Transparency data

Minutes of the Food Standards Agency board meeting: 17 June 2026

Published 3 September 2026

Applies to England, Northern Ireland and Wales

This board meeting was held at the Crowne Plaza, Newcastle-upon-Tyne

Present:

• Susan Jebb (Chair)
• Frank Atherton; Alison Austin
• Clare Evans
• Fiona Gately
• Anthony Harbinson
• Rhian Hayward (online)
• Louise Hoste
• Timothy Riley
• Steve Ruddy
• Sue Paterson

Officials attending:

Katie Pettifer	Chief Executive
Emily Antcliffe	Director of Strategy, Trade and Food System Policy
Andy Cole	Director for Northern Ireland (For FSA 26/06/09)
James Cooper	Deputy Director of Food Policy (For FSA 26/06/05)
Claire Forbes	Director of Communications
Ian Gibson	Director of Corporate Resources
David Holmes	Deputy Director of Strategy (For FSA 26/06/04)
Junior Johnson	Director of Operations
Rick Mumford	Head of Science Evidence and Research (For FSA 26/06/06)
Julie Pierce	Director of Information and Science
James Robinson	General Counsel
Rebecca Sudworth	Director of Policy
Darren Whitby	Head of Incidents and Resilience (For FSA 26/06/07)

1 Introduction and declarations of interest

1.1 The Chair opened the meeting and welcomed Members to Newcastle‑upon‑Tyne.  She noted there were no apologies, but that Rhian Hayward was joining the meeting online.  She formally welcomed Emily Antcliffe to her first board meeting since being appointed as Director of Strategy, Trade and Food System Policy.  The Chair also congratulated the Chef Scientific Adviser (CSA) Professor Ian Young on the award of his recent honour, noting his long-standing contribution to food safety science, public health protection and the effective integration of scientific advice into regulatory decision-making.  She noted she would be required to step out of the meeting for a short period during the morning session in order to attend a ministerial discussion relating to the UK–EU Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) Agreement.  Timothy Riley would assume chairing responsibilities during her absence.

1.2 The Chair drew attention to the written public questions that had been submitted in advance of the meeting, noting the volume and focus of questions reflected continued high levels of public and stakeholder interest in several areas of the Agency’s work.  A full written response would be provided to each question.

1.3 Declarations of interest were invited.  Timothy Riley highlighted his standing declaration of interest in respect of his membership of the National Farmers’ Union, which could be relevant to discussion under items relating to industry engagement and animal welfare.  The Chair confirmed her standing declaration relating to a family farming interest.  No additional declarations were made.

2 Minutes of March board meeting (FSA 26/06/01)

2.1 Members confirmed that the minutes were an accurate and complete reflection of the discussion and agreed them without amendment.

3 Actions arising (FSA 26/06/02)

3.1 The Chair noted that the majority of actions had been completed within agreed timeframes. In relation to the Future of Food Regulation Programme, Members were advised that progress had continued, with further analytical work having been undertaken to refine potential policy approaches.  

The board would receive a further substantive update later in the year.

3.2 Work on the action relating to CBD products had progressed but continued to require careful consideration of scientific, legal and operational factors.

3.3 The decision, taken jointly with Food Standards Scotland (FSS), to pause publication of the ‘Our Food’ report meant that the action relating to this could now be closed.

4 Chair’s report (oral eport)

4.1 The Chair noted the board had not undertaken their usual round of stakeholder visits ahead of this board meeting but had held a useful joint session with FSS including sessions focussing on SPS. 

4.2 The pace and intensity of engagement over the last period in relation to SPS had increased across Government including ongoing discussions with Defra, the Cabinet Office and No.10, as well as engagement with devolved administrations. She emphasised that SPS negotiations were inherently complex, involving not only technical regulatory considerations but also wider political and economic factors. 

The FSA’s primary contribution was providing independent, evidence-based advice on matters of food safety and public health. It would be essential this perspective continued to be clearly articulated and understood in Government discussions.

4.3 The Chair welcomed the election of the new Welsh Government and the appointment of Nerys Evans as Deputy Minister for Public and Preventative Health in Wales. She updated board Members on recent ministerial changes in Westminster. James Murray had been appointed as Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, and Preet Gill as Minister for Safety and Health Innovation following a Cabinet reshuffle.  

Minister Eagle had also now moved to the Home Office and been replaced by Stephen Morgan as the new Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs.  Early proactive engagement with new Ministers would be important to ensure clarity of roles, responsibilities and expectations.

