Lobbying by British Agriculture Bureau

British Agriculture Bureau

BAB

The British Agriculture Bureau represents UK farming unions to influence European Union agricultural policy.

Focus Areas

2023-2025

2015-2023

Links

Website Transparency Register Profile

ID: 23029147081-37

Lobbying Activity

British Agriculture Bureau seeks simplified EU organic production rules

18 Nov 2025

Topic — This consultation proposes targeted updates to simplify EU organic production and trade rules.

Message — The group calls for permanent derogations on non-organic feed and exemptions from outdoor access for young poultry. They also want the removal of the total usable surface area cap for poultry houses.1 2 3

Why — This would reduce production costs and prevent nutritional deficiencies in organic livestock.4 5

Impact — Small-scale producers may lose market protection if the cap on enterprise size is removed.6 7

Read full response

Meeting with Luis Carazo Jimenez (Head of Unit Agriculture and Rural Development)

15 Oct 2025 · Exchange of views on future EU-UK SPS agreement (covering organics) and on simplification exercise in the Commission

British Agriculture Bureau urges alignment with international BSE standards

14 Oct 2025

Topic — This initiative seeks to simplify EU food and feed safety regulatory requirements.

Message — The organization calls for the European Commission to modernize BSE controls by aligning them with World Organisation for Animal Health standards. They claim current regulations on transmissible spongiform encephalopathies are outdated and disproportionate to risk.1 2

Why — This would increase returns for producers and processors by improving sheep carcass marketability.3

Read full response

British Agriculture Bureau opposes bans on livestock cages

15 Jul 2025

Topic — Revision of EU on-farm animal welfare rules regarding cage use and practices.

Message — The bureau opposes banning enriched hen cages and individual calf pens. They request a 15-year transition for pig farrowing systems to manage infrastructure costs.1 2 3

Why — Maintaining current systems avoids immediate infrastructure costs and protects producers from being forced out.4 5

Impact — Consumers face higher prices for protein if more expensive production methods are mandated.6

Read full response

Meeting with Luiza Bara (Head of Unit Secretariat-General) and Ulster Farmers' Union and National Farmers Union

19 Jun 2025 · Engagement with UK farmers’ unions following the political announcement towards an EU-UK SPS Agreement

Meeting with Jan Hendrik Dopheide (Cabinet of Commissioner Maroš Šefčovič) and Ulster Farmers' Union and National Farmers Union

19 Jun 2025 · Engagement with UK farmers’ unions following the political announcement towards an EU-UK SPS Agreement

Meeting with Maria Walsh (Member of the European Parliament) and Ulster Farmers' Union

19 Feb 2025 · EU-UK agriculture & trade relations

British Agriculture Bureau warns EU transport rules hurt farmers

11 Apr 2024

Topic — Revision of EU rules on animal welfare during transport and related operations.

Message — The Bureau requests more flexible distance limits and training instead of mandatory veterinarian supervision. They also demand maintaining current minimum ages for calf transport and existing space allowances.1 2 3

Why — This would protect agricultural businesses from significant new regulatory costs and operational burdens.4 5

Impact — Remote farmers and consumers would suffer from higher food prices and reduced competition.6 7 8

Read full response

Response to Application of EU health and environmental standards to imported agricultural and agri-food products

