Transparency data

Annual report 2025

Published 25 August 2026

Dear Reader,

I am delighted to present the annual report for the Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes (ACNFP), which will sadly be my last as the end of my second term as Chair draws near. This report summarises the work of the ACNFP from April 2025 to March 2026 as part of the FSA regulated products process.

This year the ACNFP has become more focused on the most innovative novel foods through supporting the work under both the FSA’s Innovation Research Programme and The FSA’s Cell Cultivated Product sandbox. In 2026, we have seen the first applications for cell cultivated products (CCPs) in GB coming to the Committee for review. The regulatory review has drawn upon on the technical work of the CCP subgroup of the ACNFP, in understanding the potential risks of these innovative technologies and how they can be assessed proportionately. We look forward to seeing more of these applications and providing analysis and advice to the FSA to fast track the knowledge on these innovative products responsibly.

This year also saw the conclusion of the first phase of work from the Joint ACNFP and Committee on Toxicology (COT) subgroup on cannabidiol (CBD) and hemp derived products. The group has supported this world-leading area of novel foods and the FSA’s ongoing programme on the safety of CBD-containing foods over the past 4 years. The review of the safety data for CBD and contaminant tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) has been a significant and technically challenging area of work for the ACNFP. The report of the first phase of the groups work flags the scale of the challenge that has been addressed and the important ‘world first guideline’ outputs that have resulted. The joint subgroup continues to advise the FSA on emerging issues on CBD and reviewed new data on reproductive and developmental toxicity to ensure the FSA’s work is based on the latest science and evidence. The ACNFP continues to review individual applicant dossiers for CBD products. Work is moving to the extracts of hemp below 98% CBD purity and will form an important part of the work for the year ahead.

2025/6 has seen the work on precision bred organisms (PBOs) in food and feed move from supporting development of the legislation to implementation. The ACNFP Products of Genetic Technologies (PGT) subgroup has been supporting the FSA in developing guidance and principles to support applicants. We look forward to seeing the impact of this work over the coming years.

I sincerely thank all of the members of the ACNFP and the FSA secretariat for their continued hard work, diligence, professionalism and flexibility in dealing with the ever-increasing volume of work in 2025-2026. All work is performed to a high technical level, to high quality under time pressure by an excellent team of multidisciplinary experts. As I reach the end of my term of office as Chair of the ACNFP and 14 years of service in all, I can only share that working on the ACNFP has been a pleasure, incredibly rewarding and is of significant value to UK food innovation in assuring that GB consumers can enjoy novel foods safely. I wish a new incoming Chair and all future members all the very best for what will be changing and very interesting times for UK foods innovations in the years ahead.

Dr Camilla Alexander-White, Chair of the ACNFP.

June 2026

1. Introduction

The ACNFP has a long history of providing advice to the FSA on novel foods and processes. Under Regulation (EU) 2015/2283 as retained in UK law post EU Exit, a novel food is defined as a food that does not have a significant history of consumption within the United Kingdom before 15 May 1997. As a regulated product, the food is subject to an assessment process to ensure that it is safe, does not mislead the consumer and would not put consumers at a nutritional disadvantage. The Committee’s advice to the FSA contributes to the development of the Agency’s strategic objectives and ways of working to ensure that food is safe and what it says it is.

Since 1 January 2021, at the end of the EU-exit transition period, the remit of the ACNFP has been to provide national advice to the FSA on the scientific evaluation of all novel foods and GM products of genetic technologies used as food and feed. The FSA and the Secretary of State are responsible for implementing national regulation in full relating to novel foods and processes. In 2025-2026, the work of the ACNFP as the science advisory committee (SAC) for novel foods and processes, including for the products of genetic technologies, continued to increase. This annual report covers the 2025/26 financial year, from 1 April 2025 to 31st March 2026.

In undertaking its work, the ACNFP continues to be bound by the principles in its code of practice. At the heart of its approach to assessing the applications received is:

• Openness and transparency – While the information reviewed by the Committee has commercial sensitivity, the Committee, with the support of the Secretariat, endeavours to be open about the work and the nature of the assessment being undertaken to ensure consumers can have confidence in the independence of the view generated and applicants have the tools to do the right thing.
• Proportionality – Seeking to strike a balance where each application is subject to a thorough assessment proportionate to the food safety risks it might pose. Achieving this is a continuous improvement process embedded into the ways of working of the Committee. While all uncertainty and risk cannot be removed for food and feed seeking authorization, the Committee seek to be clear on the characterisation of risk and uncertainty to inform the decisions of Risk Managers in the risk analysis process.
• Supporting businesses to do the right thing – providing clear advice and guidance to the applicants so that they can provide the information needed for assessment and ensure the safety of their products.
• Innovation – Seeking to evolve the Committee’s ways of working and practices to ensure the core objectives are achieved using the best available science and up to date thinking in the members areas of expertise and on the approach to assessment.

In this context in 2025/26, the primary role of the ACNFP has been to provide scientific advice to FSA and FSS on novel foods and Genetically Modified Organisms applications considered under the regulated products process and for which scientific and technical advice is requested.

New novel food applications – The ACNFP carried out the review process for twenty-seven novel foods dossiers. The assessments continue to be based on the requirements in the retained legislation. Full details for the UK processes for applicants can be found on the ACNFP Food Assessment pages.

Assessments by the Committee are tailored to the nature of the products and the risks posed by their proposed uses when consumed. The role of the Committee is to review the assessment developed by the applicant to ensure any key food safety risks with the product or its production are identified. This supports any risks being managed and informs risk management decisions by Ministers in the nations of the GB on authorisation or the conditions of their use.

In the initial review, Members advise the FSA on what further information is required to fully assess any risks and address any data gaps identified. The assessment of these products will continue in the new financial year, as further information is provided by applicants. Whilst the Committee’s remit is firmly in providing advice on technical risk assessments, the risk context is also considered. Members consider how the novel food is anticipated to be consumed and, as such, advisory comments to FSA risk managers can be made as part of the technical advice for FSA.

Traditional Foods from Third Countries – The Committee completed one review of a notification for a traditional food from third countries. This is a separate assessment process under the novel food regulation allowing for review of the information provided by applicants based on experience of its extensive use in a third country. This informs whether there are reasoned safety objections to the Traditional Foods sale and whether a further review is needed to inform decisions by risk managers.

The process was amended in January 2026 to prioritise Committee time on the most scientifically challenging and complex applications. These assessments are now being performed by FSA staff. Committee advice will be sought for the most challenging notifications as needed.