4.4 From her published list of external engagements, the Chair highlighted her attendance at the Balmoral show and meetings with Ministers in Northern Ireland as well as a parliamentary reception in London marking World Food Safety Day, noting this had provided an opportunity to engage with a broad range of stakeholders, including parliamentarians, industry representatives and consumer groups.

4.5 The Chair also reported on international engagement, including a visit to Berlin with German government, industry, academia, political parties and novel foods companies.  These discussions had highlighted shared challenges and opportunities, particularly in relation to SPS and there had been a positive approach from German counterparts.

4.6 The Chair noted work with DHSC developing proposals for mandatory healthier food sales reporting and targets (HFRT) and a meeting with Olivia Bailey, Minister for Education to discuss the proposed new School Food Standards on which DfE had been consulting.

4.7 She also noted a visit to the Quadram Institute with the CSA and Rick Mumford noting that the board would be meeting nearby in Norwich in December, and she hoped it would be possible to visit the Norwich Research Park again given there were several food related research centres based there.

5 Chief Executive’s report to the board (FSA 26/06/03)

5.1 The Chief Executive (CE), Katie Pettifer, introduced her report, highlighting key activity since the previous meeting. Treasury funding for SPS-related work had been confirmed for the current year, supporting delivery and stakeholder engagement. 

She noted continued engagement with industry, from which two messages were coming through strongly: the need for clarity on post-SPS arrangements as quickly as possible; and a strong call for action to support early implementation, such as early access to products authorised by the EU. 

Consideration was being given to how the FSA could meet both those asks from the industry.  She also referenced discussions with Government on growth priorities, confirming alignment with the FSA’s existing objectives, and highlighted wider risks to the food system, including geopolitical pressures and supply chain disruption. The CE also reflected on recent international engagement, including her visit to New Zealand.

5.2 The board welcomed confirmation of SPS funding for the current year but queried the position for future years, noting potential risks to capability if longer-term resourcing remained uncertain.  

It was advised that discussions with HM Treasury were ongoing and that future requirements would depend on SPS outcomes, with different implementation scenarios carrying materially different implications. The board emphasised the importance of forward-looking and flexible capability planning.

5.3 The board raised feedback from industry, noting consistent calls for early clarity and guidance, and asked whether progress had been made in supporting preparedness.  

Officials advised that engagement had been extensive and valued by stakeholders, particularly in relation to product approvals, labelling and regulatory alignment, though constraints remained while negotiations continued.  

The board emphasised the need for targeted support for SMEs, given their greater exposure to uncertainty.

5.4 The board discussed the relationship between the FSA’s regulatory responsibilities and the Government’s growth agenda, agreeing that effective regulation underpinned consumer and business confidence and growth.  

Board members asked whether this point was sufficiently recognised by Government in discussions about growth goals. It was confirmed that the FSA had consistently been clear that public health and consumer protection remained paramount, and that delivering those overriding objectives well would support economic growth.  It was acknowledged by Government – including in last year’s Regulation for Growth Action Plan – that good, proportionate regulation was important in underpinning economic growth.  

The CE reiterated that the growth goals aligned with existing FSA objectives because thinking about how to support economic growth was already built into the decisions made by the FSA board.

5.5 On system risks, the board discussed the management of geopolitical and supply chain pressures and their potential to increase disruption, including the availability of CO2 in abattoirs which was critical for the stunning of pigs and poultry.  

Officials advised that risks were monitored through established intelligence functions, supported by cross-government coordination.  

On CO2, it was explained that there had been monitoring of stock levels for some time and the Government had also commissioned the opening of another plant to provide CO2 in line with scenario planning.  

The board welcomed work to strengthen intelligence capability, including more integrated data approaches, and emphasised the importance of embedding resilience across policy and operations.

5.6 The board discussed the communications evaluation of the recent infant milk formula incident. In their discussion, the board referenced a recent external report on the incident, with recommendations for the FSA including on communications. Claire Forbes said that while the FSA’s own research showed that over 90% of parents and carers of children under 2 were aware of the incident, the report’s recommendations would help inform future incident handling.

6 FSA Strategy: annual udate on progress indicators (FSA 26/06/04)

6.1 The Chair invited Emily Antcliffe to introduce this annual update on progress against the FSA’s strategic indicators.  

