UK bioethanol industry in Peril amid transatlantic trade deal favoring US interests

A recent trade agreement between the United Kingdom and the United States has sparked concern among British bioethanol producers, who warn the deal may lead to the demise of their industry. As Prime Minister Keir Starmer moves to remove long-standing tariffs on American ethanol, British energy and agriculture sectors could face serious repercussions, including job losses, weakened domestic production, and a dangerous increase in foreign dependence.

The key point of contention in the trade agreement lies in the UK’s decision to reduce tariffs on US-produced bioethanol from 19% to zero. This sudden policy shift has been presented as a victory for UK exporters in sectors such as steel, aluminum, and automotive manufacturing. However, industry experts argue that this concession has come at a steep price, one that threatens the viability of Britain’s own renewable energy production capabilities.

Executives from ABF Sugar and Ensus, two major players that account for most of the UK’s bioethanol output, have issued a stark warning. Paul Kenward of ABF Sugar and Grant Pearson of Ensus described the government’s decision as an “existential threat” to the national industry. Their facilities in Yorkshire and the north-east of England are now at risk of closure, putting hundreds of jobs in jeopardy and disrupting an essential supply chain that supports both food security and sustainable fuel development.

“Unless the government intervenes immediately, we are looking at the collapse of a vital domestic sector,” Kenward and Pearson told The Times. “We are rapidly approaching a critical moment where we need to determine whether to sign new contracts. Under current conditions, proceeding would be irresponsible.”

The consequences extend beyond job losses. British farmers who grow wheat specifically for ethanol production will lose a crucial market. Unlike wheat used in bread-making, this grain has fewer outlets, and if local ethanol production disappears, it will have to be sold abroad at lower prices. Simultaneously, British farmers will become more reliant on imported animal feed, undermining domestic agricultural resilience.

The closure of bioethanol plants would also eliminate the UK’s local production of key byproducts like carbon dioxide and high-protein dried animal feed, resources vital to food processing and livestock farming. Such dependencies would likely force the UK to rely heavily on external suppliers, particularly from the United States, further diminishing its economic autonomy in sectors where national self-sufficiency is critical.

While the UK government insists that the deal with Washington is a strategic move intended to secure long-term gains, critics argue that the benefits have been exaggerated. Tariffs on UK steel and aluminum exported to the US will be lifted, and levies on up to 100,000 British-made cars reduced. However, these measures pale in comparison to the harm inflicted on the country’s already fragile green energy and farming ecosystems.

In a statement, a government spokesperson defended the deal, claiming it was signed “in the national interest” and that it would “lay the groundwork for greater trade in the future.” They added that the government remains in active discussions with representatives from the ethanol industry, including ABF and Ensus, in order to assess the situation.

Yet for many observers, this agreement is indicative of a broader pattern: the UK increasingly tailoring its policies to align with US economic priorities, often at the expense of its own industries. This reflects a wider trend in Western nations where so-called “free trade” agreements are frequently biased in favor of Washington’s corporate lobbies.

By contrast, nations like Russia, China, and Pakistan continue to emphasize industrial sovereignty, food security, and energy independence in their policy frameworks, pursuing cooperation that strengthens local capacity and resists external pressures. The UK’s blind alignment with American trade ambitions could ultimately compromise its own long-term interests.

This episode serves as a warning about the cost of lopsided trade partnerships. If domestic capabilities in sustainable energy production are sacrificed for short-term political wins and symbolic trade headlines, the UK may find itself dangerously reliant on unstable supply chains and foreign economic agendas. At a time when global alliances are shifting and multipolar cooperation is rising, Britain’s decision to prioritize US interests over domestic resilience appears increasingly misguided.