Cannabidiol – A major area of work for the past 4 years on novel foods was the review of submissions for cannabidiol (CBD) containing ingredients. This has been the continued work of the Joint Subgroup of the ACNFP and Committee on Toxicity (COT) on CBD and hemp derived products. The workstream aims to efficiently review and assess the significant volume of available toxicology data for these novel foods. This is a clearly defined area of FSA policy.

In the reporting period, the ACNFP along with the Committee on Toxicity (COT) agreed a joint statement on the conclusions of the ACNFP/COT Subgroup, following their review of a report on reproductive and developmental toxicity data compiled by the French Authorities (the Agence nationale de sécurité sanitaire de l’alimentation, de l’environnement et du travail (ANSES)) under EU Harmonised Classification and Labelling regulation. The EU proposal is to classify CBD as a 1B substance, through all exposure routes, as having potential for reproductive toxicity. The advice from the subgroup and ACNFP enabled the FSA to conclude that the studies identified in the ANSES proposal did not provide evidence that altered the position reached in GB on taking a risk-based approach in novel foods assessment in using a provisional acceptable daily intake (pADI) for CBD.

The group continue to provide advice on issues related to CBD to ACNFP and the FSA as assessment of the CBD novel food applications move forward.

Precision Bred Organisms (PBOs) – In 2025, the ACNFP continued to support the development of the framework for Precision Bred Organisms (PBOs) through the work of its PGT Subcommittee, which reviewed amendments to the draft technical guidance for applicants following a user testing exercise. This ensured that the technical content remained robust in the final version of the guidance, supporting the coming into force of the secondary legislation for precision bred plants used for food and animal feed at the end of 2025.

Cell Cultivated Products (CCPs) – The launch of the cell cultivated products (CCP) Sandbox in 2025 has seen notable progress towards improving the FSA understanding of the potential hazards posed by CCPs as novel foods. This progress has been supported by the significant amount of work undertaken by the ACNFP and CCP Subgroup, providing advice on the hazards associated with the production and consumption of CCPs to support their effective risk assessment.

The CCP Subgroup was formed in 2025, and is expected to continue to support the development of tailored technical guidance that can be used by the sector to produce high quality regulatory dossiers. Publication of FSA supplemental technical guidance for assessing CCP dossiers as novel foods will provide a basis for the evaluation of these products through 2026 and beyond.

Further detail on the work of the Committee in 2025 can be found below.

2. Novel Food Applications

In 2025/26, the ACNFP carried out assessment of eighteen novel food applications that were accepted under Article 10 of Regulation (EU) 2015/2283 as retained in UK law. The applications that could be considered in the main sessions are detailed in Table 1, below. The dossiers for CBD, PGT and CCP were considered by reserved business to reflect the commercial sensitivities and are detailed in section 4.

Details of the issues that were raised by the Committee can be found in the minutes of the relevant meetings on the ACNFP website.

Table 1: Novel Food applications considered by the Committee during 2025-6.

Application	Reference Number	Meeting	Committee’s Response
Cannabidiol (CBD) isolate	RP343	April	- This application for new authorisation was considered for the first time in April 2025. - The Committee requested several amendments for the CAD, which was agreed and progressed to publishing.
Cannabidiol (CBD) isolate	RP345	April	- This application for new authorisation was considered for the first time in April 2025. - The Committee requested several amendments for the CAD, which was agreed and progressed to publishing.
Cannabidiol (CBD) isolate	RP346	April	- This application for new authorisation was considered for the first time in April 2025. - The Committee requested several amendments for the CAD, which were agreed and progressed to publishing.
Esterified Propoxylated Glycerol (EPG)	RP1363	April	- This novel food was introduced to the Committee in September 2024. - The Committee sought further information from the applicant to address data gaps. - The dossier continues to be under review.
Solid Lipid Curcumin Particle (SLCP)	RP1776	April	- This novel food was introduced to the Committee for the first time in April 2025. - The Committee sought further information from the applicant to address data gaps. - The dossier continues to be under review.
Fusarium str. Flavolapis	RP1637	June and November	- This novel food was introduced to the Committee for the first time in June 2025. - The Committee sought further information from the applicant to address data gaps. - The dossier continues to be under review.
β-lactoglobulin	RP1571	June and November	- This novel food was introduced to the Committee for the first time in June 2025. - The Committee sought further information from the applicant to address data gaps. - The dossier continues to be under review.
Fermotein	RP1215	June, November and February	- This novel food was introduced to the Committee for the first time in September 2024. - The Committee sought further information from the applicant to address data gaps. - The dossier completed its Committee review and is being finalised for publication.
Urolithin A	RP1777	September	- This novel food was introduced to the Committee for the first time in September 2025. - The Committee sought further information from the applicant to address data gaps. - The dossier continues to be under review.
Clostridium tyrobutyricum ‘Clostridium Protein’	RP1920	September	- This novel food was introduced to the Committee for the first time in September 2025. - The Committee sought further information from the applicant to address data gaps. - The dossier continues to be under review.
Lyso-phosphatidylcholine (LPC)-rich oil from Antarctic krill (Euphausia superba)	RP2181	September	- This novel food was introduced to the Committee for the first time in September 2025. - The Committee sought further information from the applicant to address data gaps. - The dossier continues to be under review.
Solein	RP1326	November	- This novel food was introduced to the Committee for the first time in February 2025. - The Committee sought further information from the applicant to address data gaps. - The dossier continues to be under review.

Members Insight Quote.

Ray Kemp

“Numerous scholars have commented over the years on the tension between science on the one hand and “common sense” on the other. It has been fascinating to see that relationship played out in the work of the ACNFP. Colleagues at the cutting edge of food science are assessing increasingly complex novel food applications with forensic detail but always mindful of the need for reasonableness (aka “proportionality”) in assessing risk to UK consumers as new foods and feeds are created.

As a lay member, I sit on both the main committee and also on the Products of Genetic Technologies (PGT) subgroup and it is clear that the workload of the FSA has certainly increased in recent months. With a background in both consumer safety but also in risk assessment in different areas of policy, I am reassured by the scientific rigour and openness to challenge that I have seen in the committee’s work – in preparation, online and in person. Much of this is testament to the chairs of both the full committee and the sub-groups who always encourage debate, listen carefully, while maintaining a sense of humour throughout. Perhaps that is where the “common sense” input is particularly helpful!