Emily reported that the overall system performance remained strong, with high levels of public trust and compliance across the regulated sector.  

A number of emerging risks required closer attention, particularly in relation to business confidence, foodborne illness trends and wider system pressures.

6.2 The board welcomed the overall position but discussed declining confidence among small and micro businesses.  

The importance of this group to the effective functioning of the system was noted and the board queried the underlying causes of the trend. Officials advised that initial analysis pointed to a combination of factors, including perceived complexity of regulatory requirements, wider economic pressures and variability in local delivery.  

The board emphasised the need for a more granular understanding, including differences across sectors and geographies, and the potential implications for compliance and engagement.  The Chair suggested that the team provide detailed considerations on how to respond to indicators around trust among small and micro businesses.

Action 1: Emily Antcliffe to provide a written briefing for board members on how to respond to indicators around trust among small and micro businesses.

6.3 The board considered trends in foodborne illness and incidents, noting reported increases in certain indicators. Members questioned the extent to which this reflected changes in underlying risk versus improved detection and reporting. 

 In particular, Members asked about the drivers of foodborne pathogens and whether there were identifiable changes in patterns of exposure or behaviour. 

Officials advised that interpretation remained complex, including the impact of improved diagnostic methods, and that further analytical work was underway to better understand causation.  The board agreed that continued focus on this area was important.

6.4 The board raised questions about the FSA’s nutrition-related responsibilities in Northern Ireland.  

Members sought clarification on how the FSA’s remit aligned with wider UK Government policy.  Officials explained the position, noting the distinctions in responsibilities and the need for continued coordination across administrations. 

The board noted the complexity and emphasised the importance of clear communication, both internally and externally, to avoid confusion.

6.5 In relation to healthier and more sustainable diets, Members noted the increasing prominence of sustainability, and wider applicability of that term beyond environmental issues, within the wider food system and queried how far the FSA should seek to integrate these considerations into its strategy.  

There was discussion of the balance between maintaining focus on the FSA’s statutory remit and responding to evolving public and stakeholder expectations. 

 The Chair suggested that some time be reserved for further discussion of this topic at the board’s October retreat.  Members highlighted that issues such as food security, resilience and environmental sustainability were increasingly interconnected and could not be considered in isolation.

Action 3: Sustainability element of strategy to be scheduled for discussion at board’s October 2026 retreat.

6.6 Officials advised that while sustainability was not a primary statutory responsibility, the FSA had an important role in ensuring that food safety considerations were appropriately reflected within broader policy discussions.  The board agreed that the next iteration of the strategy should give more explicit consideration to these themes, while maintaining clarity on the FSA’s core functions.

6.7 Looking ahead, the board discussed how emerging risks and changing expectations should inform future strategic development.  

Members emphasised the importance of ensuring that the strategy remained focused, evidence-based and adaptable. 

There was agreement that further work was required to assess how priorities such as SME engagement, resilience, sustainability and improved data capability should be balanced within the overall framework.  The Chair thanked Emily for introducing the paper.

7 The risky foods framework – options for the future (FSA 26/06/05)

7.1 The Chair welcomed James Cooper to the meeting and handed the Chairing of this item over to Timothy Riley.   

James presented a review of the Risky Foods Framework, outlining its purpose as a tool to support decision-making in cases where food products present residual risk even when compliant with existing regulatory requirements.

7.2 Members noted that the framework had been developed to enable transparent, structured consideration of risks in situations where standard regulatory controls were not sufficient to fully mitigate potential harm.  

The framework allowed for explicit discussion of risk appetite, uncertainty and trade-offs between consumer choice and protection.

7.3 The board agreed that the framework remained a valuable component of the Agency’s regulatory toolkit.  

Members emphasised that it provided a mechanism to bring complex and potentially contentious decisions to the board in a structured way, ensuring appropriate scrutiny and accountability.

7.4 Discussion focused on the frequency with which the framework had been applied. Members queried whether it had been used proactively enough, or whether some cases that might have benefited from board-level consideration had instead been managed through standard processes.  

Officials explained that the framework had been applied in a number of cases but acknowledged that there was scope to consider broader application, particularly as the food landscape evolved.

Action 3: Officials to review the current pipeline of emerging food risks and identify cases where application of the Risky Foods Framework would be appropriate.

7.5 The board discussed emerging trends in food production and consumption, including increased interest in novel foods, functional foods and products with less established safety profiles.  

