The European Union is concerned that British companies could violate protections given to the names of thousands of European products – such as parma ham and champagne – while the protected status of foodstuffs such as West Country Farmhouse Cheddar Cheese is retained after Brexit.

The European commission has given “geographical indication” (GI) status to 1,150 products, meaning companies can only use the name of a locality in their marketing if the product is from that area.

When the UK leaves the EU, it will no longer need to abide by the directives and could, for example, rename some English sparking wine as English champagne, or ham as English parma ham.

A document from the European parliament’s agriculture committee, which is advising the chamber’s leaders on the Brexit negotiations, says: “As things currently stand, the UK has 59 such registered names [out of a total of 1,150 at EU level], including e.g. Lakeland Herwick Meat, West Country Farmhouse Cheddar Cheese, West Wales Coracle Caught Sewin [sea trout], and [economically important] Scotch Whisky.

Facebook Twitter Pinterest Scotch Whisky, which is protected under EU rules. Photograph: David Cheskin/PA

“The question of what will happen to EU GIs after the withdrawal of the UK is a difficult one.

“If no arrangements to another effect are made, the protection afforded by the above-mentioned legislation would normally cease to apply in the UK, which means that over a thousand European registered names could be exposed to violation in this neighbouring country of the EU27 [while paradoxically the 59 UK names would remain protected in the EU if the commission decisions granting this protection are not repealed].”

The document drawn up by MEPs warns: “In the hypothesis where the UK, as a third country, would enter into a new relationship with the EU27 based on a free trade agreement it would be important therefore to include a mutual recognition of GIs in such an agreement on the model.”

The leaked analysis also says Britain’s withdrawal from the EU will leave a large hole in the budget of the Common Agricultural Policy, which pays farmers across the continent billions of euros in subsidies.

The document says: “It is obvious that the Brexit will lead to a significant gap in the financing of the CAP once the UK contributions, on the one hand, and the expenditures related to British agriculture on the other hand have been removed.”

The committee says the cost will be “somewhere between €1.2bn and €3.1bn if the EU wants to maintain current spending levels for the remaining 27 member states”.

Facebook Twitter Pinterest A worker walking in a special room where Parma ham is hung to dry in Langhirano, Italy. Photograph: Stefano Rellandini/Reuters

MEPs are also concerned that the UK’s withdrawal will impact on current free trade deals, as the size of the European market available to firms in third countries would be reduced. “The departure of the UK might somehow disrupt the economic balance on the basis of which these agreements were concluded,” they write. “For example, the third countries concerned might legitimately complain about a unilateral reduction by the EU of the size of the market to which they have been given access.”

The MEPs suggest the UK will need to maintain EU standards during any transitional period before a free trade agreement can be struck. There is particular concern that the UK will jeopardise any such deal if, as some on the right of the Conservative party have advocated, it accepts the production of genetically modified food or adopts the US method of cleaning chicken carcasses with strongly chlorinated water.

It says: “If, for example, the UK was tempted after its withdrawal from the EU, to take a different approach to GMOs or chlorinated chickens [as we have read might be the case] this would considerably complicate its trade with the EU 27.”



However, the MEPs appear to take solace in the suggestion that the British government will be unable to take advantage of third countries seeking other options. They write: “One may wonder, in particular, whether the UK will have the sheer capacity to handle so many urgent trade negotiations in parallel with a national administration which has lost the experience and knowhow of such negotiations since the mid 1970s.”