Transparency data

Draft minutes of the 8th September 2026 COT meeting

Published 12 October 2026

Draft minutes

Present

Chair:	Reverend Professor Lesley Stanley
Deputy Chair:	Professor Shirley Price
COT Member:	Professor Gary Hutchison  Professor Thorhallur Ingi Halldórsson Dr Cheryl Scudamore Dr Simon Wilkinson Professor Peter Barlow Dr Chris Morris (Until Item 7) Mr Gordon Burton   Dr Alison Yeates (Until Item 6) Mr Nick Richardson Dr Bryony Ross Dr Michelle Bellingham  Professor Martin Clift  Dr Aravindan Veiraiah Professor Qasim Chaudhry Dr Tarek Abdelghany  Dr Antonio Peña Fernández Ms Christel Wake Professor Philippe Wilson (Item 5 only) Professor Mireille B. Toledano
Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition (SACN) Liaison:	Professor Susan Fairweather-Tait
Secretariat Food Standards Agency (FSA):	Ms Cath Mulholland (FSA Scientific Secretary) Dr Tahmina Khan (Item 3 only) Ms Claire Potter  Mr Barry Maycock Dr Barbara Doerr Dr Olivia Osborne Ms Sabrina Thomas Dr Gail Drummond Ms Frederique Uy Ms Jocelyn Frimpong-Manso Ms Sophy Orphanos Dr Gaetana Spedalieri Dr Katie Schulz Ms Katie Wetherall Mr James Metcalfe Ms Alba Ureña Rusill Ms Yoana Petrova Ms Rachel Jones
Secretariat: UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA):	Ms Britta Gadeberg Ms Sanyukta Pallavi (From Item 5)
UKHSA Contractor – Bibra:	Ms Beth O’Connell
Environment Agency (EA) Assessor:	Mr Ian Martin
Health Improvement Global and Public Health Group Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) official:	Ms Neeve Pearce (Item 6 and 7)
Health and Safety Executive (HSE) officials:	Ms Charlotte Thorpe (Item 8)
UKHSA	Dr Ovnair Sepai (Items 4-8) Ms Dorothee Gilbert
Department for Business and Trade (DBT)	Ms Frances Hill
FSA Official:	Dr Andy Axon Ms Chloe L Thomas Ms Charlotte Evans Ms Priscilla Wanjiru (Item 5 only) Ms Steve Adie (Item 5 only) Dr Mindy Dulai (Item 5 only) Ms Chara Tsoulli (Item 5 only)
Food Standards Scotland (FSS) officials:	Ms Ms Krystle Boss Mr Lorcan Browne
Food Standards Northern Ireland (FSA NI):	Ms Joanne Gelder-Blenkey Ms Colleen Mulrine  Ms Hannah Bowater
COMEAP Secretariat (Item 8 only)	Ms Eve L. Draper Dr Alison Gowers
External Observer: (From Item 6 onwards)	Dr Grace Kocks – Head of Toxicology – Lhasa Limited  Dr Mukesh Summan – Kerry Group

Draft minutes

Contents

Item	Title	Paragraph(s)
1	Apologies for absence	3
2	Draft minutes and reserved minutes of the meeting Tuesday 17th July 2026 (TOX/MIN/2026/04)	4
3	Matters arising - Subgroup and working group updates	5– 11
4	Presentation on the bioavailability of supplements research (Reserved) (TOX/2026/29)	12 – 14
5	Ashwagandha (Reserved) (TOX/2026/30)	15 – 17
6	Selenium in the maternal diet (TOX/2026/31)	18 – 32
7	Phytoestrogens in the maternal diet (TOX/2026/32)	33 – 40
8	AI in Chemical Risk assessment SWOT Analysis Report (TOX/2026/33)	41 – 50
9	Horizon Scanning – September 2026	51
10	Update on the work of other FSA Scientific Advisory Committees for information (TOX/2026/34)	52
11	Any other business	53

Draft minutes

Announcements

1. The Chair welcomed Members and other attendees to the meeting.

Interests

2. The Chair reminded those attending the meeting to declare any commercial or other interests they might have in any of the agenda Items.