There was a view that these trends could lead to a greater number of cases where residual risk might be present.

7.6 Board members also explored the role of the framework in supporting transparency. It was noted that public confidence could be strengthened where decisions involving risk were made explicitly and accompanied by clear explanation.  

The framework therefore had value not only as a decision-making tool but also as a mechanism for communication.

7.7 The board considered how risk appetite was articulated within the framework. The importance of ensuring that such discussions were grounded in evidence and consistent with the Agency’s overall risk management principles was emphasised.

7.8 Post‑implementation monitoring was identified as an area for further development. Members expressed interest in understanding what happened following decisions made under the framework such as whether mitigation measures were effective, and whether any unintended consequences emerged.  

Officials acknowledged that while monitoring did take place, it could be strengthened and made more systematic.  The board suggested that periodic review of cases would provide valuable learning and help refine future application of the framework.

7.9 The board also discussed consistency across jurisdictions. Given the potential for divergence in regulatory approaches, particularly in the context of SPS arrangements, the importance of understanding how similar risks were being managed in different contexts was emphasised.

7.10 The board agreed that the framework should continue to be used and that there was merit in considering its application more proactively in appropriate cases.

8 Annual Chief Scientific Adviser’s report (FSA 26/06/06)

8.1 The CSA introduced his first annual science report, providing an overview of the Agency’s scientific work and priorities.  Board members welcomed the report and commended the breadth and quality of the Agency’s scientific capability. There was recognition that strong science underpinned the Agency’s credibility and effectiveness.

8.2 Discussion focused initially on the FSA’s position within the wider government science landscape. 

 Members expressed concern that the FSA was not currently represented within the central cross-government Chief Scientific Adviser (CSA) network. Board members noted that participation in this network provided important opportunities for collaboration, influence and access to shared expertise.  

There was a view that the FSA’s absence could limit its visibility and impact, particularly in cross-cutting areas such as public health and risk assessment. It was suggested that re-engagement with the CSA network should be pursued including through escalation via the CE and Chair.

Action 4: LCSA and Chief Executive to pursue opportunities for re-engagement with the cross-government Chief Scientific Adviser network.

8.3 The board asked about trends in foodborne disease.  The CSA advised that interpretation of recent data was complicated by changes in diagnostic methods, which had improved detection rates.  While this represented a positive development in terms of surveillance, it made trend analysis more challenging. Improving data integration, including linking health data with food system data where appropriate, was raised as a mitigation.  This would support more robust analysis and better understanding of underlying drivers.

8.4 The board asked about public analyst laboratory capacity, noting its importance to the effective functioning of the food regulatory system. Board members queried whether existing capacity remained sufficient to meet current and future demand, particularly in the context of increasing incident complexity and potential changes arising from SPS arrangements. The CSA advised that capacity pressures were recognised across parts of the system and were being kept under review. 

Officials noted that work was ongoing to better understand capability across the network, including resilience, skills and infrastructure requirements, and to identify where further strengthening may be required. The board emphasised the importance of maintaining sufficient capability to support enforcement and surveillance activity and requested continued visibility of this issue.

8.5 On ultra‑processed foods (UPFs), the board noted the high level of public and political attention, as well as the growing body of scientific literature.

 The CSA advised that while there was emerging evidence suggesting an association between high consumption of UPFs and adverse health outcomes, the evidence base remained complex and there was no single agreed definition or causal pathway.  The board emphasised the importance of maintaining a balanced and evidence-based approach.  While recognising public concern, board members agreed that policy responses should be grounded in robust science and should avoid oversimplification.  It was also noted that while the FSA was not the lead body for nutrition policy in England, it had an important role in contributing scientific evidence and ensuring the safety of foods on the market as well as understanding that complex issues needed to be communicated clearly to the public to support understanding and maintain trust.

8.6 The board asked about work and role of the Science Council, querying how effectively it was supporting the FSA’s scientific governance and whether its current remit remained appropriate in light of evolving demands. The CSA advised that the Science Council continued to provide valuable independent input, including scrutiny of scientific priorities and methodological approaches.  

Officials noted that there may be opportunities to further maximise its contribution, including through alignment with emerging strategic priorities such as data, innovation and cross-government collaboration.  

The Bboard welcomed the assurance provided and encouraged ongoing review to ensure the Council remained well-positioned to support the FSA’s future needs.

