Media: here we go again
By Richard North - April 4, 2026
One unarguable benefit from Brexit is that, since our formal withdrawal from the EU on 31 January 2020, we have no longer had to suffer the endless stream of what Booker and I called “Euro-sillies”, the often ill-informed, grossly exaggerated and sometimes completely invented media stories about EU (and before that EC and EEC) regulations.
However, things are about to change, it seems – for the worse – with the advent of Starmer’s “EU Reset” agreed last year, which brings with it the new Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) Agreement, due to come fully into force in mid-2027.
In terms of adopting EU food composition and labelling standards, nothing much changes as we are already bound by them via the Trade & Cooperation Agreement, which formed part of the Brexit settlement.
What does change in the EU Reset though, is that we move from the system where the EU law is retained on the UK statute book (the so-called “Retained Law”) and updated by new law when the EU updates its own legislation, to a new system akin to the arrangement which prevailed when we were full members of the EU, where the law is constantly updated to keep it in-line with EU changes.
Technically, this means we revert from separate regulatory regimes where the UK has its own sovereign authority, to a system of “dynamic alignment” with relevant EU SPS rules, meaning that GB (excluding Northern Ireland, where different rules apply) and the EU would apply equivalent standards to goods moving within a shared SPS area.
There is the usual wibbling about the UK becoming a “law taker” again, with no say in the framing of EU rules which we have to apply. But, in fact, this is no big deal.
Most of the people sending out alarm signals have failed to realise that many of the EU food standards set out in the Single Market acquis are simply repackaged standards formulated by Codex Alimentarius (or allied bodies) under the aegis of the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), to which we are a party.
Since we are a member of Codex and bound by its standards, we have to apply them whether we are in or out of the EU – so very little has actually changed since we left the EU.
This is what I called the “double coffin lid” effect, where I drew an analogy with someone is trapped alive in an as-yet unburied coffin held down by a lid (EU standards), but manages to break through only to find another lid (international standards) is preventing their escape.
People who have informed themselves about the basics in international trade and regulation already know this, but there are still those who seem to be unaware that there are layers of international regulation to which the UK subscribes, which are not dependent on EU membership.
We have to apply these within the framework of our WTO membership, where we are obliged to conform Codex and other international rules in order to conform with the WTO Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) and the SPS Agreements, in order to prevent distortions in trade.
Nevertheless, there are tweaks in the EU law which fall outside the framework of Codex and other international bodies, and one recent change in EU law applies to the labelling of marmalade, which will take effect when the SPS Agreement comes into force in mid-2027.
Marmalade itself is defined internationally by Codex Alimentarius (Standard CXS 296-2009 so there is no change of substance (and nor can there be as the EU is bound by Codex standards), so all we are dealing with is a change to the nomenclature.
This change has been picked up by the BBC which has set a “Euro-silly” hare running. This seems to have been copied uncritically by most of the UK print media.
The BBC story is headed: “Marmalades may need to be relabelled under post-Brexit food deal”, with the text telling us: “Marmalade has long been a quintessential British preserve, with some recipes handed down between multiple generations”.
“But”, it continues, “jars of the fruity spread could look a little different on shop shelves under the UK government’s planned EU food deal, it has emerged”, with the assertion that “the breakfast favourite will have to be sold as ‘citrus marmalade’ if the agreement goes ahead, when Britain will readopt new EU food regulations in a bid to boost trade and reduce red tape for British exporters”.
The name change, the BBC says, “is required because Brussels is relaxing its labelling rules, widening the legal definition of marmalade across Europe for the first time”.
With the virus in the system, it has been replicated in the Mail with the lurid headline: “What would Paddington think! Britain’s breakfast favourite will have to be renamed as ‘citrus marmalade’ under Keir Starmer’s Brexit ‘reset’ as UK adopts new EU rules”.
“It’s loved by Paddington Bear and is a staple of a British breakfast table – but it may soon have to be known as ‘citrus marmalade’ thanks to Keir Starmer’s Brexit ‘reset;”, not adding very much to the headline, other than to tell us that: “Producers of fruit spreads have been warned the government’s planned food deal with the EU will require a name change if the agreement goes ahead”.
Not to be outdone, The Sun goes to town with the headline: “IN A JAM – Breakfast staple marmalade facing bonkers rebrand under Starmer’s EU reset sparking fury among spread’s fans”, the text telling us that “the fruit spread – famously Paddington Bear’s favourite food – will have to be labelled ‘citrus marmalade’ under new plans”.