15 Mar 2022

The British Agriculture Bureau (BAB) represents the collective interests of the UK farming unions in Brussels, representing more than 70,000 farmer and grower members. BAB welcomes the opportunity to respond to the European Commission’s report on imports of agricultural and food products – applying EU health and environmental standards. UK farmers and growers are proud of their high production standards - whether in terms of food safety, environmental performance, employee rights or animal health and welfare - and are committed to supporting ambitious science and market led targets across all these areas. Trade is fundamental to agriculture, the value chain it services and for the consumers who buy our products. The UK farming unions want to see international trade outcomes which support farmers to grow their businesses and to produce food for the domestic market and beyond. This must be achieved through cooperation, negotiation and a level playing field rather than via the imposition of domestic standards on others. In considering policy options, the EU should not lose sight of the imperative of maintaining sustainable global food systems nor risk the viability of European (EU and UK) food production. A balanced trade policy supports domestic industries whilst accommodating important strategic priorities such as food security. It should also be equipped to meet the major challenges of the 21st century, such as climate change and biodiversity loss. The emerging conflict in Ukraine has brought into stark relief the fragility of the global food system and its inputs. Any new policy must also be demonstrably compatible with WTO rules. As a major player in the global food market, EU import standards on agri-food products should be fair, proportionate and led by science whilst considering differences in climate, agricultural practices, access to natural resources and socio-economic factors. Without close consideration of the potential impacts, there is a risk that unjustified application of EU standards on imports may undermine the work of global standard-setting bodies. It is in the interests of all that these bodies and the standards they set are respected. Such action may also have the indirect effect of weakening existing multilateral agreements and standards to the detriment of social, financial, and environmental sustainability in non-EU regions. It is vital that the development of mirror clauses should not lead to the unravelling of valuable preferences granted to the least developed and developing countries. The EU also derives considerable advantage from high value markets in developed countries in Europe and further afield. These countries have high standards of their own and the impact of additional, especially unjustified, trade barriers and obstacles on EU exporters must be considered. For instance, the UK government has ambitious targets of its own to increase animal welfare rules over and above those we inherited from the EU. The necessity of balancing a competitive farming sector with sustainably produced affordable food is one which the UK’s Trade and Agriculture Commission (TAC) has considered as the UK navigates becoming an independent trading nation. In 2021 the TAC published a report articulating its vision for a successful, ambitious trade policy which contributes to a global food and farming system that is fair and trusted from source to consumption - https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/trade-and-agriculture-commission-tac The UK farming unions favour the approach of negotiating specific sustainability standards in Free Trade Agreements with trading partners on a bilateral basis. Mutual adherence to a set of core standards will assist with the creation of level playing fields between the parties and help enhance sustainability goals. New agreements negotiated by the Commission with like-minded countries provide a model for this.

Read full response

British Agriculture Bureau rejects arbitrary pesticide reduction targets

23 Jul 2020

Topic — The European Commission is revising rules to ensure the sustainable use of pesticides.

Message — The Bureau requests that pesticide targets focus on reducing risk and impact rather than arbitrary use reduction. They advocate for increased support for Integrated Pest Management and the adoption of precision technologies. Regulation must remain evidence-based to protect crop yields and food security.1 2 3

Why — This approach would prevent unsustainable crop losses and protect farmers' ability to supply affordable food.4 5

Impact — Consumers face higher costs and increased reliance on imports from countries with lower standards.6 7

Read full response

Response to Farm to Fork Strategy

16 Mar 2020

The British Agriculture Bureau represents the interests of 75,000 farmers and grower members from the National Farmers' Union of England and Wales, NFU Cymru, NFU Scotland, and the Ulster Farmers' Union. Please see the attachment for our response to this roadmap consultation.

Read full response

Response to Climate Law

3 Feb 2020

The British Agriculture Bureau represents the National Farmers’ Union, NFU Cymru, NFU Scotland, and the Ulster Farmers’ Union, a total of over 75,000 farmers across the UK. Climate change is an enormous global challenge that is already causing unprecedented and extreme weather patterns. This impact of this is already being felt by farmers in the EU, who are increasingly having to adapt farming practices in order to continue to keep providing healthy, safe, affordable food for consumers. The UK farming unions believe that agriculture is uniquely placed to be part of the solution in the aim of reducing the EU’s greenhouse gas emissions and off-set atmospheric carbon. Farmers are able to reduce emissions, offer nature-based carbon sinks, and provide clean, renewable energy as well as greenhouse gas removals through the bio-based economy as an integrated part of their business. The National Farmers’ Unions of England and Wales have themselves set an ambitious target of achieving net zero emissions by 2040, leading the way in the sector. It must be recognised that while farmers have an important role to play, they are already contributing to EU targets on climate change while providing food for its citizens. The agriculture sector must be allowed to continue to produce food while taking steps towards the ambition set out in the European climate law initiative.

Read full response

Response to EU 2030 Biodiversity Strategy

20 Jan 2020

The British Agriculture Bureau represents over 73,000 farming members from the National Farmers' Union,. NFu Cymru, NFU Scotland and the Ulster Farmers' Union. Please see the attached document for our feedback on this initiative.

Read full response

Response to Rules on operations to be carried out during and after the documentary check identity and physical checks at the border

23 Sept 2019

The British Agriculture Bureau (BAB) represents the UK farming unions in Brussels and more than 75,000 farming and growing members. The UK farming unions are the National Farmers’ Union of England and Wales, National Farmers’ Union Cymru (Wales), National Farmers’ Union of Scotland, Ulster Farmers’ Union and the National Pig Association. Please find attached our feedback.

