‘British food will disappear’: trade deal after Brexit is hitting UK farmers hard
UK farmers are facing significant financial strain due to the impacts of Brexit, particularly from increased competition from cheaper imported meat, such as from Australia, which has driven down domestic prices. Liz Webster, a farmer in Wiltshire, reports a loss of £400 per animal in revenue for her beef cattle, despite stable supermarket prices. This has led to concerns that British food production may become unviable in mainstream markets unless it targets niche, high-end segments. Studies show a sharp decline in UK agricultural exports to the EU, the largest market, with reductions in both volume and value. Additional factors like the pandemic, energy crises, and climate extremes have further exacerbated the situation. Farmers argue that Brexit has caused a 'death by a thousand cuts,' with long-term effects including the end of EU subsidies, trade disruptions, regulatory changes, and labor shortages.
A controversial UK-US trade deal signed in December 2025 has sparked intense debate over its potential impact on the National Health Service (NHS). According to a recent analysis published in the British Medical Journal, the agreement—intended to secure favorable drug pricing and avoid high tariffs imposed by former U.S. President Donald Trump—could lead to 229,000 excess deaths in England by 2036. These figures surpass the number of fatalities recorded during the peak of the Covid-19 pandemic, raising serious concerns about the long-term consequences of the deal on public health.
The analysis, conducted by researchers at the University of Liverpool, the University of York, and Christchurch Hospital in New Zealand, highlights the financial burden placed on the NHS due to increased drug expenditures. Under the terms of the trade deal, the UK has committed to paying 25% more for new medicines over the next decade. This includes a significant increase in the proportion of GDP allocated to purchasing innovative therapies, from 0.3% to 0.6%. As a result, the NHS would need to divert approximately £44.7 billion from essential services by 2036 to cover these additional costs, assuming no new funding is secured.
Critics argue that this shift in expenditure will directly affect the availability of critical healthcare resources. With less money available for staffing, equipment, and infrastructure, the NHS may face severe shortages in areas such as nursing, diagnostic imaging, and surgical procedures. This could lead to longer wait times for patients and reduced access to timely medical interventions, particularly for those suffering from chronic illnesses or requiring urgent care.
The decision to enter into the trade agreement came amid mounting pressure from major pharmaceutical companies, including AstraZeneca, Lilly, and Merck, which had threatened to halt investments in the UK. In response to Trump's warnings about imposing steep tariffs on drug imports, the UK government sought to ensure continued access to American pharmaceuticals while protecting its own drug export interests. However, this move has drawn criticism from various quarters, including opposition politicians and advocacy groups, who question the wisdom of prioritizing corporate interests over patient welfare.
Despite assurances from the government that the initial financial impact of the deal would be manageable, with an estimated £1 billion additional cost between 2025-26 and 2028-29, concerns remain about the escalating expenses beyond this period. The BMJ analysis projects that by 2036, the annual cost to the NHS will reach £8.8 billion, with the cumulative total amounting to £44.7 billion. Such figures underscore the magnitude of the challenge facing the NHS and highlight the need for transparent discussions regarding the true cost-benefit balance of the trade deal.
As the debate surrounding the UK-US drug pricing agreement intensifies, calls for greater transparency and accountability continue to grow. Stakeholders across the healthcare sector are urging the government to release detailed information about the impact assessment of the trade deal, emphasizing the importance of making informed decisions that prioritize public health outcomes. The coming months will be crucial in determining how effectively the NHS can adapt to these financial pressures while maintaining its commitment to delivering high-quality care to all citizens.
Go to the primary sources (2)
The official sources this coverage is built on. Read them directly to bypass framing.
An article in the Daily Mirror reports that a UK-US trade deal involving drug pricing negotiations with former President Donald Trump could result in up to 291,000 preventable deaths by 2036 if NHS funding is redirected to pay higher prices for medications. The analysis, conducted by researchers at Liverpool University and published in the British Medical Journal, suggests that diverting £45 billion from other NHS services to fund these deals would reduce resources available for staffing and infrastructure. The deal was prompted by threats from Trump to impose tariffs on UK drug exports unless the NHS agreed to purchase more costly American medications. The article highlights concerns that this shift in funding priorities could negatively impact overall healthcare outcomes, potentially surpassing the death toll of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Bias read (Left): The article frames the trade deal as a politically motivated compromise to appease Trump, implying negative consequences for the NHS and public health. It emphasizes the potential harm to patients and criticizes the financial implications of the agreement, using emotive language around preventable死亡
Why these scores (Factual 85 · Objective 65): Factual claims align with cross-source consensus regarding the £45 billion funding diversion and projected 229,000 deaths. However, the article uses emotionally charged language like 'cause more deaths than Covid' and frames the deal as an appeasement of Trump, introducing a political bias.
Daily MirrorIndependentLeftFactual 85Objective 602 days ago
The article discusses the potential negative impact of a proposed drug pricing deal between the UK and the United States under President Trump's administration. It argues that this deal would force the National Health Service (NHS) to pay more for medicines, resulting in significant financial losses and potentially harming patient care. Critics claim that this outcome undermines the benefits of Brexit, which was supposed to allow the UK to negotiate better trade agreements. The article highlights concerns over reduced healthcare resources and a projected increase in preventable deaths due to budget constraints. Additionally, it mentions a separate campaign related to preventing water-related tragedies and a sports update about England's upcoming match against Mexico.
Bias read (Left): The article frames the UK's post-Brexit trade negotiations with the U.S. in a critical light, suggesting that the deal compromises essential public services like the NHS. It uses emotive language ('drain billions', 'horrifying', 'hang their heads in shame') and emphasizes the negative consequences,傾
Why these scores (Factual 85 · Objective 60): Factual content matches other sources on the £45 billion funding shift and death projections. However, the article strongly criticizes Brexit supporters and uses emotive language like 'drain billions' and 'hanging their heads in shame', showing clear editorializing.
UK farmers are facing significant financial strain due to the impacts of Brexit, particularly from increased competition from cheaper imported meat, such as from Australia, which has driven down domestic prices. Liz Webster, a farmer in Wiltshire, reports a loss of £400 per animal in revenue for her beef cattle, despite stable supermarket prices. This has led to concerns that British food production may become unviable in mainstream markets unless it targets niche, high-end segments. Studies show a sharp decline in UK agricultural exports to the EU, the largest market, with reductions in both volume and value. Additional factors like the pandemic, energy crises, and climate extremes have further exacerbated the situation. Farmers argue that Brexit has caused a 'death by a thousand cuts,' with long-term effects including the end of EU subsidies, trade disruptions, regulatory changes, and labor shortages.
Bias read (Center): The article presents the perspectives of UK farmers and includes data from independent studies and industry groups, providing a balanced view of the economic impacts of Brexit on agriculture. It does not exhibit overtly biased language or selective sourcing.
★
Keep the news honest.
ObjectiveNews is reader-funded and ad-free — we show you the bias instead of hiding it. Support independent journalism for €5/month.
United Kingdom
