Transparency data

Draft minutes of the 14th July 2026 COT meeting

Published 4 September 2026

1. Present

Chair:	Reverend Professor Lesley Stanley
Deputy Chair:	Professor Shirley Price
COT Member:	Professor Gary Hutchison  Dr David Lovell Dr Steven Enoch (until item 9) Dr Simon Wilkinson Professor Peter Barlow Dr Meera Cush  Mr Gordon Burton  Dr Andreas Kolb  Mr Nick Richardson Dr Bryony Ross Dr Michelle Bellingham  Professor Martin Clift  Dr Aravindan Veiraiah Professor Mohammad Qasim Chaudhry Dr Tarek Abdelghany  Dr Antonio Peña Fernández Ms Christel Wake
Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition (SACN) Liaison:	Professor Susan Fairweather-Tait
Science Council Liaison:	Ms Jacqueline Healing (Until Item 10)
Secretariat Food Standards Agency (FSA):	Ms Claire Potter  Dr Alex Coo[p Mr Barry Maycock Dr Barbara Doerr Dr Olivia Osborne Ms Sabrina Thomas Dr Gail Drummond Ms Frederique Uy Ms Jocelyn Frimpong-Manso Ms Josephine Walker Dr Gaetana Spedalieri Dr Katie Schulz Ms Katie Wetherall Mr James Metcalfe Ms Alba Ureña Rusillo Mr Liam Blacklock Ms Chara Tsoulli Ms Yoana Petrova Mr Thomas Hornsby Ms Natasha Adams Ms Tahmina Khan
Secretariat: UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA):	Ms Britta Gadeberg (Item 5- 8) Ms Sanyukta Pallavi
UKHSA Contractor – Bibra:	Ms Beth O’Connell
Environment Agency (EA) Assessor:	Mr Ian Martin (From Item 4)
Health Improvement Global and Public Health Group Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) official:	Ms Neeve Pearce
Department for Business and Trade (DBT)	Mr Henry Mayes
FSA Official:	Dr Andy Axon
Food Standards Scotland (FSS) officials:	Ms Ms Krystle Boss
Health and Safety Executive (HSE) officials:	Ms Charlotte Thorpe
Food Standards Northern Ireland (FSA NI):	Catherine Hardy
External Observer: (From Item 6 onwards)	Dr Stephen Ruckman – Principal Consultant, Sagentia Regulatory Dr Grace Kocks – Head of Toxicology – Lhasa Limited

2. Contents

Item	Title	Paragraph(s)
1	Apologies for absence	3
2	Draft minutes and reserved minutes of the meeting held on Tuesday 19th May 2026 (TOX/MIN/2026/03)	4-5
3	Matters arising	6-11
4	Exploring the Future of Artificial Intelligence in Chemical Risk Assessment Workshop Report (Reserved) (TOX/2026/23)	12-13
5	Approaches to the Setting of Maximum Amounts of Vitamins and Minerals in Food Supplements and Fortified Foods (European Commission) (Reserved) (TOX/2026/24)	14-15
6	Vitamin E in the maternal diet (TOX/2026/25)	16-28
7	Herb Induced Liver Injury (TOX/2026/26)	29-46
8	EFSA draft protocol for risk-benefit assessment of fish (TOX/2026/27)	47-55
9	Horizon Scanning – July 2026	56-61
10	Update on the work of other FSA Scientific Advisory Committees for information (TOX/2026/28)	62-63
11	PFAS: Overview of the work of the PFAS Working group to date and future workload	64-69
12	Any other business	70-71

3. Announcements

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

4. 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.

5. Item 1: Apologies for absence

3. Apologies were received from COT Members Dr Alison Yeates and Dr Cheryl Scudamore, FSA colleagues Ms Pamela Iheozor-Ejiofor, Ms Cath Mulholland and Ms Sophy Orphanos, FSS colleague Ms Lucy Smythe and UKHSA colleague Ms Britta Gadeberg for part of the meeting.

6. Item 2: Draft minutes and reserved minutes of the Tuesday 19th May 2026 (TOX/MIN/2026/03)

4. The Committee reviewed the draft minutes and reserved minutes of the meeting held on the 19th of May 2026. These were accepted as a true record of the meeting subject to some minor editorial changes.

