Sue Davies, of Which? discusses consumer concerns about the potential impact of Brexit on food prices and food standards.

When it comes to Brexit and trade deals, food has become one of the most talked‐about issues. It is the most tangible representation of trade in our everyday lives and everyone from celebrity chefs to farmers has weighed in on how the UK's impending departure from the EU will impact the food on our plates – and how much we spend on food.

With just a few weeks until the end of the transition period, a deal with the EU still remains uncertain and concerns that a no‐deal Brexit could raise food prices could soon become a reality.

In a recent survey, around two‐thirds (66%) of people told Which? they were worried about the price of food potentially increasing if a UK‐EU trade deal was not agreed.

Four‐fifths of the UK's food imports come from the EU, according to the British Retail Consortium (BRC) and under current rules, these imports do not incur tariffs. However, under a no‐deal Brexit, food imports from the EU could face tariffs adding £3.1bn a year to the cost of importing food from the EU to the UK, according to the BRC. Under the Government's tariff schedule, which it has to apply equally to all countries that it does not have a trade deal with, some grocery items could attract tariffs of up to 57%.

Recent Which? research into tariffs set to be imposed on popular grocery items – if the UK fails to reach a deal with the EU – found that for a typical 400g pack of cheddar cheese, the tariff would work out as 56p. For a 250g pack of butter, the tariff would be 40p, while for 300g of fresh imported chicken the tariff would work out as 26p and 22p for a 300g pack of bacon.

While many in the British public are concerned that a no‐deal Brexit could raise food prices, they are not willing to accept lower food prices at any cost.

For the first time in 40 years, the UK Government is negotiating its own trade deals with countries such as Australia and the United States – potentially opening the door to wider choices and lower‐priced food imports. But also to food produced to different, often lower, standards, such as chlorine‐washed chicken and hormone‐injected beef, if the UK does not stand firm. Both are currently banned in the UK and the Government has said these bans will be upheld, but the UK could be under pressure to allow these practices as part of a trade deal with the US, where they are common.

Chlorinated chicken has been a contentious topic, with many arguing it does not pose a safety risk. However, the issue with washing poultry with chemicals is that it is an attempt to make up for poor practices and safety problems throughout the production process in the US. In contrast, chicken sold in the UK is subject to more stringent rules and monitoring from farm to fork. Lower animal welfare and safety standards in the US have resulted in worryingly high rates of foodborne illness. Around 50m Americans a year get sick from the food they eat. We know that the British public has remained strongly opposed to allowing food produced to these standards in the UK.

In a series of public dialogues across the UK commissioned by Which? to establish consumers’ priorities in trade deals, participants made it clear that they wanted current food and animal welfare standards to be maintained ‐ and lower prices and wider choice were not sufficient justifications for compromise. Many felt strongly that allowing cheaper imports that did not meet UK standards would exacerbate existing inequalities within the UK, creating a two‐tier system that would result in food produced to a higher quality only being available to wealthier families.

Despite the Government's repeated assurances that it will not compromise on standards in post‐Brexit trade deals, it refused to put this commitment in the Agriculture Bill, which would have definitively ruled out the possibility of food produced to lower standards entering the UK and quashed public concern. Instead, it increased parliamentary scrutiny on trade agreements and, though it was a welcome concession, the public still believe cast‐iron legislation is the only way to ensure food standards are not relaxed or undermined in trade deals, now or in the future.

The public will ultimately determine the success of future trade deals and, with food being the most tangible representation of trade, the impact that trade deals have on the food on our plates and its cost will be heavily scrutinised by the public. It is, therefore, vital that consumers are represented across all trade advisory groups to ensure their voices are heard.

苏·戴维斯（Sue Davies），哪个？讨论了消费者对英国退欧对食品价格和食品标准的潜在影响的担忧。

在脱欧和贸易交易方面，食品已成为人们谈论最多的问题之一。它是我们日常生活中最切实的贸易代表，从名人厨师到农民，每个人都在权衡英国即将离开欧盟将如何影响我们盘子上的食物以及我们在食物上的花费。

距离过渡期结束只有几周的时间，与欧盟达成的协议仍然不确定，并且担心无协议退欧会提高食品价格可能很快成为现实。

在最近的一项调查中，大约三分之二（66％）的人告诉过谁？他们担心如果不达成英欧贸易协议，食品价格可能上涨。

根据英国零售联合会（BRC）的数据，英国五分之四的食品进口来自欧盟，根据目前的规定，这些进口不产生关税。但是，根据无交易退欧协议，从欧盟进口的食品可能要面对关税，这每年会使从欧盟向英国进口食品的成本增加31亿英镑。根据政府的关税表（必须与没有贸易协议的所有国家均等地适用），某些杂货项目可能会征收高达57％的关税。

最近哪个？对将对受欢迎的杂货商品征收关税的研究（如果英国未能与欧盟达成协议）则发现，对于典型的400克装切达干酪奶酪，关税为56便士。每包250克黄油的关税为40便士，而每300克新鲜进口的鸡肉的关税为26便士，每包300克的培根为22便士。

尽管英国公众中许多人担心无协议退欧会提高食品价格，但他们不愿以任何代价接受较低的食品价格。

英国政府40年来首次与澳大利亚和美国等国家谈判自己的贸易协定，这有可能为更多选择和低价食品进口打开大门。但是，如果英国的立场不坚决的话，也要针对以不同标准（通常是较低标准）生产的食品，例如洗氯鸡和注入激素的牛肉。两者目前都在英国被禁止，并且政府表示将维持这些禁令，但英国可能会承受压力，要求允许这些做法作为与美国的贸易协定的一部分，而在美国，这是普遍的做法。

氯化鸡一直是一个有争议的话题，许多人认为它不构成安全隐患。但是，用化学药品清洗家禽的问题在于，这是为了弥补美国整个生产过程中的不良做法和安全问题。相比之下，在英国销售的鸡肉则受到更严格的规定和从农场到餐桌的监控。在美国，较低的动物福利和安全标准导致令人担忧的食源性疾病高发。每年约有5,000万美国人因所吃的食物而生病。我们知道，英国公众一直强烈反对在英国允许生产符合这些标准的食品。

在哪个国家委托英国进行的一系列公开对话中？为了确定消费者在贸易交易中的优先事项，参与者明确表示，他们希望维持当前的食品和动物福利标准，而且较低的价格和更广泛的选择不足以达成妥协的理由。许多人强烈认为，允许廉价的不符合英国标准的进口商品会加剧英国内部现有的不平等现象，从而形成两级制度，导致只有富裕家庭才能获得更高质量的粮食。

尽管政府一再保证不会在脱欧后的贸易标准中做出让步，但政府拒绝将这项承诺纳入《农业法案》，该法案将最终排除以较低标准生产的食品进入英国并废除公众的可能性。关心。相反，它增加了议会对贸易协定的审查，尽管这是一个受欢迎的让步，但公众仍然认为，铸铁立法是确保现在或将来在贸易协议中不放松或破坏食品标准的唯一方法。

公众将最终决定未来贸易交易的成功，而食品是贸易的最切实的代表，贸易交易对我们盘子上的食物的影响及其成本将受到公众的严格审查。因此，至关重要的是，在所有贸易顾问组中都有消费者代表，以确保听到他们的声音。