Consultation outcome

Policy considerations and proposed recommendations: consultation on CBD novel food authorisation

Updated 3 September 2026

This page builds on the summary of responses to the consultation on applications for authorisation of 3 CBD food products as novel foods by explaining how stakeholder feedback has been considered, and where it has informed proposed changes to the terms of authorisation or the policy position. 

Final decisions on whether to authorise these applications will be taken by ministers following consideration of the Food Standard Agency’s (FSA) advice.

Next steps are outlined at the bottom of this page.

Terms of authorisation (ToA)

Summary of stakeholder responses

Stakeholders raised concerns that the proposed labelling of the acceptable daily intake (ADI) is too long and difficult to accommodate on packaging, particularly given font size requirements.

There was broad support for a shorter version that maintains the same meaning.

The majority of respondents supported the classification of cannabidiol (CBD) as a food supplement but raised technical points on categorisation, including the treatment of different product types and clarity across categories.

Additional concerns were raised regarding heavy metal limits and stability data, including whether specifications should be futureproofed.

Stakeholders highlighted risks of misleading marketing and unsubstantiated health claims, emphasising the need for clear rules and effective enforcement.

FSA response

The FSA is proposing to introduce a shorter, clearer version of the ADI labelling requirement reflecting stakeholder feedback while maintaining scientific accuracy.

ADI revised labelling requirement: “The maximum acceptable daily intake (ADI) of CBD for adults is 10 mg. Do not consume more than a single 10 mg CBD product per day to avoid exceeding the ADI.”

Technical requirements including heavy metals and stability data remain the responsibility of food businesses under existing food law.

The FSA does not propose changes in these areas, as this would duplicate existing legal requirements that are sufficient for controlling other contaminants.

Only authorised nutrition and health claims that are included in the GB Nutrition and Health Claims Register can be used on food, including food supplements. There are no authorised claims for CBD products.

Justification for change/no change

The proposed approach strengthens consumer safety by making intake advice clearer and easier to follow, while ensuring that the ADI continues to be communicated in a scientifically robust and understandable way.

It keeps regulation proportionate by focusing on areas within the scope of novel food authorisation and avoiding duplication.

Clear boundaries between FSA responsibilities and business obligations support consistent compliance and effective enforcement.

ToAs: other categories

Summary of stakeholder responses

Stakeholders raised concerns about the potential for inconsistent labelling across food categories and risks associated with formats that may appeal to children or lead to higher consumption.

Questions were also raised on drink category descriptions and whether certain categories should be combined.

FSA response

The FSA confirms that the ToAs labelling requirements for all food categories have been designed to reflect food supplement style wording and would need to be met as a condition of authorisation. This ensures consistency and alignment with statutory labelling rules.

The FSA is not recommending that specific product types are excluded as there is insufficient evidence to justify the exclusion.

Clear ADI labelling within the ToAs is expected to mitigate the risk of overconsumption across different formats.

The FSA is therefore proposing in its recommendation that additional food categories are retained. The recommendation to retain the drink category descriptions under RP350 is to avoid the unintended inclusion of alcoholic beverages and to maintain clear regulatory boundaries.

This position reflects input from policy and standards colleagues across UK nations, taking into account the need for a clear and practical approach.

Justification for change/no change

Applying consistent labelling across all categories makes it easier for consumers to recognise and understand key safety information, supporting consumer safety and businesses through clear and familiar messaging.

The proposal to retain all product categories avoids unnecessary restrictions where risks can be managed through labelling. This ensures the approach remains proportionate, while still addressing concerns about overconsumption.

Maintaining clear category descriptions, including for drinks, helps businesses understand how products are classified and what rules apply.

This supports compliance and provides a clearer basis for regulators to apply the rules consistently.

ToAs labelling: ADI

Summary of stakeholder responses

Stakeholders recommended shorter and clearer ADI warning text and suggested the use of symbols or QR codes to support communication of safety information.

FSA response

The FSA is proposing to introduce a shorter and clearer ADI statement to improve readability.

The FSA is recommending not to introduce ADI symbols, as there is no widely recognised standard and introducing one could cause confusion.

QR codes may be used voluntarily, but they will not be required.

Key safety information must remain clearly visible on the packaging.

Justification for change/no change

This approach improves consumer safety by making it easier for people to understand how much CBD they can safely consume.

It also ensures important information is accessible to everyone by keeping it directly on the packaging, rather than relying on symbols or digital tools.

This proposal is proportionate, as it improves clarity without introducing new requirements that could be difficult for businesses to implement. It also supports enforcement by ensuring that safety information is clear, consistent and visible across products.