5. Members were reminded that the minutes were published in a draft form on the COT website along with the papers for the following meeting.  A final version of the minutes was then published after the meeting, incorporating any changes that were needed for the minutes to be approved. The procedure would be the same for the new website.

7. Item 3: Matters arising

7.1 Subgroups and Working Groups

Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) working group

6. The PFAS Working Group update was presented as item 11.

7.2 COT website

7. Members were notified that the new COT website was now live. The Committee congratulated the team that worked on the website migration.

7.3 Publications

8. The COT supplementary statement on Bisphenol A (BPA) had now been published.

9. The State of the Science report on AI in chemical risk assessment had been cleared by Chair’s action and would be published shortly.

7.4 Annual workshop

10. The Secretariat provided an update regarding the planned annual COT workshop which would cover weight of evidence and context of use. This would be held on the 21st of October 2026 in London, with the venue to be confirmed. The agenda was currently being drafted and Members were asked to contact the Secretariat if they wanted to suggest potential speakers or topics.

11.  It was noted that the British Toxicology Society (BTS) had just opened the registration for the “Weight of Evidence (WoE) Approaches in Safety Assessment” training module. The names of speakers would be circulated once the WoE module was confirmed. The Chair congratulated the organisers of both the COT workshop and the BTS training module, highlighting the importance of both institutions working together.

8. Item 4: Exploring the Future of Artificial Intelligence in Chemical Risk Assessment Workshop Report (Reserved) (TOX/2026/23)

12. No interests were declared.

13.  This item is currently being treated as reserved because it contains unpublished data.

9. Item 5: Approaches to the Setting of Maximum Amounts of Vitamins and Minerals in Food Supplements and Fortified Foods (European Commission) (Reserved) (TOX/2026/24)

14. No interests were declared.

15. This item is currently being treated as reserved because it relates to a developing policy.

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

16. No interests were declared.

17. In 2020, the COT considered a prioritisation paper on substances to be considered as part of the COT’s current programme of work assessing risks from the maternal diet, which feeds into the SACN review of nutrition and maternal health, focusing on maternal outcomes during pregnancy, childbirth and up to 24 months after delivery. Following discussion of the prioritisation paper, the COT agreed that a number of dietary supplements, including Vitamin E, should be reviewed.  Paper TOX/2026/25 focused on the potential risks posed to maternal health (including that of the embryo/foetus) by Vitamin E in the diet via food or supplementation.

18. Vitamin E is essential to health and Vitamin E deficiency in pregnant women is known to compromise foetal development and increase the risk of miscarriage, pre-eclampsia, and premature delivery. The acute adverse effects of excessive Vitamin E intake in humans include gastrointestinal upset (nausea and diarrhoea), fatigue, muscle weakness and anticoagulant effects caused by detrimental effects on Vitamin K activity. Previous evaluations of Vitamin E have been carried out by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), the UK Expert Committee on Vitamins and Minerals (EVM), the EU Scientific Committee on Food (SCF) (the predecessor to EFSA), and the World Health Organisation (WHO).

19. In 2003, the EVM established a Safe Upper Level (SUL) of 540 mg/day for supplemental Vitamin E, equivalent to 9 mg/kg bw/day in a 60 kg adult; this took into account the No Observed Adverse Effect Levels (NOAELs) from several human trials. Also in 2003, the SCF set a Tolerable Upper Intake Level (TUL) for Vitamin E of 280 mg/day for adults, rounded to 300 mg/day based on the effect on blood clotting and the increased risk of bleeding observed in human studies and incorporating an uncertainty factor of 2. The TUL also applied to pregnant and lactating women. In 2015, EFSA adopted TULs for Vitamin E from all dietary sources for all population groups in line with the SCF TUL of 300 mg/day for adults, again including pregnant and lactating women. In 2024, EFSA reviewed the TUL previously established by the SCF and found no basis to change it, including in pregnant and lactating women, because no new evidence of specific adverse effects or different susceptibilities had been found.

20. COT Members noted the relatively low number (a few hundred at most) of participants in the human studies discussed; It was observed that each study would require thousands of participants for greater accuracy of results. COT Members asked that this be discussed in more detail when the draft statement was prepared.