Looking ahead, as technology develops, as responsibility for regulation changes with time and events, I am convinced that SAC working methods will need to adapt to become more interactive and more efficient for applicants while still ensuring the interests of consumers lie at the heart of food safety in the UK. In the meantime, the work remains fascinating, challenging, and intellectually rewarding, and I am grateful to colleagues on the ACNFP for marrying the best of science with that touch of common sense that so benefits UK consumers.”

3. Traditional Food Applications

In 2025, one ‘traditional food from third countries’ notification was validated under Regulation (EU) 2015/2283 and passed on to the ACNFP Committee for review. This notification was for Bambara groundnut. The notifications were assessed by the ACNFP, and their advice passed to risk managers at the FSA and FSS to inform the UK position on this dossier. The notification is detailed in Table 2.

Minutes and details of the issues that were raised by the Committee can be found in the relevant meetings on the ACNFP website.

Table 2: Traditional Food notifications considered by the Committee during 2025.

Application	Meeting	Outcome	Committee’s Response
Bambara groundnut	RP2272	Advice Provided to Food Policy – Currently not Authorised in the UK.	- The committee highlighted significant data gaps that would need to be addressed before a conclusion of food safety could be made. - Their advice was passed on to Risk Managers.

4. Reserved Business items

A number of items were considered under reserved business in 2025 (Table 3). The discussions for these items are primarily in relation to new ways of working, handling sensitive issues such as precision breeding assessment guidance or dossiers on CBD where there are particular commercial sensitivities. While considered as reserved business during the assessment phase, final outputs will be placed in the public domain in due course.

Table 3: Items considered under reserved business.

Application	Reference Number	Meeting	Committee’s Response
Allulose	RP1130	June	- This novel food was introduced to the Committee for the first time in November 2024. - The Committee sought further information from the applicant to address data gaps. - The dossier continues to be under review.
CBD	RP47	September	- This novel food was introduced to the Committee for the first time in September 2025. - The Committee sought further information from the applicant to address data gaps. - The dossier continues to be under review.
CBD	RP46	September	- This novel food was introduced to the Committee for the first time in September 2025. - The Committee sought further information from the applicant to address data gaps. - The dossier continues to be under review.
CBD	RP225	September	- This novel food was introduced to the Committee for the first time in September 2025. - The Committee agreed with the CAD, which will progress to publication.
Cultivated chicken biomass	RP2218	February	- This novel food was introduced to the Committee for the first time in February 2026. - The Committee sought further information from the applicant to address data gaps. - The dossier continues to be under review.
Cell-cultivated duck	RP2241	February	- This novel food was introduced to the Committee for the first time in February 2026. - The Committee sought further information from the applicant to address data gaps. - The dossier continues to be under review.
Introduction to Group C CBD applications	ACNFP/173/05	September	- The Committee was introduced to the assessment of applications for hemp extracts with a significant amount of CBD present (group C) under the novel food regulation.
Workshop on Cell Cultivated Products (CCP)	ACNFP/173/07	September	- The Committee provided feedback on draft FSA guidance for applicants on nutrition and allergenicity assessment tailored for Cell Cultivated Products (CCPs) within the novel food framework. Advice was provided to refine the guidance before its publication in December 2025.

5. Other Issues

In 2025, the ACNFP was consulted on several topics relating to the scientific work of the FSA and how this is managed (Table 74. Topics included: reviewing approaches to precision fermented novel food applications, reviewing the updated EFSA novel food guidance, documents to further develop the regulated products processes, as well as governance processes such as the annual report.

Minutes and details of the issues that were raised by the Committee can be found in the minutes of the relevant meetings on the ACNFP website.

Table 4: Other Issues.

Topic	Meeting	Committee’s Response
Annual report 2024	April 2025	The Committee reviewed the annual report draft and made changes to agree on the final report of the ACNFP’s work in 2024.
Allergenicity Workshop	April 2025	The Committee reviewed the output of the allergenicity workshop held in March 2024 and explored the next steps.
EFSA 2024 guidance	February 2026	The Committee reviewed the updated EFSA novel food guidance and provided feedback on whether it was appropriate to provide the basis for assessment of GB applications.
Draft precision fermentation advisory document	February 2026	The Committee provided feedback on a draft advisory document to assist applicants in the preparation of high-quality precision fermented novel food applications.
Draft Committee Advice Document (CAD) template for precision fermented novel foods	February 2026	The Committee provided feedback on the CAD template that has been prepared for use in compiling information on precision fermented novel foods for review by the Committee.

6. The ACNFP subcommittees’ work

a) Products of Genetic Technologies (PGT) Subcommittee 

The Subcommittee held four virtual meetings (two of which were half-day) and one face to face meeting between April 2025 and March 2026. All meetings were chaired by Dr Andy Greenfield.

The majority of the work of the Subcommittee in the financial year 2025/2026 was on the safety assessment of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO). This included the review of ten applications of new GMOs for food and feed use, import and processing (not for cultivation in the UK) (Table 5), including one GM microorganism. Traits introduced by GM ranged from herbicide/pesticide tolerance to improved nutritional profile. Seven applications required additional information to support the safety assessment by the Subcommittee. Two applications needed further expertise not available in the Subcommittee to complete the assessment. Drafts of Committee Advice Documents (CADs) for the authorisation of seven of these applications were agreed by the Subcommittee prior to escalation to the full ACNFP Committee for review (Table 5).

The Defra (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs) Scientific Advisory Committee ACRE (Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment) assesses the environmental release section of applications for GMO authorisations which contribute to the final safety opinion in documents produced by FSA; links with Defra and ACRE are maintained through regular updates from ACRE/Defra in PGT meetings and some shared Membership across both committees.

Table 5. Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO) applications considered by the Subcommittee during 2025/2026 (Reserved Business).