ToAs labelling: vulnerable groups and under 18s

Summary of stakeholder responses

Stakeholders questioned whether the current wording of ‘not suitable for under 18s’ is sufficiently strong.

Stakeholders across industry and enforcement bodies also proposed monitoring mechanisms.

FSA response

The FSA’s recommendation is to retain the wording ‘not suitable for under 18s’, as it is an established and widely used regulatory phrase. At this stage, there is insufficient evidence to support more restrictive or prescriptive wording.

The FSA will explore voluntary monitoring schemes with industry and retailers to assess whether current measures are effective. This includes supporting age-verification practices alongside monitoring market behaviours to inform any future policy decisions.

The use of symbols to highlight information for vulnerable groups has also been considered and is encouraged to be used on product labelling but is not a requirement.

Justification for change/no change

Using established wording helps ensure consumers receive clear and familiar safety messages, supporting consumer safety without introducing terms that may cause confusion.

Exploring voluntary monitoring allows the FSA to gather evidence on how products are used and how effective current protections are. This ensures any future changes are evidence-based and keeps the approach proportionate, avoiding unnecessary restrictions at this stage.

Encouraging, but not requiring, additional measures such as symbols provides flexibility for businesses while maintaining a consistent baseline for labelling.

This supports compliance and gives regulators a clearer basis for applying the rules consistently, supporting effective enforcement.

Maximum permitted level of 10mg/day

Summary of stakeholder responses

Stakeholders questioned the proposed maximum permitted level of 10mg/day and its underlying evidence base.

Respondents raised issues including international comparisons, transparency of the evidence, alternative approaches to intake thresholds, and calls for review of the ADI as new evidence emerges.

FSA response

The ADI of 10mg/day is an integral part of the FSA’s consumer guidance, based on the independent advice of the ACNFP, who confirmed that it is expected that a healthy consumer will not come to harm with this level of intake of pure form CBD (≥98% purity).

The recommendations therefore reflect this advice by setting a maximum permitted level of 10mg/day CBD. Whilst this maximum permitted level is included in the recommendations, the matter of a wider review of the ADI is not within scope of the consultation.

Justification for change/no change

Aligning the proposed maximum permitted level with the FSA’s existing consumer guidance provides a clear and consistent approach to consumer safety, based on the current science and evidence underpinning the FSA’s advice on CBD consumption.

Using a single maximum permitted level supports clarity for consumers and businesses and enables a consistent approach to compliance and enforcement.

Food supplements and consumer misperception

Summary of stakeholder responses

Stakeholders requested clearer communication on what constitutes a food supplement, particularly in relation to how the distinction is drawn between food supplements and medicines, and emphasised the need for clear labelling and health claim restrictions.

FSA response

The FSA considers food supplements as an appropriate category and will develop additional guidance to support consumer understanding and clarify the boundaries between foods, food supplements and medicines.

The FSA will also explore opportunities for cross-government collaboration with relevant other government departments and devolved administrations to support alignment in messaging and guidance.

Labelling requirements in the ToAs, together with pre-existing food law, will continue to govern compliance.

Justification for change/no change

Retaining the current classification avoids unnecessary changes to the regulatory framework, ensuring the approach remains proportionate while addressing confusion through targeted guidance.

Providing clearer information about what food supplements are, and how they differ from medicines, helps consumers make informed choices and supports consumer safety.

Working across government to align messaging and guidance supports public trust and enforcement by ensuring information is consistent and easy to understand.

Vulnerable groups and under 18s

Summary of stakeholder responses

Stakeholders raised concerns about products appealing to children, potential comparisons with vaping uptake, and the role of age verification and compliance checks.

FSA response

The FSA recognises concerns about products appealing to under 18s and the potential similarities with vaping. However, the current approach is considered proportionate.

Existing and proposed labelling measures, including widely recognised warning statements and symbols for under 18s and vulnerable groups, alongside responsible marketing practices, provide an appropriate level of protection at this stage.

Compliance checks and age-verification will continue to be encouraged, and consistent labelling and good practice promoted across industry.

While concerns about product formats are noted, there is not sufficient evidence to justify recommending further restrictions. The FSA will continue to monitor emerging evidence, market behaviours and enforcement outcomes.

Justification for change/no change

This proposed approach prioritises consumer safety by maintaining clear warnings for under-18s and vulnerable groups, grounded in current evidence.

The proposal to not introduce additional restrictions at this stage ensures the approach remains proportionate, addressing identified risks without applying measures that may not be justified or effective.

