. Whether or not GMOs are harmful, transparency in food marketing is hugely important to increasing segments of the public. People don’t trust the food industry to act in the public interest; transparency increases trust.
Vermont voted last year to mandate GMO labeling in the state – the US Senate rejected a bill in mid-March attempting to undermine it – and food conglomerates such as Campbell’s, General Mills, ConAgra, Kellogg and Mars have committed to labeling their products as containing GMO.
In addition to removing BPA from packaging and GMO from products, at least 11 other companies have announced recently that say they are phasing out as many artificial additives as possible, as quickly as they can.
Taco Bell, for example, will get rid of Yellow Dye #6, high fructose corn syrup, palm oil and artificial preservatives, and replace them with “natural” ingredients. Huge food companies such as Kraft, Nestlé (no relation) and General Mills are heading in the same direction.
All this may well benefit consumers to an extent. It also makes perfect sense from a business perspective: the “no’s” sell. But what everyone needs to remember is that foods labeled “free from” still have calories and may well contain excessive salt and sugars. The healthiest diets contain vegetables and lots of other relatively unprocessed foods. No amount of subtraction from highly processed foods is going to change that.