Application	Reference Number	Meeting	Subcommittee’s Response
Genetically modified soy leghemoglobin MXY0541 for food uses  (New Authorisation)	RP735	January 2024,  March 2025, May 2025, July 2025, October 2025	- This application for new authorisation was considered for the first time in January 2024. - Additional information was requested by FSA/FSS on the advice of the Subcommittee to address data gaps. - Further expert advice was requested; this was provided by a toxicologist (to replace a conflicted member) and an expert in bioinformatics (to supply missing expertise) from the Register of Specialists (RoS). - The assessment is ongoing.
Genetically modified maize 3272 for food and feed uses (New Authorisation)	RP1274	January 2024,  March 2025	- This application for new authorisation was considered for the first time in January 2024. - Additional information was requested by the FSA/FSS on the advice of the Subcommittee to address data gaps. - The applicant claimed to be unable to address the raised concerns due to technical limitations and/or representativeness challenges. - The Subcommittee, in March 2025, considered it not possible to reach a conclusion about this assessment.
Genetically modified oilseed rape NS-B5ØØ27-4 for food and feed uses  (New Authorisation)	RP1745	May 2024,  July 2024,  December 2024, May 2025	- This application for new authorisation was considered for the first time in May 2024. - Further expert advice was requested; this was provided by an expert in fish veterinary sciences from the RoS. - Additional information was requested by the FSA/FSS on the advice of the Subcommittee to address data gaps. - The Subcommittee completed the assessment and the ACNFP agreed the output. The assessment is being finalised for publication.
Genetically modified B. Juncea RF3 for food and feed uses (New authorisation)	RP2178	March 2025, May 2025	- This application for new authorisation was considered for the first time in March 2025. - Additional information was requested by the FSA/FSS on the advice of the Subcommittee to address data gaps. - The Subcommittee completed the assessment and the ACNFP agreed the output. The assessment is being finalised for publication.
Genetically modified maize DP915635 for food and feed uses (New authorisation)	RP2242	May 2025	- This application for new authorisation was considered for the first time in May 2025. - Additional information was requested by the FSA/FSS on the advice of the Subcommittee to address data gaps. - The Subcommittee completed the assessment and the ACNFP agreed the output. The assessment is being finalised for publication.
Genetically modified soybean GMB151 x DAS-44406-6 for food and feed uses  (New authorisation)	RP2246	July 2025	- This application for new authorisation was considered for the first time in July 2025. - Additional information was requested by the FSA/FSS on the advice of the Subcommittee to address data gaps. - The Subcommittee completed the assessment and the ACNFP agreed the output. The assessment is being finalised for publication.
Genetically modified soybean COR23134 for food and feed uses (New Authorisation)	RP2310	October 2025, December 2025	- This application for new authorisation was considered for the first time in October 2025. - No data gaps were identified. - The Subcommittee completed the assessment and the ACNFP agreed the output. The assessment is being finalised for publication.
Genetically modified soybean MON9431 for food and feed uses (New Authorisation)	RP2261	December 2025	- This application for new authorisation was considered for the first time in December 2025. - No data gaps were identified. - The Subcommittee completed the assessment and the ACNFP agreed the output. The assessment is being finalised for publication.
Genetically modified maize Bt11 × MIR162 × MZIR098 × DP4114 × NK603 for food and feed uses (New Authorisation)	RP2288	December 2025	- This application for new authorisation was considered for the first time in December 2025. - No data gaps were identified. - The Subcommittee completed the assessment and the ACNFP agreed the output. The assessment is being finalised for publication.
Genetically modified soybean MON94637 for food and feed uses (New Authorisation)	RP2292	January 2026	- This application for new authorisation was considered for the first time in January 2026. - Additional information was requested by the FSA/FSS on the advice of the Subcommittee to address data gaps. - The assessment is ongoing.

The Subcommittee has worked with the Secretariat to improve the GM assessment process from suitability check through to the publication of CADs. This was done through several in-meeting discussions on: 

• the suitability of an FSA internal safety assessment based on Other Regulator Opinion (ORO) for four further GMO applications to ensure their safety (Table 6),
• the possible specific safety assessment requirements for RNAi-based genetically modified plants.

Table 6. Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO) applications considered by the Subcommittee during 2025/2026 for advice on suitable expertise needed for the assessment and alternative routes to safety assessment (Reserved Business).

Application	Reference Number	Meeting	Subcommittee’s Response
Genetically modified maize MON 95275 for food and feed uses  (New authorisation)	RP2150	May 2025	- This application for new authorisation has received a positive opinion from another Regulator (EFSA).   - No data gaps were identified.    - The Subcommittee confirmed there were no additional considerations beyond those reviewed by EFSA. This information was used to support internal review by the FSA/FSS.   - Internal assessment was completed, and the FSA/FSS Panel agreed the output. The assessment is being finalised for publication.
Genetically modified maize DP202216 for food and feed uses    (New authorisation)	RP2230	May 2025	- This application for new authorisation has received a positive opinion from another Regulator (EFSA).   - No data gaps were identified.    - The Subcommittee confirmed there were no additional considerations beyond those reviewed by EFSA. This information was used to support internal review by the FSA/FSS.  - Internal assessment was completed, and the FSA/FSS Panel agreed the output. The assessment is being finalised for publication.
Genetically modified maize MON 94804 for food and feed uses    (New authorisation)	RP2271	May 2025	- This application for new authorisation has received a positive opinion from another Regulator (EFSA).    - No data gaps were identified.    - The Subcommittee confirmed there were no additional considerations beyond those reviewed by EFSA. This information was used to support internal review by the FSA/FSS.  - Internal assessment was completed, and the FSA/FSS Panel agreed the output. The assessment is being finalised for publication.
Genetically modified sugar beet KWS20-1 for food and feed uses    (New authorisation)	RP2282	July 2025	- This application for new authorisation has received a positive opinion from another Regulator (EFSA).    - No data gaps were identified.    - The Subcommittee confirmed there were no additional considerations beyond those reviewed by EFSA. This information was used to support internal review by the FSA/FSS.  - Internal assessment was completed, and the FSA/FSS Panel agreed the output. The assessment is being finalised for publication.

Members, in their individual capacity as scientific experts and as part of the Subcommittee, have continued to support the FSA’s work on the Precision Breeding framework, under great time pressure, both before and after the secondary legislation associated with the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Regulations 2025 came into force.

Subcommittee Members were invited to opt in to support the revision by Science FSA of the draft PB Technical Guidance for Applicants - published on 27th February 2025, following user testing with stakeholders.  

• In anticipation of the launch of the new framework in November 2025, the subcommittee held a workshop in their meeting on 22nd October 2025. The discussion focussed on providing expert advice on the FSA’s internal verification and assessment processes for PBO authorisation for food and feed use. Members reviewed outcomes from user-testing exercises on the draft technical guidance and provided expert advice to ensure that recent clarifications improved usability while maintaining the original scientific requirements. Using case studies covering a range of potential PB crops and traits, the subcommittee confirmed that the updated guidance provides a clear and robust basis for assessing a wide range of PBO applications.

