By Nick Allen, chief executive, British Egg Industry Council
The UK egg industry is enjoying a successful period – consumer demand is growing and retail sales continue to rise. Eggs are a fantastic product and consumers are recognising this in increasing number. Yet, the current government is putting this success at risk by its own decisions.
The UK egg industry has long been held up as a global leader in animal welfare, food safety and transparency. Our producers have invested millions over the past three decades to meet and exceed statutory requirements, underpinned by the British Lion Code. It is therefore deeply concerning that recent government policy appears to be pulling in two opposing directions.
On the one hand, the Government’s newly published Animal Welfare Strategy sets out an ambition to end caged production for laying hens, reinforced by the current consultation on laying hen welfare reforms. The language used throughout these documents is notably emotive and, at times, framed in a way that suggests the banning of enriched cages is a foregone conclusion, rather than the outcome of a balanced, evidence-led consultation.
On the other hand, the Government has chosen to extend tariff and quota free access for Ukrainian eggs and egg products into the UK, a policy now confirmed until at least 31 March 2028. These imports include eggs produced in conventional battery cage systems — systems that have been illegal in the UK and the EU for more than a decade. This contradiction is becoming increasingly difficult for the industry, animal welfare organisations and indeed consumers, to reconcile.
Many producers have already transitioned away from cages altogether, while others operate enriched cage systems that are fully legal, welfare-assessed and compliant with UK legislation. These systems were introduced precisely to deliver improved hen welfare outcomes while maintaining food security and affordability. Yet producers are now being asked to contemplate further mandatory change at significant capital cost while competing directly with imports produced to standards that would be unlawful in the UK.
If cages are deemed unacceptable on welfare grounds for UK hens, it’s more than reasonable to ask why eggs produced in far lower-welfare systems are considered acceptable for UK consumers.
Ukrainian eggs are entering the UK market at prices between 20% and 50% below the cost of production for a typical UK free-range enterprise. These price differentials are not the result of efficiency alone, but of fundamentally different regulatory, labour, welfare and environmental standards.
The principle is simple: if it is illegal to produce here, it should not be legal to import.
Alongside welfare concerns, food safety cannot be overlooked. The UK egg sector has worked for over 30 years to establish one of the safest egg supply chains in the world. By contrast, Ukrainian egg exports have been linked to Salmonella outbreaks in Sweden in 2025 and Singapore in 2023, and to findings of antibiotic and other residues in France in 2025. These incidents underline the importance of rigorous, enforceable standards and the risks of assuming equivalence where it does not exist.
There are already signs of strain with reports of wholesalers selling Ukrainian shell eggs despite them clearly being marked as not for the UK market. This is happening despite recognition of the food safety and welfare implications involved.
The UK egg industry is not opposed to supporting Ukraine. However, support must not come at the expense of domestic producers, consumer confidence or the integrity of UK welfare policy.
If the Government is serious about raising welfare standards at home, it must address the hypocrisy of simultaneously allowing the UK market to be undercut by eggs produced in systems it seeks to prohibit. Otherwise, the risk is clear: our producers pay the price, consumers are misled, and animal welfare becomes a matter of geography rather than principle.
As the laying hen welfare consultation progresses, the industry will engage constructively. But consultation must be genuine, and outcomes must be matched by trade policy that delivers a truly level playing field.
Welfare leadership cannot stop at the farm gate.