Britain’s food and drink trade gap has widened to more than £21bn, its largest since 2000, as weaker overseas sales and a surge in imported provisions have exposed the sector to a convergence of Brexit-related costs, international conflict and shifting tariff policy.
Industry leaders have warned that the figures represent more than a disappointing trading result. With global conflict disrupting supply routes and climate change increasing volatility, they argue that Britain needs a sustained strategy to preserve domestic production and strengthen national resilience.
A widening gap with security implications
Analysis by the Food & Drink Federation (FDF), which represents hundreds of producers, shows that UK food and drink export volumes fell 11.7% in the first half of 2026, reaching 4bn kg. That remains only slightly above the low reached during the Covid pandemic and the aftermath of the 2001 foot-and-mouth disease outbreak.
The decline highlights how vulnerable an export-oriented sector can become when several pressures accumulate at once. Higher operating costs, persistent trade friction and unstable overseas markets have made it harder for British firms to expand beyond the domestic economy.
Tom Bradshaw, president of the National Farmers’ Union of England and Wales, said: “These figures should be a wake-up call. At a time of growing geopolitical uncertainty, we cannot afford to take our food production capacity for granted.”
Bradshaw said the widening deficit demonstrated the need for a long-term plan that supports British production and accepts “a simple truth that food security is national security”. He added: “The pressures facing farm businesses are immense, from rising costs and regulatory burdens to extreme weather and global market volatility.”
According to him, any government serious about food security, economic growth and national resilience must create conditions in which businesses feel able “to invest, innovate and grow”.
Brexit costs meet conflict in distant markets
Trade with Europe has continued to lose momentum. The value of food and drink exports to the EU fell 0.9% in the first six months of 2026, as businesses continue to absorb the additional expense and administrative complexity created by Brexit.
Conditions outside Europe have been even harsher. The value of exports to non-EU destinations dropped 6.9%, reflecting weaker demand, logistical disruption and the consequences of conflict across the Middle East and North America.
Sales to the United Arab Emirates were particularly affected, falling by almost a quarter following the US-Israel war on Iran. The disruption illustrates how quickly regional instability can alter established supply chains and reduce orders for British food and drink.
America has presented a separate challenge. Washington’s introduction of a 10% import tariff cut cross-Atlantic sales by 16.5%, further constraining an important market for UK producers. Together, the European and transatlantic declines have left little room to offset weaker performance elsewhere.
Imported food grows faster across new trade routes
The export problem has been compounded by a rapid increase in imports. Britain took 19.1bn kg of food and drink from overseas during the first half of the year, the second-highest volume recorded for the period and only below the same months of 2025.
Imports from outside the EU have risen by more than a fifth since 2023, as restrictions have been relaxed through new trade agreements. Australia is now sending 25% more food and drink to Britain by value than a year earlier, including meat, oils, vegetables and whisky.
Government decisions to suspend tariffs on certain manufactured foods this year have also encouraged imports. The measure formed part of former chancellor Rachel Reeves’s package intended to ease the cost of living, and it covers products including chocolate and biscuits.
European suppliers have contributed to the increase as well. The value of EU food deliveries rose 0.8% year on year, while volumes have continued their post-Brexit recovery.
The result is a market in which imported products face less tariff protection and domestic producers contend with rising costs. For some consumers, that may mean lower prices in the short term. For policymakers, however, it raises a more difficult question about the balance between affordability and Britain’s ability to feed itself during a crisis.
Manufacturers face rising costs and tougher choices
The FDF said manufacturers are facing “significant and growing” pressure as the prices of energy, ingredients, transport, packaging and labour continue to rise. Changes to regulation have added further uncertainty for companies already trying to plan investment in a volatile global environment.
Karen Betts, the federation’s chief executive, said: “Our food and drink trade deficit is growing and is now the largest it’s been in over 25 years. In a world beset by conflict and the ever-increasing impacts of climate change, this poses some stark questions about our food security.”
She pointed to the contrast between imported and domestically produced goods. “When the government then chooses to remove tariffs on, for example, biscuits imported from China, it’s not surprising that they’ll be sold more cheaply here than biscuits made in the UK.”
For the farming and manufacturing sectors, the figures reinforce calls for stability and long-term support. They argue that Britain cannot rely solely on access to global supply chains when those chains are increasingly affected by war, tariffs, extreme weather and political decisions made far beyond the UK.
Why it Matters
The £21bn deficit is not simply an unfashionable statistic about international trade. It signals a sector in which exports are contracting while dependence on overseas suppliers grows at precisely the moment when geopolitical and climatic shocks are making those suppliers less dependable. If British farms and manufacturers cannot secure the confidence to invest, the country risks weakening the very production capacity it will need most during a crisis. Food policy, therefore, is becoming economic policy, industrial policy and national security policy in one.