A series of workshops was held in the December 2025 and January 2026 subcommittee meetings to support the FSA’s readiness to receive the first PBO applications under the new framework. The subcommittee reviewed example PBO scenarios and offered advice on what the FSA should look for when checking applications, helping to refine and strengthen the new verification and assessment process.

b) Joint ACNFP and COT Subgroup on CBD, cannabinoids and hemp derived products

The subgroup held 1 virtual meeting in 2025 performing and finalising the review of all available safety data for >98% pure CBD via the creation of summary report of the first phase of the Subgroup’ work. As well as a review of the data collected by ANSES on reproductive and developmental toxicity of CBD.

The table below details the key issues considered at each meeting.

Table 7. Finalised reviews of pure form CBD (>98% purity) application data and group B CBD applications considered by the Subcommittee during 2025 (Reserved Business).

Month	Item Title	Paper reference number
September 2025	Introduction to the Review of data on reproductive toxicity for the Harmonised Classification and Labelling regulation of Cannabidiol (CBD) by ANSES.	CBD15/25

The subgroup concluded the first phase of the subgroups work after 14 meetings. A succinct summary of the reasoning process which led to the provisional ADI and how the subgroup’s thinking developed over the meetings was prepared. Furthermore, a graphical representation was prepared summarizing sub chronic data submitted to support applications for 98% and above CBD novel foods.

The subgroup concluded the following had been delivered:

• A position paper – establishing a science based provisional ADI for Group A CBD ingredients ≥98% pure at 10 mg CBD/day for a healthy 70 kg adult, which has formed the basis of updated FSA Consumer Advice in October 2023. Important caveats remain about data gaps for reproductive toxicity and immunotoxicity leading to advisory statements about the protection of children, pregnant women, those trying to conceive a baby and immunocompromised individuals.

• A position paper – deriving a safe upper limit of 1 µg/kg bw/day for the contaminant THC in CBD ingredients, based on the scientific evidence, which can be used in setting specifications and in novel foods safety assessment to ensure the safety of consumers from this illegal drug.

• Clarity that no general advice can be identified for CBD ingredients with less than 98% purity as the impact of the toxicology from other components present will need detailed consideration

• An FSA Evidence base to underpin the justification for the 98% of greater CBD provisional ADI, with a useful graphic to explain how the ADI protects against all potential health effects of CBD.

Outputs and statements from the subgroup were subject to review and agreement by both the COT and ACNFP before publication.

As the first piece of advice in phase 2, the group also completed review of new reproductive toxicity data on CBD identified by ANSES as part of the Harmonised Classification and Labelling regulation. ANSES proposed to classify CBD as a 1B substance, through all exposure routes including food, as having potential for reproductive toxicity. Available information on reproductive and developmental toxicity of CBD was collated by the French agency ANSES to support their review and proposal. This new EU report was presented in a meeting with the Subgroup (September 2025) and a statement was finalised with the ACNFP and COT intersessionally in October 2025. The statement was published on the ACNFP Website in December 2025.

The advice from the subgroup and ACNFP enabled the FSA to conclude that the studies identified in the ANSES proposal did not provide new evidence to support a need for any alteration to the applied uncertainty factors, and the findings from the new studies were consistent with the wider body of evidence considered in the statement of October 2023.

Following this, a joint ACNFP/COT statement paper was finalised and was published on the ACNFP Website in December 2025.

c) Products of the Cell Cultivated Products (CCP) Subcommittee

The Subgroup held one face to face and three virtual meetings, applying the learnings of the FSA CCP Sandbox to agree the key hazards that could be posed by the consumption of CCPs as novel foods, and the data that applicants should provide to demonstrate the effective mitigation of these hazards. To most effectively facilitate this work, each meeting focussed on a particular section of the Novel Food risk assessment framework, for which the expertise of the core Subgroup Members was supplemented with appropriate subject expertise from both the ACNFP and external experts.

Outputs from the Subgroup were subject to review and agreement by the ACNFP before publication by the FSA. The advice from the Subgroup and ACNFP supported the FSA in the production and publication of the first piece of supplemental technical guidance, focussing on allergenicity and nutritional assessment, in December 2025. In addition, significant progress has been made towards the completion of guidance addressing the identity, production process & microbiological hazards as well as on growth media & toxicology assessment, both of which are expected to be published by the FSA through 2026.

The table below details the key issues considered at each meeting.

Table 8. Papers considered by the CCP Subgroup.

Meeting	Topic	Reference
June’ 25	- Presentation on the learnings from the CCP Sandbox on current industry best practice for managing allergenicity and nutrition. - A discussion on where these measures are appropriate for managing consumer safety. - Review and development of draft technical guidance for applicants on allergenicity and nutrition.	ACNFP_CCP/1/02 ACNFP_CCP/1/03
August’ 25	- Presentation on the learnings from the CCP Sandbox on current industry best practice for managing the hazards arising from the CCP production process, and characterising the identity of the novel food. - A discussion on where these measures are appropriate for managing consumer safety.	ACNFP_CCP/02/03 ACNFP_CCP/02/04
October’ 25	- Presentation on the learnings from the CCP Sandbox on current industry best practice for growth media formulation, and the best practices of the industry for assessing the potential toxicological impact of these components on the health of consumers. - A discussion on where these measures are appropriate for managing consumer safety, informing future Sandbox workshop discussions.	ACNFP_CCP/03/03 ACNFP_CCP/03/05
January’ 26	- Presentation on the learnings from the CCP Sandbox on current industry best practice for managing the hazards arising from the CCP production process, microbiological hazards, and characterising the identity of the novel food. - A discussion on where these measures are appropriate for managing consumer safety. - Review and agreement of draft technical guidance content for applicants on identity, production and microbiology.	ACNFP-CCP/04/03 ACNFP-CCP/04/04

7. Annex 1 – Information about the Committee

ACNFP - remit, membership and Members’ interests.

Remit

The Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes is an independent body of experts. This means they are not employed by the government. Their remit is:

“To advise the central authorities responsible, in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland respectively on any matters relating to novel foods and novel food processes including food irradiation, having regard where appropriate to the views of relevant expert bodies”.

Officials of the Food Standards Agency provide the Secretariat. As well as formal meetings, the Committee periodically organises workshops on specific topics related to its remit.

Membership  of the Committee during 2025

The membership of the Committee provides a wide range of expertise in fields of relevance in the assessment of novel foods and processes.  A list of the membership during 2025, together with the names of the FSA assessors can be found below.