8.7 The board considered opportunities to strengthen collaboration with external partners, including academia, research councils and international bodies.  Members agreed that such collaboration could enhance the FSA’s evidence base and support innovation.  

Members noted that access to industry data and health data could significantly improve analytical capability. However, this would require appropriate governance arrangements and safeguards.

8.8 Timothy Riley thanked the CSA for the paper and noted the board’s support for the recommendations.

9 Incidents and resilience annual report 2025/26 (FSA 26/06/07)

9.1 Susan Jebb resumed as Chair of the meeting and welcomed Darren Whitby and James Cooper to the meeting and invited them to introduce the Annual Report on Incidents and Resilience for 2025/26. Darren gave a summary of issues covered in the paper, outlining key trends, capability developments and areas of emerging risk across the reporting period.

9.2 The board noted the volume and complexity of incidents had increased compared with previous years.  Darren advised that this reflected a combination of factors, including greater globalisation of supply chains, increased product complexity, and improved detection and reporting mechanisms.  

Members agreed that while improved detection was positive, it also made interpretation of trends more complex and required careful analysis.

9.3 The board welcomed the continued development of operational capability, including progress in implementing the PRISM system and improvements in incident categorisation and data quality.  

They sought further clarity on how these improvements were translating into operational outcomes.  Darren noted that while response times and coordination had improved, there remained variability depending on incident type and complexity and it was noted that consistency in response was important in maintaining public confidence.

9.4 The discussion then focused on the strategic shift towards prevention and resilience. Officials explained that work was underway to develop a more intelligence-led approach, including investment in data analytics and the development of a Risk and Intelligence Hub. The Chair suggested a detailed update for board members about the Hub, once it had been set up would be welcome. 

The CE suggested that this could be done at the board’s October retreat as part of an ‘FSA Ready’ board retreat session.

Action 5: Darren Whitby to provide an update on the development of the Risk and Intelligence Hub, including scope, capability and delivery timelines at the board’s October retreat as part of an ‘FSA Ready’ board retreat session.

9.5 Members strongly supported this direction of travel. Several Members emphasised that, while effective incident response remained critical, the greatest value lay in preventing incidents from occurring in the first place.  

There was agreement that this required better use of data, stronger intelligence sharing, and closer partnership working across the system.

9.6 The board asked about potential improvements in intelligence gathering and use. Officials highlighted the importance of integrating data from multiple sources, including industry reporting, local authority intelligence, and international alerts.  

However, it was acknowledged that data sharing barriers, including legal and technical constraints, remained a challenge.

9.7 The board discussed the role of local authorities in the system, noting pressures on local authority capacity could have significant implications for incident prevention and response. There was concern that changes in the FSA’s incident operating model could inadvertently shift burden onto local authorities without corresponding support.  

Darren confirmed that local authority engagement was being actively considered as part of workforce and capability planning.

9.8 The board noted allergen-related incidents as an area of particular concern given the potential severity of outcomes for consumers.

 Board members noted that allergen incidents often involved issues such as labelling errors, cross-contamination or failures in process control.  

While many incidents were managed effectively, the potential for serious harm meant that even small numbers of incidents were of high significance.  Officials acknowledged that data on consumer outcomes, including severity and long-term impact, was currently limited and could be strengthened. Incidents represented one of the indicators around allergens but was not the only one. 

9.9 The board agreed that improved understanding of harm was critical in prioritising interventions and measuring impact.

 Enhanced collaboration with health services was suggested to provide better insight into outcomes associated with allergen exposure. 

The FSA should also continue to work in partnership with businesses to improve systems and share learning from incidents

10 Annual animal welfare report 2025/26 (FSA 26/06/08)

10.1 The Chair welcomed officials joining the meeting online to introduce the Annual Animal Welfare Report.  She noted several recent high-profile cases that had attracted significant media and public attention. 

Such cases had heightened public concern and placed increased scrutiny on enforcement systems. She referred to a number of questions to the board linked to an ongoing investigation.

10.2 Officials provided an overview of enforcement activity during the year, noting that the FSA had continued to fulfil its statutory responsibilities in relation to animal welfare controls on behalf of Defra and the Welsh Government.

10.3 The board noted that enforcement activity included routine oversight, targeted inspections and investigation of specific allegations or incidents. Officials confirmed that, in cases where non-compliance had been identified, appropriate enforcement action had been taken, including follow-up investigation and referral for prosecution where necessary.