Read full response

Response to Draft Delegated Regulation on animals and goods exempted from official controls at border control posts

23 Sept 2019

Read full response

Response to Specific rules for official controls at the bcp on the transhipment, transit and onward transport of animals and goods

23 Sept 2019

Read full response

Response to Tariff quotas with licences

22 Aug 2019

Read full response

Response to Tariff quotas with licences

22 Aug 2019

Read full response

Response to Draft Impl Regulation establishing the list of animals and goods to be subject to official controls at BCPs

16 Aug 2019

Read full response

Response to Draft Implementing Regulation on the procedures for coordinated performance of intensified official controls at borders

7 Aug 2019

Read full response

Response to Rules on official controls and measures in cases of non-compliance of certain categories of animals and goods from third

31 Jul 2019

Read full response

British Agriculture Bureau Urges Risk-Based Endocrine Disruptor Rules

19 Jul 2018

Topic — The EU is developing a comprehensive framework to regulate chemicals that disrupt human hormones.

Message — The NFU requests a risk-based framework using safe thresholds rather than hazard-based bans. They urge the Commission to proactively promote science to address citizen distrust. The group also calls for consistent regulation across all sectors, including cosmetics.1 2 3

Why — This approach protects agricultural access to substances by focusing on actual exposure risks.4

Impact — Other industries like cosmetics and toy manufacturing would face stricter regulatory oversight.5

Read full response

Response to Initiative to improve the Food Supply Chain

13 Jun 2018

The British Agriculture Bureau (BAB) represents the UK farming unions in Brussels and more than 75,000 farming and growing members whose businesses are the bedrock of the UK’s £108bn agri-food industry. The UK farming unions are the National Farmers’ Union of England and Wales, National Farmers’ Union Cymru (Wales), National Farmers’ Union of Scotland and Ulster Farmers’ Union. Please find attached the BAB position on the UTP Directive.

Read full response

Response to EU Pollinators Initiative

21 Dec 2017

The British Agriculture Bureau represents 73,000 farmers from four farming unions in the UK – NFU, NFU Cymru, NFU Scotland and UFU. Pollinating insects are of huge importance to farmers. They play an essential role in contributing to food production and the diversity of our environment through the pollination of many crops and wild plants. Farmers understand the importance of pollinators and already make efforts to protect them through farming and land management practices. In the UK, pollinator plans already exist for England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland (as part of an all-Ireland approach). These plans provide evidence-based actions that can contribute to the health of pollinator populations. These include on-farm actions such as providing habitats and promoting the uptake of integrated pest management (IPM). Critically, some of the plans also include comprehensive pollinator monitoring schemes. These plans recognise that it is essential to understand whether pollinator numbers are increasing or declining, and understand the impact those changes are having on the ecosystem service of pollination. Without such monitoring it is impossible to understand accurately what effect particular challenges are having on populations or pollination. The NFU in England is committed to promoting the uptake of management measures on farmland to benefit pollinators, under the Campaign for the Farmed Environment (CFE) and more widely. As of the last survey, 270,000 ha were managed under a variety of unpaid CFE environmental measures and, as part of this, farmers provided 8500 ha of flowers for pollinators (wildflower mix, pollen and nectar mix, and flower-rich temporary grass). It must also be acknowledged that there are multiple drivers putting pressure on pollinator populations, such a disease and climate change. Even robust global academic views such as the recent work of IPBES cannot order or rank these drivers in terms of their relative impact. More research should be undertaken to better understand these impacts and potential solutions. Any actions proposed by the EU Pollinators Initiative must be proportionate and evidence-based, appropriately reflecting EU regulatory regimes, the code of practice for using plant protection products and the EU directive on the sustainable use of pesticides.

Read full response

Response to Commission Delegated Regulation on the methodology for risk assessments of invasive alien species

21 Dec 2017

The British Agriculture Bureau represents 73,000 farmers from four farming unions in the UK – NFU, NFU Cymru, NFU Scotland and UFU. The British Agriculture Bureau welcomes the Commission’s efforts to provide more detail in the Risk Assessment (RA) methodology. The European Union is a very large geographical area, encompassing a huge range of landscapes and economic activities. Consequently, the impact of Invasive Alien Species varies depending on where in the EU they become established. Therefore, distribution of the species as defined under Art 5 (1)(e) should also include the size of the area, in hectares or percentage of EU territory, in which a species is present, could be introduced, establish and spread. There must also be consideration of what size area, in hectares or percentage of EU territory, the presence of a species can be considered as being of Union concern. The socio-economic benefits of species need to be fully considered by qualified experts. Currently, members of the Scientific Forum and the experts who carry out the risk assessments tend to be biologists without the necessary expertise to evaluate the socio-economic impacts of species. Where sufficient economic data is not available, the Commission should aim to conduct research in order to provide such data and offer a more detailed RA. Furthermore, economic data should be fully considered in a balanced way alongside ecological data in order to fully understand the impact of a species. The risk assessment must be carried out using the best available scientific data. Given that it is sometimes necessary to act early before an IAS is established, it may be the case that full evidence is not available for the RA. In this case other methods of data collection may be used, such as those referred to in Art 2 (3) (other publications, expert opinions, information collected by Member States’ authorities, official notifications and information from databases, including information collected through citizen science). In this case, the RA should clearly indicate that the evidence is not peer-reviewed and this should be taken into account in the balance of evidence.