Chair

Dr Camilla Alexander-White BSc (Hons) DPhil CChem FRSC ERT (Toxicologist)
(Term as Chair began: July 2020)

Lead Policy Advisor in Chemical Policy, Royal Society of Chemistry.

Director MKTox & Co Ltd – independent chemical safety assessor.

Also Co-Chair of the CBD Subgroup.

Members

Dr Anton Alldrick BSc. Hons, PhD (Safety Management)

Currently a director of A & M Alldrick Ltd, providing consultancy services to the agri-food sector.

Mrs Alison Austin (Consumer Needs Representative)

Independent consultant Environmental, Social and Governance Strategy Development. Non-Executive Director of the Consumer Council for Water.

Also a member of the CBD and CCP Subcommittee.

Dr Mark Berry BA, PhD (Nutritionist)

Independent Consultant Founder & Director at Food and Life Sciences Consulting Ltd.

Professor Dimitris Charalampopoulos(Fermentation Specialist)

Professor of Food Biotechnology at the University of Reading. Co-Director of the BBSRC Biomass Biorefinery Network (BBNet) and Senior Editor of the journal Food Chemistry.

Dr Catharina Edwards (Nutrition Scientist)

Group leader at Quadram Institute Biosciences, within the Food, Microbiome and Health programme.

Professor Paul Fraser (Molecular Biologist)

Head of Plant Molecular Sciences, Royal Holloway University of London.

Also Member of PGT Subcommittee.

Professor Susan Fairweather-Tait BSc, MSc, PhD, DSc Hon FNS, DFASN (Nutritionist)

Emeritus Professor of Human Nutrition, Norwich Medical School, University of East Anglia.

Dr George Bassel (Plant Scientist)

Professor of Plant Science at The University of Warwick.

Also Member of PGT Subcommittee.

Professor Wendy Harwood (Crop Genetics)

Emeritus Fellow at the John Innes Centre, Norwich.

Also Member of PGT Subcommittee.

Professor Huw D Jones (Translational Genomics)

Chair in Translational Genomics for plant breeding, Aberystwyth University.

Also Member of PGT Subcommittee and Chair of CCP Subcommittee.

Dr Elizabeth Lund PhD (Nutritionist and Ethicist)

Independent consultant in Research Ethics and Nutritional Study Design.

Vice-Chair of West London Gene Therapy Advisory Committee and Research Ethics Committee.

Also Member of PGT Subcommittee.

Professor Clare Mills BSc, PhD (Plant Science and Allergy Expert)

Professor of Molecular Allergology, at the Manchester Institute of Biotechnology, and Division of Infection, Immunity and Respiratory Medicine, School of Biological Sciences , University of Manchester and School of Biosciences, University of Surrey, Guildford.

Also Member PGT Subcommittee.

Professor Hans Verhagen PhD (Toxicologist and Nutritionist)

Independent consultant in Food Safety and Nutrition, Board-Certified Toxicologist and Nutritionist. Visiting Professor at the University of Ulster and adjunct professor at the Technical University of Denmark.

Also Member of PGT Subcommittee and CCP Subcommittee.

Dr Maureen Wakefield FERA Science Ltd. (Entomologist)

Principal Scientist at Fera Science Ltd.

Dr Ray Kemp (Consumer Representative)

Dr Kemp is an independent consultant and social scientist specialising in risk perception and communication. He is currently a member of various advisory committees including the UK Department of Health and Social Care’s Committee On the Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment (COMARE).

Also Member of PGT Subcommittee.

Dr Andy Greenfield (Genetics; Animals; Bioethics)

Member of the Regulatory Horizons Council (RHC), the Human Tissue Authority (HTA) and an honorary research fellow at the Nuffield Department of Women’s & Reproductive Health, University of Oxford.

Also Chair of PGT Subcommittee.

Professor Bruce Whitelaw (Genetics; Animals)

He holds the Chair of Animal Biotechnology at the University of Edinburgh and is the Director of The Roslin Institute. He currently focusses on genome editing technology and animal stem cells, aiming to advance novel applications for the agricultural and biomedical communities.

Also Member of PGT Subcommittee.

Dr Lynn McIntyre (Microbiology)

Principal Lecturer at Harper Adams University and Interim Director of Harper Food Innovation. Her research and teaching specialisms include: food safety in poultry, red meat, dairy and produce production; food preservation methods including bacteriophages; evaluating the shelf-life of foods through durability and challenge testing; and rapid detection methods for hygiene and food safety.

Professor Sophie Foley (Microbiology)

Professor Foley is employed by Edinburgh Napier University and is a member of the Microbiology Society and Applied Microbiology International.

Dr Isabel Skypala (Dietetics)

Dr Skypala is employed by the Heart, Lung and Critical Care group of Guys & St Thomas NHS Foundation Trust. She holds the Chair of the Standards of Care Committee (British Society of Allergy & Clinical Immunology) as well as the Chair of the Food Allergy Interest Group (European Academy of Allergy & Clinical Immunology).

Dr Meera Cush (Toxicologist)

Principal Consultant at Ramboll

Dr Cush is a Member of Food and Drink Federation.

Dr Cush is a Member of COT, COC, and RISEP.

Professor Gunter Kuhnle (Analytical chemistry)

Professor at the University of Reading.

Professor Paul Haggarty (Nutrition and toxicology)

Committee member of the UK Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition (SACN) and its working groups, as well as the UK Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment (COT).

Also Member of PGT Subcommittee.

Professor Alastair Macrae (Veterinary Surgeon)

Professor at the University of Edinburgh.

Also Member of PGT Subcommittee.

Co-opted Members of the PGT Subcommittee

Professor Pete Lund (ex officio member, ACRE representative).

Co-opted Members of the CBD Subcommittee

Chair of the Committee on Toxicity (since April 2025).

Rev. Professor Lesley Stanley PhD ERT FBTS (Toxicologist) Visiting Professor of Toxicology at Edinburgh Napier University.

Co-opted Members of the CCP Subcommittee

Professor Ramiro Alberio (Developmental Biology).