21. The Committee questioned the specific inclusion of information on how per and poly fluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) affected Vitamin E absorption, as there might be other chemicals that could have this effect. It was suggested that the draft statement should note the potential effects of PFAS on Vitamin E absorption and signpost the reader to the outcome of the assessment being conducted by the PFAS working group.

22. COT Members considered that the effects of Vitamin E in pregnancy seemed to be contradictory, with human studies reporting mixed effects on cranial circumference and birth weight in relation to plasma levels of Vitamin E; however, no adverse effects on birth rates or pregnancy outcomes were identified.

23. It was noted that, while the placental barrier normally protected the foetus against excessive exposure to Vitamin E in utero, following high maternal intakes Vitamin E could cross the placenta, accumulate and affect Vitamin K absorption, potentially leading to an increased risk of bleeding. Similarly, high maternal intakes of Vitamin E had been reported to be associated with congenital heart defects in the offspring, with a potential for membrane rupture leading to premature births. COT Members requested that, the role of the placental barrier in protecting the foetus, the ability of Vitamin E to cross the placental barrier and how Vitamin E transfer to the foetus was controlled, be discussed in greater depth in the draft statement.

24. The Committee considered that any effects on the offspring were likely to be secondary to effects on the mother rather than due to direct foetal toxicity. However, with the information available, particularly the low numbers of study participants, this could not be determined unequivocally.

25. COT Members commented that the paper covered both direct and secondary effects on the endocrine system, including effects on insulin levels, and noted the complexity of these effects and the importance of work aimed at understanding them better.

26. COT Members noted the challenge of relating harm or outcomes to blood concentrations; for example, relating head diameter to plasma concentrations was challenging when the ethnic makeup or health status of the population concerned was unknown since population ethnicity and health may affect circulating vitamin E concentrations.

27. The Committee agreed that the more recent EFSA 2024 TUL of 300 mg/day was the most appropriate Health Based Guidance Value (HBGV) to use as it included more recent studies and more sources of Vitamin E exposure in pregnant women. It was further noted that this TUL allowed for a suitable margin of safety that took into account several uncertainties that had been identified since the EFSA TUL was set, this included recent evidence on possible effects of xenobiotics on transplacental transfer.

28. The Committee was satisfied with the discussion paper and agreed that a draft statement should be prepared and presented to the Committee.

11. Item 7: Herb Induced Liver Injury (TOX/2026/26)

29. No interests were declared.

30. Due to an increase in the number of food supplement-related incidents reported to the FSA, the COT has been asked to review the currently available information on Herb Induced Liver Injury (HILI), to consider if any conclusions can be drawn and to decide whether a COT position or stand-alone statement setting out the current state of the science would be appropriate.

31. There is more information on Drug Induced Liver Injury (DILI) than HILI available in the literature, particularly because the active constituent of a medicine is usually known, medication histories are routinely recorded, and monitoring of medicinal products is more extensive. By contrast, HILI often involved mixtures containing multiple ingredients with unknown active constituents whose consumption is not monitored.  There was, therefore, currently no clear UK-specific understanding of the incidence of HILI compared with DILI and no way of knowing whether HILI might be more or less severe than DILI.

32. HILI related to the consumption of herbal medicines would be captured through Medicine and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) Adverse Drug Reaction (Yellow Card Scheme) reports. However, reports considered to be related to food supplement products were often referred to the FSA for consideration.  It was noted that Yellow Card Scheme reports were often self-reported, but some were submitted by healthcare professionals.  In many cases there were confounding factors, including concomitant use of medicines, although the report might identify the supplement as the cause of the adverse reaction. Causality was difficult to determine from Yellow Card Scheme reports alone due to the presence of multiple confounders. It was further noted that, due to General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR) requirements, reports were often heavily redacted, limiting the information available.

33. COT Members suggested that there could be value in using such reports for horizon scanning and highlighted the need for better reporting of food-related harms.

34. It was noted that the observed associations between herbal products and liver injury could be heavily confounded, for example, by concomitant weight loss. As an illustration, green tea extracts were often taken for weight loss purposes and therefore the context and circumstances in which herbal supplements were consumed should be considered.

35. It was noted that major histocompatibility complex allele HLA-B35:01 might act as a risk marker but was not present in all cases of HILI. It was noted that not everyone with the allele would experience an adverse outcome, so while individuals carrying HLA-B35:01 might be susceptible, other carriers may not be at increased risk compared with the population as a whole. The currently available evidence demonstrated an association rather than establishing causality for individual supplements.