Draft minutes

Item 1: Apologies for absence

3. Apologies were received from COT Members Dr Andreas Kolb, Dr David Lovell, Dr Steve Enoch and Dr Meera Cush, Science Council Liaison Member Ms Jackie Healing and FSA Secretariat Member Dr Emily Hudson.

Item 2: Draft minutes and reserved minutes of the meeting Tuesday 17th July 2026 (TOX/MIN/2026/04)

4. The Committee reviewed the draft minutes and reserved minutes of the meeting held on the 17th of July 2026. These were accepted as a true record of the meeting subject to some minor editorial changes.

Item 3: Matters arising

Joint Expert Group (JEG) updates

5. There were no JEG updates.

Subgroups and Working Groups

Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) working group

6. There were no updates from the PFAS or Guidance Working Groups.

EFSA Consultations

7. COT Members’ contributions to the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) consultations on Alternaria toxins and the risk-benefit assessment of fish consumption had been submitted within their respective deadlines. Members were thanked for providing their comments.

8. COT Members were also informed that EFSA was seeking comments on its consultation entitled “Preparatory work to support the development of a guidance document on the derivation and use of Relative Potency Factors (RPFs) for risk assessment of combined exposure to multiple chemicals.” The consultation documents would be circulated to Members by correspondence.

October 2026 Workshop

9. COT Members were given an update on the arrangements for the forthcoming workshop which would be taking place in October. The London venue had been confirmed and speakers secured and the Workshop Handbook was currently being drafted. The Workshop would be in a hybrid format and COT Members requiring travel and accommodation were asked to contact the Secretariat as soon as possible.

10. COT Members were invited to submit possible questions for the planned Workshop Roundtable discussions to the Secretariat by the 18th September.

Scientific Advisory Committee Recruitment

11. Recruitment to the FSA Scientific Advisory Committees (SACs) including the COT was now open; COT Members were asked to circulate information about the vacancies through their networks and it was noted that information had also been circulated by the British Toxicology Society (BTS). It was agreed that the Secretariat would ensure that the Royal Society of Biology and UK Register of Toxicologists were aware of the vacancies and could circulate to their networks.

Item 4: Presentation on the bioavailability of supplements research (Reserved) (TOX/2026/29)

12. Professor Peter Barlow declared an interest relating to a vitamin D patent held by him. This did not prevent him being able to participate in the discussions since the topic was a general one and did not focus on vitamin D. No other interests were declared.

13. Dr Bernhard Strauss (Camrosh) presented an overview of the systematic literature review on the bioavailability of food supplements commissioned by the FSA for COT Members’ consideration.

14. This item is currently being treated as reserved because it contains unpublished information.

Item 5: Third draft statement on the safety of ashwagandha in food, drinks and food supplements (Reserved) (TOX/2026/30)

15. No interests were declared.

16. Paper TOX/2026/30 was presented as a third draft statement reviewing the safety of ashwagandha in food, drinks and food supplements.

17. This item is currently being treated as reserved because it contains unpublished information.

Item 6: Vitamin E in the maternal diet (TOX/2026/25)

18. No interests were declared.

19. In 2020, the COT considered a prioritisation paper on substances to be reviewed as part of the Committee’s programme of work assessing risks from the maternal diet, which feeds into the SACN review of nutrition and maternal health. Following discussion of the prioritisation paper, selenium was identified as a substance requiring further consideration. Paper TOX/2026/31 examined the potential risks to maternal health arising from excessive selenium intake from food and food supplements.

20. Selenium is an essential trace element that plays an important role in antioxidant defence and thyroid hormone metabolism through its incorporation into selenoproteins. Dietary sources include nuts, eggs, poultry, seafood and mushrooms, while additional exposure may occur through fortified foods and food supplements. Although selenium is required for normal health, excessive intake can result in chronic selenosis, characterised by hair and nail abnormalities.

