I have said before that I think Leavers put too much focus on tariffs, without looking at the wider ramifications. While that article does consider the CAP for example, tariffs are still a central theme.

The home-grown food has always relied heavily on cheap, seasonal labour. It is not an EU thing - it long preceded it. The changes to mobility look likely - nothing is certain yet - to reduce that. So the local growers either have to find an alternative source of cheap, efficient labour (no price change), or pay the pickers more (increased price), or as is happening in some places, pick less(increased prices through scarcity).

So even if tariffs come down the effects on prices will be complex: some will go up, some down. That is made more complicated because we eat foods in different amounts, so for one individual the prices of what they currently eat will go up, and another down. Then there is a third effect: especially for the poorest what they eat will change to seek out the cheapest foods, so they might see a reduction in price.

End of story? No. In the article it mentions a few example high tariff foods, and one is sugar at 33%. And we know that cheap food is often high fat and high sugar. This runs the risk - not certain, but an increased risk - that sugar consumption will rise. Which impacts obesity. Which impacts diabetes and other health risks and so the NHS costs. Which in its turn puts pressure on taxation and/or how taxes are allocated.

The real world is a complex, inter-related web. Change one bit and the ramifications spread far and wide. It cannot easily be represented adequately by a tariff rate.