Will Trump finally succeed in bringing chlorinated chicken to our supermarkets?

As if the dire predictions for Trump’s second term weren’t scary enough, the Centre for Economic and Business Research (CEBR) has now warned that The Donald’s 20 per cent tariff plan could reduce the UK economy by 0.9 per cent by the end of his administration.

As well as pointing to estimates from the National Institute of Economic and Social Research (NIESR), which suggests that tariffs of just 10 per cent could cut UK economic growth by 0.7 percentage points – cutting it in half in 2025 – it also fears higher inflation and interest rates. That the US would suffer as well as the UK would come as scant consolation.

It is true that those numbers are nowhere near as nasty as Brexit, which lopped 4 per cent off the top of UK plc, but they still represent the loss of billions of pounds. They also will hit tax revenues and the money available to fund public services. Jobs would inevitably be axed and businesses would flop. A savage blow.

But wait, says the CEBR, there is a solution: strike a trade deal with the US. Do that and the problem goes away (mostly). The entire global economy would take a severe hit from a global trade war and the UK would not be immune from the aftershocks, even with such a deal. Nonetheless, it points out that Trump pursued a deal much more “proactively” during his first term as president than Biden.

Such an agreement would have to be ratified by the US Congress, which could prove to be a stumbling block – but less so than it might have been with all three branches of the US government (Senate, House and Presidency) under Republican control. If Trump decides to greenlight a deal, Congress would likely back it too, not least because, as has become increasingly clear, woe betide the Republican who opposes him.

Here’s the problem, which is where chlorinated chicken and hormone-treated beef and Britain’s high food and animal welfare standards come in. Trade deals inevitably involve trade-offs. And the weaker party (Britain) typically has to accept more of them than the stronger one (the US).

American farmers represent a powerful lobby, particularly when it comes to Republicans, who are strongly represented in rural states. Trump is unlikely to swat aside their demands, which would include access to the UK market. Nor could labelling address the issue.

The US government has previously published negotiating objectives, which called for “new and enforceable rules to eliminate unjustified trade restrictions or unjustified commercial requirements (including unjustified labelling)”.

It’s not as if all food is labelled anyway. It isn’t in schools or hospitals – nor does the food we buy from takeaway restaurants have the country of origin stuck on the container when a JustEat driver delivers it. Would consumers simply have to stomach chlorine-washed chicken or hormone-treated beef?

Of course, you could go vegetarian. You could scoot down to the farmers’ market or find suppliers online if you could afford to. Would it be possible for the UK government to overcome the furore if it sought to go down this route? That would be harder still.

Britain’s farmers, already spitting tacks over the so-called “tractor tax” which brings agricultural land into the inheritance tax regime for the first time, wouldn’t take this lying down. They would be greatly disadvantaged by working under higher food standards than their US peers. The consumer lobby would be similarly vexed.

The last time this came up, Which? made a big push on the issue. It released polling showing widespread public support for high food standards. The Conservative government eventually put the Trade and Agriculture Commission, whose job is to scrutinise free trade agreements and their impact on animal health and welfare, plant health and environmental standards, on a statutory footing. It also said it would not allow chlorinated chicken or hormone-fed beef on British supermarket shelves. Eventually.

But times change and so does the economic environment in which Britain operates. The imposition of punitive tariffs and the potential for a global trade war would be particularly harmful to relatively small, open economies reliant upon trade – economies like Britain’s, which lacks the protection of being part of a powerful bloc having surrendered its membership of the EU.

It is still possible that Trump could be persuaded to backpedal. Inflation – and its impact on the US consumer – played a major role in his victory. The imposition of tariffs and the inevitability of retaliatory measures, would usher it back in Stateside, too. It would hit the American consumer where it hurts. Powerful lobbies in the US would mobilise, not least the businesses which would see their costs soaring if they had to grapple with hefty import tariffs.

Fingers are double-crossed in Whitehall in the hopes that this eventually cools Trump’s ardour for tariffs. But crossing your fingers and praying is not where anyone wants to be.

We’ve heard an awful lot from Britain’s political class about the “tough choices” they face. Here’s another one: chlorinated chicken or job losses, higher debt, insolvencies and the pain of a burst economic appendix. It’s a Hobson’s choice and then some.