36. The association with HLA-B35:01 could indicate a plausible mechanism whereby a product, or one of its metabolites, interacts with proteins in the body. In individuals carrying HLA-B35:01, the immune system may incorrectly recognise these protein complexes as harmful and attack liver cells. However, it was emphasised that this remained only a proposed mechanism; while an association has been observed, this did not establish causality.

37. COT Members noted the variability in latency and suggested that some mild cases of HILI might have resolved without individuals ever recognising that liver injury had occurred. However, while latency was discussed in the paper, information on the reversibility of symptoms was not presented clearly. It was suggested that, to highlight both parameters, a table comparing HILI and DILI with respect to latency and reversibility should be included in any future statement or position paper.

38. It was suggested that the background dietary consumption of products such as turmeric and green tea was an important consideration. This varied between countries and could contribute to the differences observed in sex related patterns between countries.

39. COT Members considered that the distinction between products that have been traditionally consumed over centuries, such as herbal teas, and newer internet-marketed products such as herbal supplements containing ingredients like ashwagandha could be explored; for example, green tea as consumed traditionally differed substantially from the concentrated forms sold as supplements. It was further noted that consumers often assumed herbal products, being natural products, were inherently safe, although this was not necessarily the case. It was also pointed out that most reported cases of HILI involved complex mixtures rather than single components since this was the nature of many herbal products.

40. COT Members recommended expanding the discussion of metabolism, noting that many substances present in herbal products can interact with hepatic cytochrome P450 enzymes.

41. It was recommended that the EFSA Botanicals Compendium should be referenced and COT Members noted that EFSA had combined this resource with in silico approaches to risk assessment in a systematic manner that could be replicated by the FSA.  It was agreed that in silico methods were important and the Secretariat stated that the FSA was considering funding research to explore NAMs for the assessment of complex mixtures to better understand variability. The FSA was building its own database, monitoring developments at EFSA, and participating in the Botanical Safety Consortium.  Considerable work was underway to develop tools for assessing complex herbal mixtures and to integrate multiple sources of evidence.

42. COT Members considered it was important to understand the source of the hazard(s) associated with the consumption of herbal products, suggesting that information on age profiles and consumer behaviour could provide useful context. COT Members observed that some consumers used supplements as substitutes for whole foods in an effort to obtain the perceived benefits without the associated calories. Media coverage and social media influencers may also be important drivers of supplement use.

43. The regulation of supplements was a complex area; while some products fell within specific regulatory frameworks, many were regulated only under General Food Law. This does not require prior authorisation, but it is the responsibility of those placing the supplement on the market to ensure it is safe. A significant further challenge was the existence of a large grey market. The current FSA work was focused on gathering evidence to inform future actions.

44. COT Members noted that more detailed assessments of risk might be better undertaken on an individual-herb basis; examining specific agents may be more informative than considering all herbs together.

45. Members were informed about two current research projects addressing data gaps – consumer and market insights and supplement bioavailability, respectively –that were previously identified by COT. The FSA was also working with the analytical teams to address identified gaps and bring emerging issues to COT where appropriate. Given the existing regulatory framework, it was noted that current efforts were focused on monitoring and evidence generation to support consumer safety.

46. The Chair proposed three possible routes forward: developing the current document into a statement; broadening its scope to include suggested topics; or issuing a call for evidence. It was noted that these options represented increasing levels of resource commitment and the latter would need to be supported by the FSA policy team.  It was agreed that the paper should be developed into a state of the science statement after which any further actions could be considered.  It was suggested that the statement should include a dedicated gap analysis section and should reflect relevant work being undertaken by EFSA. A SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats) analysis of existing outputs was also proposed. Once the ongoing research projects were completed, the Committee could be provided with an update, undertake further horizon scanning, and consider future actions.

12. Item 8: EFSA Draft Protocol for the Risk–Benefit Assessment of Fish Consumption (TOX/2026/27)

47. Prior to the discussion, a declaration of interest was received from Dr Meera Cush regarding work undertaken on behalf of the Environment Agency involving a human health risk assessment of a contaminant in fish. Following clarification that the contaminant was not within the scope of the EFSA protocol, the Committee agreed that no conflict of interest existed and that she could fully participate in the discussion. No other interests were declared.