FSA Assessor

Arvind Thandi – Head of Novel Foods Policy

Deirdre McCarthy – Head of Genetic Technology Policy

Melanie Harries – Head of Cell-Cultivated Products Policy

Observers from the Devolved Administrations

Ms Shazya Aslam - Policy, FSA Wales

Ms Kaila Lee - Policy, FSA Wales

Mr Peter Madden - Policy, FSA Wales  

Ms Krystle Boss - Food Standards Scotland

Dr Aileen Livingstone - Food Standards Scotland

Mr Jeremy Mills - Policy, FSA Wales

Miss Katy Williams - Policy, FSA Wales

Mr Xosé Álvarez - Policy, FSA Wales  

Dr Karen Pearson - Food Standards Scotland

Mr Lorcan Browne - Food Standards Scotland

Ms Siobhan Watt - Food Standards Scotland

Mr Niall Grieve - Policy, FSA, Northern Ireland

Ms Rachel Gilbert - Policy, FSA, Northern Ireland

Colleen Sandison - Food Standards Scotland

Carlos Pestana - Food Standards Scotland

ACNFP Members’ Interests during 2025/26

In common with other independent advisory committees the ACNFP is publishing a list of its members’ commercial interests.  These are managed in line with Agency guidelines on handling of conflicts of interest revised in 2019. These have been divided into different categories relating to the type of interest:

Personal:             a) direct employment or consultancy.

                                 b) occasional commissions.

                                 c) share holdings.

Non-personal:   a) fellowships.

                                 b) support which does not benefit the member directly e.g.  studentships.

Details of the interests held by members during 2025 can be found on the ACNFP website.

Code of Practice

For details of the ACNFPs code of practice please see the ACNFP website.

FSA Good Practice Guidelines for The Independent Scientific Advisory Committees (Revised and updated July 2012)

Good practice guidelines for the independent Scientific Advisory Committees.

Introduction

The Government Chief Scientific Adviser’s Guidelines on the Use of Scientific and Engineering Advice in Policy Making set out the basic principles which government departments should follow in assembling and using scientific advice. The key elements are to:

• identify early the issues which need scientific and engineering advice and where public engagement is appropriate.
• draw on a wide range of expert advice sources, particularly where there is uncertainty.
• adopt an open and transparent approach to the scientific advisory process and publish the evidence and analysis as soon as possible.
• explain publicly the reasons for policy decisions, particularly when the decision appears to be inconsistent with scientific advice; and
• work collectively to ensure a joined-up approach throughout government to integrating scientific and engineering evidence and advice into policy making.

The Code of Practice for Scientific Advisory Committees and the Principles of Scientific Advice to Government provide more detailed guidance on the operation of scientific advisory committees (SACS) and their relationship with their sponsor Departments.

The Food Standards Agency’s Board adopted a Science Checklist in 2006 (updated in 2012) that makes explicit the points to be considered in the preparation of papers and proposals dealing with science-based issues, including those which draw on advice from the Scientific Advisory Committees (SACS).

These Good Practice Guidelines were drawn up in 2006 by the Chairs of the independent SACs that advise the FSA based on, and complementing, the Science Checklist. They were updated in 2012 in consultation with the General Advisory Committee on Science (GACS) (since replaced by the Science Council (SC)).

The Guidelines apply to the SACs that advise the FSA and for which the FSA is sole or lead sponsor Department:

Advisory Committee on Animal Feeding stuffs

Advisory Committee on Microbiological Safety of Foods

Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes

Committee on Carcinogenicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment 

Committee on Mutagenicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment

Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment

Science Council

Advisory Committee for Social Science

For the SACs with a shared sponsorship the Guidelines apply formally to their advice to the

FSA: they may opt to follow them also in advising other sponsor Departments.

These committees share important characteristics. They:

• are independent.
• work in an open and transparent way; and
• are concerned with risk assessment and/or science governance, not with decisions about risk management.

The Guidelines relate primarily to the risk assessment process since this is the main purpose of most of the SACs.  However, the SACs may, where appropriate, comment on risks associated with different risk management options, highlight any wider issues raised by their assessment that they feel should be considered (distinguishing clearly between issues on which the SAC has an expert capability and remit, and any other issues), or any evidence gaps and/or needs for research or analysis. In addition, the SC and SSRC may advise the FSA on aspects of the governance of risk management, or on research that relates to risk management.

Twenty-nine principles of good practice have been developed. However, the different committees have different duties and discharge those duties in different ways. Therefore, not all the principles set out below will be applicable to all the committees, all of the time. The SACs have agreed to review their application of the principles annually and report this in their Annual Reports. Compliance with the Guidelines will also be covered in the annual self-assessments by Members and annual feedback meetings between each SAC Chair and the FSA Chief Scientist.