Read full response

Meeting with Tom Tynan (Cabinet of Commissioner Phil Hogan)

11 Dec 2017 · Business discussion

Response to Amendment of marketing standards for free range eggs

30 Aug 2017

The UK has a national laying flock of 38.7 million birds of which approximately 50% are free range. The British Agriculture Bureau, representing the UK farming unions, welcomes the move from the Commission to amend the marketing regulations for free range eggs. During the most recent outbreak of avian influenza, the UK had 13 cases in domestic flocks, 7 of which were in commercial poultry flocks or farmed game birds, the rest being in non-commercial or ‘backyard’ flocks. There were also a number of cases in wild birds, including as recently as July 26 2017. The decision by the English, Welsh and Scottish veterinary authorities to house all birds from December 6 and by the Northern Irish authorities from December 23 was welcomed as a measure to protect the health and welfare of the birds. Maintaining free range status during this period was crucial to avoid market disturbance for consumers, retailers and farmers. However, the 12 week period in which free range status can be maintained has been shown to be insufficient. The required housing period exceeded 12 weeks in many member states, including the UK. The Housing Order was lifted in areas outside of Higher Risk Areas on February 28, i.e. at the 12 week point. Free range poultry producers in Higher Risk Areas were required to continue to house their birds – this was lifted on April 13 with birds housed for just over 18 weeks. Once restrictions were lifted, the majority of producers in the UK chose to keep their flocks housed in order to continue protecting their birds from the ongoing threat of avian influenza. Our position is that when the competent authority orders birds to be housed for their own protection and rescinds the order when it is deemed that the risk has sufficiently diminished, eggs retain their free range status regardless of the length of this period. Although the Commission’s proposals fall short of this, the UK farming unions welcome the proposal to extend the current 12 weeks to 16 and to apply on a ‘per flock’ basis. In the UK, 50% of the national laying flock is free range, with demand from consumers for free range eggs rising annually. Maintaining free range status during a period in which birds are housed under orders of veterinary authorities prevents serious financial loss for producers – many of whom would be unable to sustain their businesses with lower prices - and allows consumers to continue purchasing a range of products. The premium price paid by consumers for free range products is justified by high environmental, health and welfare standards, and allowing producers to maintain their status during crisis periods ensure the long-term sustainability of this sector and product. It is worth noting that the life cycle of a laying hen is typically in excess of 72 weeks, 16 weeks represents a relatively small percentage of this period. Therefore, we support the proposed measures which will assist producers during times of great uncertainty.

Read full response

Meeting with Julian King (Commissioner)

31 Jan 2017 · UK farming union future priorities

Response to Rules for the EU scales for beef, pig and sheep carcass classification and the reporting of prices

13 Jan 2017

The British Agriculture Bureau (BAB) represents 76,000 farm businesses across England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. BAB would like to highlight the importance of accurate carcass classification and the need for timely price recording which are essential for improving market transparency within the livestock sector. We believe that this simplification exercise is going against the principle of market transparency and believe that caution should be exercised. It is important to maintain a transparent recording system and not a relaxation of rules, therefore we believe there is the requirement for genuine independent carcass classification and weighing to take place in abattoirs and plants. We believe that the current existing threshold of 75 bovines per week which triggers the need for the classification of bovine animals in abattoirs should be maintained. It is essential that these abattoirs and plants that are classifying animals are independently checked for compliance. There is a huge requirement for detailed market information which is reliable, accurate and available in a timely manner, providing farm businesses the information they need to make decisions in today’s increasingly volatile markets. This information is also relevant given the fact that the carcass classification and price reporting play a key role in public intervention schemes in the beef sector and private storage in the beef and sheep sectors. Currently there is no standardised dressing specification for sheep and very little regulatory inspection regime to verify the accuracy within abattoirs and plants. We would like to see a compulsory standard dressing specification for sheep and an inspection process equivalent to the bovine sector. Again there is a need for the timely reporting of data, which would in turn improve transparency in the deadweight marketing of sheep.