Encouraging good practice, such as age-verification and consistent labelling, helps businesses understand what is expected of them, supporting compliance. It also enables regulators to take a consistent approach when identifying and addressing non-compliant products, supporting effective enforcement.

Ongoing monitoring of market behaviour and emerging evidence ensures the approach remains responsive and transparent, supporting public trust in how risks are managed over time.

THC

Summary of stakeholder responses

Stakeholders raised concerns about the 1 mg per container rule, enforcement clarity, testing methods, and interactions with drugs legislation.

A response received proposed amendments to THC specifications based on additional evidence.

FSA response

The FSA proposes to develop guidance to clarify the regulatory approach, enforcement responsibilities, and the interface between food law and drugs law.

The FSA will not review the exempt product definition, of which the 1 mg per component part/container is a part, under drugs legislation or wider controls on licences and bulk productions, as these fall outside the FSA’s remit and are the responsibility of the Home Office.

The FSA will work with partners to ensure guidance is consistent and clear, including signposting to Home Office responsibilities.

Standardised testing methodologies are recognised as an ongoing area of work and will be further explored.

A request has been made to amend the recommended THC specification limits. This has been reviewed and accepted. The recommendation now reflects a higher THC threshold of ≤0.01%.

The submission is supported by additional data and presents a coherent rationale, highlighting the need for specifications to reflect what is realistically and consistently achievable across products manufactured under the relevant application.

Any potential proposed changes to THC specifications will remain aligned with the ALARA principle and be consistent with safety thresholds advised by the ACMD and existing drug legislation.

A single harmonised THC level across all CBD isolates is not recommended, as specifications must remain proportionate and appropriate within the regulatory framework for each product.

Justification for change/no change

Providing clear guidance on how THC is regulated, and how food and drugs legislation interact, helps businesses and regulators understand their responsibilities, supporting compliance and enabling more consistent regulatory decisions, which supports effective enforcement.

Maintaining boundaries between the FSA and Home Office responsibilities ensures that decisions are made within the correct legal framework. This keeps the approach proportionate and focused on areas where the FSA can act.

Considering changes to THC specifications only where supported by evidence and achievable in practice helps ensure that limits remain realistic and consistently applied, while protecting consumers.

Anchoring decisions in the ALARA (as low as reasonably achievable) principle and existing safety thresholds supports consumer safety.

The proposal to not adopt a single harmonised THC limit recognises differences in how products are made and avoids setting requirements that may not be appropriate across all categories.

Ongoing work to improve testing consistency, alongside clear and transparent communication of decisions, supports public trust by ensuring THC levels are assessed and regulated in a reliable and evidence-based way.

Enforcement

Summary of stakeholder responses

Enforcement bodies requested clearer guidance, improved cross-agency coordination, and greater clarity on transition arrangements.

Concerns were also raised regarding supply chain transparency.

FSA response

The FSA is proposing to provide detailed enforcement guidance and continue to work collaboratively with other agencies.

Encouraging reformulation and improved alignment with safety advice among remaining applicants and FBOs will remain an active focus.

Requests for supply chain transparency cannot be met, as supply chain data is not held by the FSA and is often complex and commercially sensitive.

Requirements for traceability information to be held already exist in current food law and are the responsibility of FBOs. However, the transition plan will address enforcement expectations during the authorisation rollout.

Justification for change/no change

Providing clear and coordinated guidance helps ensure that businesses understand what is expected of them and how to meet regulatory requirements, supporting compliance.

It also enables regulators to take a consistent and confident approach when identifying and addressing non-compliant products, supporting effective enforcement.

Focusing on practical measures, such as reformulation and improved labelling, helps reduce risks to consumers while ensuring objectives remain achievable. This ensures the approach is proportionate, targeting areas where action will have the greatest impact.

Being transparent about the limits of what the FSA can provide, including supply chain information, helps set realistic expectations while maintaining clarity about roles and responsibilities.

This supports public trust and ensures the regulatory framework is clearly understood.

Setting out clear enforcement expectations during the transition period provides certainty for businesses and regulators, helping to maintain a stable and consistent approach as authorisations are introduced.

Public List

Summary of stakeholder responses

Stakeholders requested greater clarity on expectations for Public List products, including alignment with future ToAs and transition arrangements.

They highlighted the need for improved supply chain information to support enforcement and a clear list of approved products, noting that some unauthorised products may appear safer by omitting mandatory safety information such as warnings and ADI guidance.

FSA response

The FSA is not proposing to make the ToA requirements mandatory ahead of authorisation decisions on applications to which Public List products are linked, as this would predetermine outcomes.