ACNFP self-assessment against the Good Practice Guidelines

Issue	Compliance?	Notes/Comments
Defining the problem and the approach
1. The FSA will ensure that issues it asks a SAC to address are clearly defined and take account of stakeholder expectations in discussion with the SAC Secretariat and where necessary the SAC Chair. The SAC Chair will refer to the FSA if discussion suggests that further iteration and discussion of the task is necessary.  Where a SAC proposes to initiate a piece of work the SAC Chair and Secretariat will discuss this with FSA to ensure the definition and rationale for the work and its expected use by the FSA are clear.	Yes	ACNFP does this on a routine basis
Seeking input
2. The Secretariat will ensure that stakeholders are consulted at appropriate points in the SAC’s considerations.  It will consider with the FSA whether and how stakeholder views need to be taken into account in helping to identify the issue and frame the question for the committee.	Yes	A role of the ACNFP in 2025 was to assess novel food and GM applications which due to commercial sensitivities the Committee cannot discuss the documents in public. However, we invite internal FSA and FSS stakeholders to view the meetings. Applicants and external stakeholders can view minutes and papers that outline the nature of the discussions. For traditional foods from third countries summaries of novel food notifications are produced by the Secretariat and cleared by the Committee which then go through a 10-day public consultation process.
3. Wherever possible, SAC discussions should be held in public	Yes	The Committee have indicated a wish to hold a public meeting, and this is being explored as part of their wider work programme. In 2024 we held an open session on the CCP areas to support transparency in considering risks for this new and evolving area.
4. The scope of literature searches made on behalf of the SAC will be clearly set out.	Yes
5. Steps will be taken to ensure that all available and relevant scientific evidence is rigorously considered by the Committee, including consulting external/additional scientific experts who may know of relevant unpublished or pre-publication data.	Yes	The Committee, with the assistance of the Secretariat also seeks further information and advice from other Committees or individual experts where required.
6. Data from stakeholders will be considered and weighted according to quality by the SAC.	Yes	Assessing the quality and relevance of data is a core function of the Committee’s work.
7. Consideration by the Secretariat and the Chair (and where appropriate the whole SAC) will be given to whether expertise in other disciplines will be needed.	Yes	Members are regularly asked whether further expertise is needed to support the discussion of particular topics.
8. Consideration will be given by the Secretariat or by the SAC, in discussion with the FSA, as to whether other SACs need to be consulted.	Yes	The Committee, with the assistance of the Secretariat also seeks further information and advice from other Committees or individual experts where required.
Validation
9. Study design, methods of measurement and the way that analysis of data has been carried out will be assessed by the SAC	Yes	For complex statistical questions the Secretariat can consult with specialists within the FSA. We consult experts in analytical methodology were this is needed, and the expertise does not reside in the Committee membership. The FSA’s exposure team are consulted where the assessments of exposure are complex or where reassurance is needed on the applicability of EU data for Uk consumers.
10. Data will be assessed by the Committee in accordance with the relevant principles of good practice, e.g., qualitative social science data will be assessed with reference to guidance from the Government’s Chief Social Researcher.	Yes – Where relevant
11. Formal statistical analyses will be included wherever appropriate. To support this, each SAC will have access to advice on quantitative analysis and modelling as needed	Yes	Evaluations of novel foods are mainly based on evidence provided by the applicant, including unpublished studies and commercially sensitive information. As such it is unlikely that there is sufficient data to apply quantitative methodologies. These are considered and applied where appropriate.
12. When considering what evidence needs to be collected for assessment, the following points will be considered: - the potential for the need for different data for different parts of the UK or the relevance to the UK situation for any data originating outside the UK; and - whether stakeholders can provide unpublished data.	Yes	Novel food and GM dossiers are prepared in line with EFSA guidance inherited at the time of the UK’s departure from the EU. This sets out clear data requirements and involves published and unpublished data. Consideration is given to whether there are specific areas for review of interest to different parts of the UK.
13. The list of references will make it clear which references have been subject to external peer review, and which have been peer reviewed through evaluation by the Committee, and if relevant, any that have not been peer reviewed.	Yes	The outputs of the review of dossiers includes references so that the sources of data used in the assessment are communicated. The text will comment on whether the data was a peer reviewed publication or unpublished data.
Uncertainty
14. When reporting outcomes, SACS will make explicit the level and type of uncertainty (both limitations on the quality of the available data and lack of knowledge) associated with their advice.	Yes	ACNFP complies with items 14 to 17 – outcomes are critically evaluated, and uncertainties are identified and communicated.
15. Any assumptions made by the SAC will be clearly spelled out, and, in reviews, previous assumptions will be challenged.	Yes
16. Data gaps will be identified and their impact on uncertainty assessed by the SAC.	Yes
17. An indication will be given by the SAC about whether the evidence base is changing or static, and if appropriate, how developments in the evidence base might affect key assumptions and conclusions.	Yes
Drawing conclusions
18. The SAC will be broad-minded, acknowledging where conflicting views exist and considering whether alternative interpretations fit the same evidence.	Yes
19. Where both risks and benefits have been considered, the committee will address each with the same rigour, as far as possible; it will make clear the degree of rigour and uncertainty, and any important constraints, in reporting its conclusions.	N/A	The Committee’s assessment focuses on safety and performs risk assessments which under the assimilated regulation 178/2002 EC does not allow for consideration of benefits.
Within the scope of the ACNFP’s work is providing technical advice on nutritional disadvantage. Assessment of this area is reported in line with lines 14-17 of this statement.
20. SAC decisions will include an explanation of where differences of opinion have arisen during discussions, specifically where there are unresolved issues, and why conclusions have been reached.  If it is not possible to reach a consensus, a minority report may be appended to the main report, setting out the differences in interpretation and conclusions, and the reasons for these, and the names of those supporting the minority report.	Yes	The final opinions are adopted by consensus, identifying the key issues and generally explaining the reasoning behind the Committee’s conclusions. Where there are a range of views these are outlined.
21. The SAC’s interpretation of results recommended actions or advice will be consistent with the quantitative and/or qualitative evidence and the degree of uncertainty associated with it.	Yes
22. SACs will make recommendations about general issues that may have relevance for other committees.	Yes
Communicating SAC’s conclusions
23. Conclusions will be expressed by the SAC in clear, simple terms and use the minimum caveats consistent with accuracy.	Yes	The Committee uses a plain English approach to its outputs. Regular review of the clarity of the outputs is made to ensure these are of an appropriate quality and suitable for the audience.
24. It will be made clear by the SAC where assessments have been based on the work of other bodies and where the SAC has started afresh, and there will be a clear statement of how the current conclusions compare with previous assessments.	Yes
25. The conclusions will be supported by a statement about their robustness and the extent to which judgement has had to be used.	Yes
26. As standard practice, the SAC secretariat will publish a full set of references (including the data used as the basis for risk assessment and other SAC opinions) at as early a stage as possible to support openness and transparency of decision-making.  Where this is not possible, reasons will be clearly set out, explained and a commitment made to future publication wherever possible.	Yes
27. The amount of material withheld by the SAC or FSA as being confidential will be kept to a minimum.  Where it is not possible to release material, the reasons will be clearly set out, explained and a commitment made to future publication wherever possible.	Yes	The committee assesses dossiers for GM and novel foods. The legislative framework in which these assessments are done states what information can remain confidential and is outside the Committee’s control.
28. Where proposals or papers being considered by the FSA Board rest on scientific evidence produced by a SAC, the Chair of the SAC (or a nominated expert member) will be invited to the table at the Open Board meetings at which the paper is discussed.  To maintain appropriate separation of risk assessment and risk management processes, the role of the Chairs will be limited to providing an independent view and assurance on how their committee’s advice has been reflected in the relevant policy proposals, and to answer Board Members’ questions on the science.  The Chairs may also, where appropriate, be invited to provide factual briefing to Board members about issues within their committees’ remits, in advance of discussion at open Board meetings.	N/A
29. The SAC will seek (and FSA will provide) timely feedback on actions taken (or not taken) in response to the SAC’s advice, and the rationale for these.	Yes	Regular policy updates on how Committee advice has been used is received at each meeting.

Financial Statement

ACNFP is an independent SAC but does not have resources of its own. The operation of the Committee is funded by the FSA. In the period of this report, costs for this support (covering Members expenses and fees and administrative cost for the meetings) were £129,561. Some of these costs were met with support from the FSA’s Food Innovation Research Programme and Cell Cultivated Sandbox.