Space is made to bring in Reform UK’s business spokesman Richard Tice, who is quoted as saying: “No bungling Brussels bureaucrats should be telling Brits how to label our delicious marmalade. Hands off our marmalade!”.
GB News does the honours with “Marmalade to be rebranded in post-Brexit food deal as Britain to adopt EU rules”, also reverting to the infantile reference to the “spread loved by Paddington Bear”, which is says, “will soon be sold as “citrus marmalade”
Sadly, in their quest to misinform the British public, they’re all at it. The Mirror has: “Brexit deal signals major change for Marmalade under EU rules”, the Independent has “Marmalade may need to be relabelled as part of post-Brexit deal with EU” and the Express declares: “Iconic Marmalade set to ditch classic jar and get rebrand to please Brussels”.
Even the supposedly staid Telegraph pitches in with the headline “Marmalade to be renamed under Starmer’s EU reset” and a sub-head which tells us: “Name change is necessary under proposed agreement with Brussels where Britain adopts its food regulations”, while the “paper of record”, The Times sweeps up with: “Bitter end for marmalade in post-Brexit renaming”, telling us “Under a rule change to make trading with the European Union easier the conserve may have to be labelled ‘citrus marmalade”.
And there we have it – the British media in full “Euro-silly” mode, or “Euro-myths” as the Commission used to call them. Yet, content with their drivel, not one of the gifted hacks who put their names to their stories can actually have read the relevant EU legislation.
Here, we’re talking of Directive (EU) 2024/1438 of 14 May 2024, “amending Council Directives 2001/110/EC relating to honey, 2001/112/EC relating to fruit juices and certain similar products intended for human consumption, 2001/113/EC relating to fruit jams, jellies and marmalades and sweetened chestnut purée intended for human consumption, and 2001/114/EC relating to certain partly or wholly dehydrated preserved milk for human consumption”.
So now you know – with the rationale for the change in which we’re interested being set out in point 28 of the recitals. This tells us:
Annex I to Directive 2001/113/EC restricts the term ‘marmalade’ to a particular citrus fruit mixture. However, in a number of official languages of the Union, while the legal names laid down in that Annex have been used in trade to designate the products referred to therein, consumers commonly use the terms ‘marmalade’ and ‘jam’ interchangeably to refer to jams from fruits other than citrus fruits. In order to take into account that common use by consumers, where such use exists, and while taking into account the fact that the harmonised name remains ‘jam’, Member States should be able to authorise, on their territory, the use of the term ‘marmalade’ for the product name ‘jam’ in the case of jams from fruits other than citrus fruits. Consequently, in order to avoid consumer confusion, the term ‘citrus marmalade’, where the term ‘citrus’ could be exchanged for the name of the citrus fruit or fruits used, should be used across the Union for the product until now defined as ‘marmalade’ in order to distinguish the two product categories. It is therefore appropriate to revise Directive 2001/113/EC accordingly as regards the product names ‘marmalade’ and ‘citrus marmalade’.
Perceptive readers will have noted the caveat that where the label “citrus marmalade”, is proposed, “the term ‘citrus’ could be exchanged for the name of the citrus fruit or fruits used”.
Just in case you missed it, we can refer to Annex II of the directive which sets out the relevant amendment to Directive 2001/113/EC, which states:
“Citrus marmalade” is a mixture, brought to a suitable gelled consistency, of water, sugars and one or more of the following products obtained from citrus fruit: pulp, purée, juice, aqueous extracts and peel. In the product name “citrus marmalade”, the term “citrus” may be replaced by the name of the citrus fruit used.
Thus, under the new rules, those who wish to sell “citrus marmalade” must label it accordingly, except that if they wish to label it “orange marmalade” where oranges are used to make it, they may do so.
And that’s what this is all about: orange marmalade must actually be labelled orange marmalade – which most manufacturers already do, to distinguish it from lemon marmalade and lime marmalade.
The orange marmalade composition standard hasn’t changed – everything else stays the same but the collective media is behaving like Chicken Little as if the sky is about to fall in.
Basically, when it comes to EU reporting, nothing has changed in decades. The media has learnt nothing from experience and is content to churn out the same old rubbish for want of informed news. Not one of these so-called journalists is safe to be let out on their own.