21. Paper TOX/2026/31 reviewed the toxicology of selenium and assessed the potential risks associated with excessive selenium intake during pregnancy. The assessment drew primarily on the most recent opinion from the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), which established a Tolerable Upper Intake Level (UL) of 255 μg/day for adults, including pregnant and lactating women.

22. The Committee discussed the selection of a Health Based Guidance Value (HBGV) to be used for risk characterisation. COT Members agreed that the EFSA UL of 255 μg/day was the most appropriate value to adopt, noting that it was based on the most recent assessment of the evidence. COT Members endorsed the use of this more conservative value in preference to the previous Expert Group on Vitamins and Minerals (EVM) Safe Upper Level of 450 μg/day.

23. COT Members noted the relatively narrow margin between the levels meeting selenium requirements and those resulting in adverse effects. EFSA had identified alopecia as the critical effect but considered that it was reversible and of limited severity. Questions were raised regarding the rationale for the choice of the uncertainty factor of 1.3 which was used by EFSA in deriving the UL. COT Members requested that additional information be included in the final statement to explain this choice of an uncertainty factor of 1.3.

24. COT Members noted that population dietary intakes alone were unlikely to exceed the UL, however, the concurrent use of selenium-containing supplements could result in intakes above health-based guidance values. It was highlighted that some high-strength supplements could exceed the UL with a single daily dose and that the use of multiple selenium-containing products could substantially increase exposure. Members therefore considered it important that the potential risks associated with high-dose supplementation were clearly communicated.

25. COT Members discussed whether there some maternal groups – such as older mothers or those with gastrointestinal issues – who might be more vulnerable to the effects of selenium, or whether some groups might be more likely to use supplements, including products containing selenium.

26. The evidence base included in the assessment was discussed. It was agreed that the toxicity studies conducted in fish had limited direct relevance to the current assessment.

27. COT Members noted that the paper sometimes combined evidence relating to maternal outcomes with evidence derived from the general adult population. The Committee considered that a clearer distinction between maternal-specific effects and effects observed in the wider adult population would aid in interpretation of the evidence.

28. The Committee discussed whether effects on sperm production and male fertility noted in the paper should be considered within the scope of the project. It was explained that these effects were sometimes included when there was a potentially relevant mechanism involved. COT Members agreed that the relevance of such endpoints would need to be considered on a case-by-case basis.

29. The differences between NHS advice on high intakes of selenium and the more recent scientific assessments were discussed. It was noted that current NHS advice in this area was based on the 2003 EVM assessment. Members were informed that, where scientific advice changed, mechanisms existed to ensure the relevant NHS information was updated as required.

30. A number of minor editorial changes were suggested for inclusion in a future draft statement.

31. The Committee was satisfied with the overall content and structure of the discussion paper and agreed with the use of the EFSA UL of 255 μg/day as the appropriate HBGV.

32. COT Members agreed that this paper should be developed into a draft statement for presentation to the Committee at a future meeting.

Item 7: Phytoestrogens in the maternal diet (TOX/2026/32)

33. No interests were declared.

34. In 2020, the COT considered a prioritisation paper on substances to be reviewed as part of the Committee’s programme of work assessing risks from the maternal diet, which feeds into the SACN review of nutrition and maternal health. Following discussion of the prioritisation paper, phytoestrogens were identified as requiring further consideration. Paper TOX/2026/32 examined the potential risks to maternal health arising from phytoestogen intake from food and food supplements.

35. The complexity of the paper was noted by COT Members; it referenced a sequence of background papers in which the Committee had previously reviewed the effects of isoflavones in other population groups, notably infants and young children. A lack of newer studies was also noted. The resulting discussion paper therefore had a different format to other maternal diet papers. The aim was to improve the flow of the paper; however, COT Members agreed that more work was needed to guide the reader through the paper and establish what was relevant to the assessment of phytoestrogens in the maternal diet. In particular, more clarification of the outcomes was required. The statement should separate maternal and offspring effects and distinguish between adverse and protective effects.