Read full response

Response to Changes to greening rules and clarifications of certain other direct payments' rules

12 Jan 2017

The NFU welcomes the opportunity to feed into the consultation exercise. The NFU is disappointed with the development of the greening simplification measures within the proposed legislation, especially as they do not truly simplify the rules, but actually add burden in a number of ways – restriction of PPPs and not looking at other aspects to maximise environment outcomes from EFA areas. It is also hard to reconcile the changes being proposed when the Commission admits it is difficult to assess environment impact after year 1. It is very subjective to, for example suggest that Nitrogen Fixing Crops (NFC) without a PPP ban were not delivering environmental benefits. The NFU notes the clarifications made to a number of rules, which will hopefully lead to clearer implementation at Member State level and remove any further opportunities of gold plating. We however are concerned with one particular element of the changes being proposed which is set out below. We also cover some examples that should have been included in the revised measures available to farmers. Finally, we are frustrated that many of the positive changes and other points we would have hoped to have been included are not now available until 2018. Our major concern - the ban of PPPs on NFC/fallow/Catch/Cover crops - this will mean many farmers in our view walking away from using these options on a farm scale as the pressure of pest and disease on neighbouring crops would increase if they pursued a non PPP approach on these areas. NFCs have some very strong environmental credentials, such as soil conditioning, fertility enhancement, compatibility within the crop rotation and benefits to pollinators; these come from being grown with PPPs – also bear in mind the nitrogen fertiliser that does not need to be applied to NFCs. Additionally NFCs have aided in the lengthening of crops rotations which has some positive impacts on disease and weed control. Taking out NFCs from a rotation would adversely impact on these farm scale benefits and overall be counterproductive. Finally, it must be remembered that farmers role is not only to produce food, look after the environment (which it takes seriously), but are also businesses that need to be sustainable and viable, this greening change does not help these key principles. Furthermore, banning PPPs on Catch/Cover crops is equally illogical, how do you establish such crops without PPPs and achieve successful establishment, ground cover? Which is better? - a poorly established crop or a healthy flourishing crop that the environment will benefit from? You need to feed and protect such crops to gain the most from their production of pollen, seed bank and habitat. Basic crop production principles have again been ignored here. Finally a ban of PPPs on fallow land will not help farmers wanting to keep disease and weed infestations under control within the farming rotation. There is increased risk of green bridge (continuing of conditions to take one year’s pests / diseases into the start of the next cropping year)– the alternative is more cultural methods of weed control, which will have an impact on carbon footprint at a farm level. As we have said, we see the simplification a missed opportunity, for example to issues with EFA Catch / Cover crops; 1) they require a seed mixture - this is an additional burden not foreseen in the basic regulation and adds unnecessary complexity, when outcome of ground cover / nutrient retention and minimising erosion should be the focus and; 2) farmers cannot use existing grass cover as an eligible EFA catch / cover crop, when they can only use a newly established under sown grass in the previous crop as an eligible cover for EFA catch / crop option seems overly restrictive in our view, especially when existing grass swards have unparalleled groundcover.

Read full response

Meeting with Tom Tynan (Cabinet of Commissioner Phil Hogan)

22 Sept 2016 · Agri matters

British Agriculture Bureau warns against unscientific pesticide criteria

27 Jul 2016

Topic — EU consultation on scientific criteria identifying endocrine disruptors in plant protection products.

Message — The bureau advocates for a science-led, risk-based approach that considers chemical potency and exposure levels. They warn that current criteria would result in losing critical tools for managing crop diseases.1 2

Why — This would protect farmers from massive yield losses and maintain their global competitiveness.3

Impact — Consumers and the environment face significant food shortages and expanded land requirements.4 5

Read full response

Meeting with Nathalie Chaze (Cabinet of Commissioner Vytenis Andriukaitis)

15 Oct 2015 · Plant protection products

Meeting with Cristina Rueda Catry (Cabinet of Commissioner Phil Hogan), Tom Tynan (Cabinet of Commissioner Phil Hogan)

7 Jul 2015 · Future of the CAP and general discussion

Meeting with José Mendes Bota (Cabinet of Commissioner Carlos Moedas)

1 Jul 2015 · Potential opportunities for the agri-food sector through Horizon 2020

Meeting with José Mendes Bota (Cabinet of Commissioner Carlos Moedas)

12 Feb 2015 · Chief Scientific Advisor to the European Commission