However, the FSA continues to encourage reformulation and improved labelling to support consumer safety.

The FSA will not commit to providing supply chain information but will develop and communicate clear transitional plans. Future arrangements for the Public List are still under consideration.

Once ingredients are authorised, applicants and businesses will be directed to the Novel Foods Register.

The FSA recognises ongoing concerns about comparability between authorised and unauthorised products, particularly regarding mandatory warnings, and will manage this issue through clear guidance.

Justification for change/no change

The recommendation to not make the ToA requirements mandatory before decisions are finalised ensures that outcomes are based on a fair and independent assessment process, supporting public trust in the integrity of authorisation decisions.

Providing clear transitional plans helps businesses and regulators understand how to move from the Public List to full authorisation, supporting compliance and enabling a more consistent approach to applying the rules, which supports effective enforcement.

Data protection

Summary of stakeholder responses

Stakeholders requested clearer guidance on the implications of data protection provisions and raised concerns about fairness and potential market impacts.

Some also suggested the use of generic authorisations, arguing that sequencing effects rather than scientific merit could shape early-market advantage.

FSA response

The FSA does not plan to issue specific guidance on the application of data protection, including implications for applicants, retailers and enforcement bodies, as the requirements are clear and must be applied in full.

Article 26 of assimilated Regulation (EU) 2015/2283 states that data protection shall be granted by ministers subject to specific requirements being met. In lieu of any impediment preventing these requirements being met, the FSA intends to recommend that data protection is granted in line with the requests from the three applicants.

The FSA will continue to engage with CBD businesses to understand the future impact of data protection on any potential authorisations and the wider CBD market as those impacts materialise.

The FSA will also consider how guidance on making an application under the novel foods framework can be improved to better explain how to make a request for data protection within a novel foods application.

Some applicants still progressing through the authorisation process called for ‘generic authorisations’. This would allow multiple businesses with comparable products to benefit from shared underlying data and create the opportunity to bring a broader section of the market into compliance.

Applicants have suggested that granting data protection at this stage to three applicants could create what they described as a ‘two-tier market’, where limited businesses can claim compliance and may gain an earlier commercial advantage.

While recognising these concerns, the FSA must continue to operate within the legal parameters of the novel foods framework.

The issues raised by these applicants are fundamentally commercial in nature, and the existence of data protection provisions does not preclude the possibility of new commercial contracts being agreed between third party businesses and applicants.

Justification for change/no change

Additional guidance on the application of data protection will not address the comments of respondents, as this does not preclude the fact that data protection shall be granted by ministers where the relevant requirements are met.

Some respondents raised concerns regarding the potential impact of data protection on competition and market access and the application of the proposed data protection provisions.

The FSA intends to provide advice to ministers in England and Wales on the rationale that applicants have provided in support of meeting the criteria stated in Article 26. This will inform the decision-making of ministers with regards to whether data protection can be granted.

Next steps

The consultation responses will inform the next stage of the novel foods authorisation process for CBD products. 

The FSA will consider the evidence received, finalise its recommendations and provide advice to ministers in England and Wales, who are responsible for making decisions on these applications. 

The FSA will continue to work with Food Standards Scotland, other government departments and devolved administrations as this work progresses.  

Consultation responses identified several areas where stakeholders would welcome greater clarity. In response, the FSA intends to:

• further develop guidance on the ADI and the safe consumption of CBD products 
• provide clearer information on the distinction between foods, food supplements and medicines and the rules relating to health claims
• develop guidance for businesses and enforcement authorities on the interaction between novel food regulations and wider regulatory frameworks, including enforcement responsibilities relating to THC
• review existing guidance on the novel foods application process, including guidance on data protection provisions, and consider where improvements could be made 
• continue to work with industry and retailers to explore monitoring arrangements to help assess measures intended to protect under-18s and vulnerable groups

The consultation also highlighted issues that require further consideration as the CBD market moves towards authorisation. 

Stakeholders raised questions about the future operation of the Public List, a transitional arrangement between Public List and authorised products, and how consumers, businesses and enforcement authorities will be supported during this period.

The FSA will continue to consider these issues and will provide further information as this work develops. 

The FSA also recognises that the wider regulatory environment continues to evolve. Since this consultation was launched, developments relating to UK-EU sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) arrangements have emerged. The FSA will continue to monitor any relevant developments and consider their implications as this work progresses.  

Following any decisions, the FSA and Food Standards Scotland will publish further information on the outcome of the authorisation process, implementation arrangements and next steps for stakeholders.