36. COT Members discussed whether effects on the male reproductive system should be included. It was agreed that such effects were likely to be beyond the scope of the maternal diet project. The exception might be effects on male offspring which occur during neonatal life and are mediated via the mother. Effects on male fertility in the offspring would be out of scope.

37. The relevance of including a study on transplacental carcinogenesis was discussed. While this effect does not become apparent in the antenatal period, it is mediated via the mother. It was agreed that this would be considered further.

38. COT Members considered whether it was necessary to include the statement in paragraph 99 that “it should be noted that these values are not currently endorsed by the COT”. It was explained that this statement was included to avoid confusion because the paragraph in question discussed HBGVs established by other regulatory bodies. The COT had not previously agreed a HBGV for isoflavones because at the last review the data were not considered adequate. It was suggested that the sentence under consideration be reworded to clarify that.

39. It was noted that the references made to different types of phytoestrogens could not be located in the paper cited (Carmichael et al. 2013). The Secretariat confirmed they would check for the correct citation.

40. COT Members agreed that this paper should be developed into a draft statement for presentation to the Committee at a future meeting. This would support further consideration of the scope for establishing one or more HBGVs for phytoestrogens in the maternal diet.

Item 8: AI in Chemical Risk assessment SWOT Analysis Report (TOX/2026/33)

41. No interests were declared.

42. Following the COT AI State of the Science Report and the AI in Chemical Risk Assessment Workshop, COT Members suggested that a Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats (SWOT) analysis should be carried out to assess the COT’s position. The results of the analysis undertaken by COT Members were presented in paper TOX/2026/33.

43. It was stated that the conclusions of the SWOT analysis would not be expected to differ significantly from those drawn in the AI in Chemical Risk Assessment Workshop and State of the Science report. They did not, however, need to cross reference one another because the field of AI was evolving rapidly and its strengths, weaknesses, opportunities presented and threats posed could have changed between the Workshop in October 2025 and the SWOT analysis, which was undertaken in May 2026.

44. COT Members suggested under the opportunities section in the final quadrant that platforms should be added to “continuous learning on data and models” since the choice of platform could dictate the AI model’s behaviour.

45. The Committee asked for clarification of the point covering reliance on animal data made under weaknesses and whether it referred to generation of new data, rather than the use of historical data. The Secretariat confirmed that it was the reliance on historical animal data that was intended.

46. It was agreed that concepts could overlap different quadrants; for example, some opportunities could also be existing strengths that could be built upon in the future.

47. COT Members agreed with the Secretariat’s suggestion of moving the SWOT analysis quadrants from the end of the document to the beginning and then adding the discussions as an Annex to the final report.

48. The Committee agreed that the bullet points within each quadrant should be prioritised, since that was likely to be assumed.

49. While it was noted that COT itself did not use AI in its work, the Chair noted that the use of AI had been discussed at a meeting of the SAC Chairs, where it was reported that other committees were using AI to varying extents. As a result, it was suggested that guidance on the use of AI by the SACs could be developed, although discussions on this proposal were still ongoing.

50. Members were asked to send any other comments to the Secretariat. Once these have been addressed, it was agreed that the document would be cleared by Chair’s action.

Item 9: Horizon scanning

51. This Item was tabled for information. Members had no updates.

Item 10: Update on the work of other FSA Scientific Advisory Committees - for information (TOX/2026/34)

52. This paper was largely for information, but COT Members were invited to contact the Secretariat if they had any questions.

Item 11: Any other business

53. There was no other business.

Date of next meeting

10.30 am on Tuesday 20th of October 2026 in Double Tree by Hilton, London and via Microsoft Teams, followed by the annual COT workshop on Wednesday 21st of October 2026 at the same venue.

Secretariat

September 2026