48. EFSA have published for comment a draft protocol for a risk–benefit assessment of fish consumption. The protocol has been developed in response to a European Commission mandate and sets out the scientific framework, assessment questions, methods and evidence sources that EFSA will use in conducting the assessment. It was a planning document rather than the assessment itself. The assessment would examine both the nutritional benefits of fish consumption and the potential risks associated with contaminants in fish, including Polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins and furans (PCDD/Fs), Dioxin-Like polychlorinated biphenyls (DL-PCBs), per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), Polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs), inorganic arsenic, Dimethyl arsenic acid (DMA), inorganic mercury and methylmercury. It would build on existing EFSA and other authoritative scientific assessments rather than undertaking new contaminant risk assessments.

49. EFSA have proposed a refined Tier 3 risk–benefit assessment covering the general EU population. The assessment would consider different fish species, fish categories and consumption scenarios, with the aim of integrating beneficial and adverse health outcomes into common metrics, potentially including disability-adjusted life years (DALYs).  The work was limited to finfish and finfish products and is intended to provide scientific evidence to support future dietary guidance. It would not compare fish with alternative foods, dietary patterns or supplements, nor would it develop dietary recommendations itself.

50. The protocol was structured around seven assessment questions addressing health effects, exposure assessment, risk and benefit characterisation, integration of outcomes and communication of findings. The assessment would draw largely on existing scientific opinions and EFSA occurrence, food composition and food consumption databases, with uncertainties considered throughout the assessment process.

51. COT Members considered the EFSA draft protocol for a risk-benefit assessment of fish consumption across the European Union. They broadly supported EFSA’s proposed methodology but identified several limitations that should be highlighted in the consultation response. The protocol did not appear to address interactions between multiple contaminants or consider whether contaminants could diminish the beneficial effects of nutrients. Concerns were also raised regarding the treatment of confounding factors, such as healthier lifestyles among regular fish consumers, and the uncertainty surrounding evidence for health benefits, particularly in light of recent World Health Organization (WHO) findings. Members questioned how geographical variation in contaminant concentrations, local consumption patterns and population subgroups with high fish intakes would be incorporated into the assessment. The omission of contaminants such as marine biotoxins and microplastics from the scope was also queried.

52. It was noted that the joint COT and SACN report on fish consumption published in 2004 remained the Committee’s current position and underpinned current consumer advice on fish consumption. It was agreed that any comments submitted to EFSA should remain consistent with the existing published advice, including previous statements on dioxins and heavy metals in fish.

53. The Committee noted the ambitious scope of the proposed assessment, in particular, the challenges associated with evaluating all fin fish species across different geographies, production systems and contamination profiles. COT Members expressed concern that increasing granularity could lead to limited datasets and reduced statistical robustness. Discussion also focused on the use of Disability Adjusted Life Years (DALYs) as the primary integration metric, with some COT Members suggesting that Quality Adjusted Life Years (QALYs) may be more appropriate for a risk-benefit assessment. Questions were raised regarding how future findings would be communicated to consumers and used by risk managers, particularly given the existence of current UK fish consumption advice. The Committee also sought clarification on EFSA’s Tier 1 to Tier 3 assessment framework and agreed that additional information on the methodology would be useful.

54. It was agreed that the Secretariat should prepare a response to the consultation reflecting the concerns raised during the discussion, including comments on mixture toxicology, confounding factors, geographical variability, uncertainty and communication of outcomes. COT Members were invited to submit any additional detailed comments, cross-referenced to the relevant sections of the protocol, for inclusion in the final response ahead of the consultation deadline of 3rd of August 2026.

13. Item 9: Horizon scanning

55. No interests were declared.

56. As discussed at recent meetings, a horizon scanning document detailing and prioritising emerging issues of relevance to the Committee’s scope of work has been produced. COT Members were invited to review the latest version of the document and to put forward any new topics of interest.

57. COT Members requested that the topics be reordered to reflect changes in their prioritisation. For example, it was noted that weight of evidence approaches and artificial intelligence in chemical risk assessment have recently been or would be covered in COT workshops. It was therefore agreed that these topics should be moved from horizon scanning activities to the active work programme. In addition, Members also agreed that the review of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) should be reflected as work in progress, as this would recognise the ongoing activity of the PFAS Working Group.

58. Following earlier discussions under Item 7, COT Members agreed to add herbal supplements and the potential health risks associated with their use to the watching brief. It was noted that, whilst the topic was of interest, the Committee was not currently able to prioritise further work in this area. Members discussed injectable peptides as a potential emerging issue. However, it was noted that some products would fall outside the FSA’s remit where they were not classified as food supplements.

59. It was noted that any relevant updates from the current consumer research and market intelligence projects being undertaken by the FSA would be shared with the Committee.

60. COT Members requested an update on alternative proteins and allergenicity, including potential discussions with the Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes (ACNFP). The Secretariat agreed to follow this up with the ACNFP Secretariat.

61. The increasing popularity of air fryers was raised, and it was queried whether this method of cooking could lead to the formation of potentially harmful chemical compounds, in a similar manner to other high-temperature cooking processes. The potential for oxidation and the formation of thermal breakdown compounds was noted. Although COT Members agreed that there was currently insufficient evidence to justify prioritising work in this area, however, it was agreed that air fryer cooking and potential impacts on food chemistry should be added to the list of emerging issues and kept under review as further evidence becomes available.

14. Item 10: Update on the work of other FSA Scientific Advisory Committees - for information (TOX/2026/28)

62. The Committee received paper TOX/2026/28, which provided an update on the work of other FSA Scientific Advisory Committees.

63. A Member provided an update from a recent Science Council workshop on food resilience, which brought together stakeholders from across the food sector, academia and government. The workshop considered potential threats to food resilience, including cyber-attacks, cold chain disruption, malicious contamination and geopolitical conflict. It was noted that some participants considered food resilience to be an emerging concern and highlighted the value of further preparedness and scenario-planning activities. A report was expected to be published in Autumn 2026.

15. Item 11: PFAS: Overview of the work of the PFAS Working group to date and future workload

64. Dr Meera Cush and Dr Bryony Ross declared interests in this topic as they work with clients who work with or use PFAS. It was agreed that as this was an overview item providing an update on the working group on PFAS, they could be present for the update. Rev Prof Lesley Stanley declared she was the human health moderator for the UK REACH restriction proposal on PFAS in firefighting foams, which did not limit participation in the discussion.

65. A short presentation was provided by Professor Price, the Working Group Chair setting out the Terms of reference  of the group and updating the COT on the endpoints reviewed or planned for review by the Working Group.

66. The PFAS working group had considered thyroid and liver endpoints. At the time of the presentation the Working Group had come to the view that there were effects on thyroid hormones that could potentially be adverse but further considerations were required, and that potential for liver effects in humans could not be excluded but it was unclear what such effects might mean.

67. The next endpoints to be considered were reproductive and developmental outcomes, expected in late 2026, where there had been some delays due to the volume of literature. In 2027 and 2028, the endpoints to be reviewed were immunotoxicity including developmental immunotoxicity, neurotoxicity including developmental neurotoxicity, and nephrotoxicity. Further consideration of other endocrine effects and assessing carcinogenicity, as well as other further work, would be made in 2027-2028.

68. It was noted that there was lot of interest across Government, and that the timeline for the COT work reflected the amount of literature on the topic.

69. Linked with the PFAS working group and her role as Chair of the OPSS Scientific Advisory Group on Chemical Safety of Non-Food and Non-Medicinal Consumer Products (SAG-CS), Professor Price informed the Committee of a meeting she had attended with Defra and OPSS Ministers. It was agreed that any reports of the meeting would be shared when available.

16. Item 12: Any other business

70. The COT was informed that the COC and COM had changed sponsorship, being jointly sponsored by UKHSA and FSA from 1st April 2026, with UKHSA leading administratively for those two Committees. Secretariat arrangements remained unchanged and were jointly shared between UKHSA and FSA.  COT continued to be jointly sponsored by FSA and DHSC.

71. It was also noted that the COC Chair post remained vacant and would be readvertised in due course.

17. Date of next meeting

72. The next meeting of the Committee will be at 10:00 on Tuesday 8th September 2026 via Microsoft Teams.

Secretariat

July 2026