10.4 The board discussed public expectations in relation to animal welfare, noting that there was increasing public sensitivity to issues of welfare and that expectations of transparency and accountability, as well as speed of action, were high.

10.5 Members emphasised that maintaining public confidence required not only effective enforcement but also clear communication about the actions being taken. However, it was acknowledged that the constraints associated with ongoing legal proceedings, limited the level of detail that could be shared publicly in some cases. 

The board asked about scope to improve communication within these constraints, for example by providing more general information about enforcement processes or outcomes once cases were concluded.

 Officials noted that there was scope to strengthen public understanding of enforcement processes, including clearer explanations of the stages at which information could be released and the reasons for any limitations.

10.6 The board noted that CCTV was an important tool in supporting compliance and transparency and queried how effectively it was currently being used to both monitor standards and provide assurance to the public.  Officials advised that CCTV played a well-established role in the regulatory framework, supporting both enforcement activity and the work of Official Veterinarians (OVs). 

Requirements for CCTV coverage were already in place, providing a baseline level of assurance but there were no requirements around the image resolution required, limiting the quality of recorded footage in some cases. Work was ongoing to consider how the use of CCTV could be optimised, including whether more systematic or risk-based approaches to review could be adopted.

10.7 The board also discussed the FSA’s role within the wider delivery framework.  It was noted that animal welfare controls were delivered as part of a broader system involving multiple agencies and stakeholders and emphasised the importance of effective coordination and clarity of roles.  Officials advised that delivery arrangements were well established, with clear delineation of responsibilities across the system, and noted that the FSA worked closely with Defra, the Welsh Government and delivery partners to ensure a coordinated approach. Ongoing engagement mechanisms were in place to support alignment and to address issues where they arose.

10.8 There was also discussion of workforce capability. Members noted that the delivery of animal welfare controls required specific skills and expertise and that maintaining capability across the system was important. Officials advised that workforce capacity and capability continued to be kept under review, including through engagement with delivery partners and consideration of future requirements. It was noted that maintaining a skilled workforce, including OVs and inspectors, remained a priority to support effective enforcement and system resilience.

10.9 The Chair noted that the board agreed, while the FSA’s role was clearly defined, it had an important leadership function in supporting effective delivery and maintaining confidence in the system. She thanked the officials for the report and all staff who are involved in protecting animal welfare at slaughter.

11 Director of FSA in Northern Ireland report (FSA 26/06/09)

11.1 The Chair welcomed Andy Cole to the meeting to introduce his report providing an update on key developments since the previous meeting, including delivery of official controls, stakeholder engagement and the evolving policy context in Northern Ireland.

11.2 Board noted the particular operational and regulatory context in Northern Ireland, including the implications of the Windsor Framework and associated arrangements.  

Members emphasised the importance of maintaining clarity for businesses operating across different regulatory environments and queried how effectively current arrangements were being communicated to stakeholders. 

Officials advised that engagement with businesses and delivery partners was ongoing and that supporting understanding of regulatory requirements remained a priority.  It was noted that collaboration with other government departments and agencies played an important role in maintaining consistency of messaging.

11.3 The board noted workforce and delivery capability in Northern Ireland, recognising the importance of maintaining resilience in the system. Officials advised that capability continued to be monitored and that recruitment and retention remained under review, alongside wider workforce planning.

11.4 Board members noted the importance of stakeholder confidence and public trust, particularly in a complex regulatory environment.  The need for continued engagement and clear communication to support understanding and compliance was highlighted

11.5 The Chair asked about issues relating to algal blooms in Lough Neagh. Andy explained that the surveillance programme was ongoing to publish risk management advice on the back of a refresh of the risk assessment. There was a programme for government action, which was a commitment from the Northern Ireland Executive, which had the FSA included in the delivery of specific actions. The Chair thanked Andy for the report.

12 Report from the Chair of the Business Committee (INFO 26/06/01)

12.1 Timothy Riley provided an update on the recent Business Committee meeting, noting that the Committee had continued to support the board in maintaining oversight of organisational performance, strategic delivery and risk management.

12.2 The board noted that the committee had considered a range of items, including performance reporting, financial oversight and progress against key programmes. Members welcomed the role of the committee in providing detailed scrutiny and supporting effective governance.

12.3 The importance of ensuring clear alignment between committee work and the board’s strategic priorities was noted, particularly in the context of ongoing SPS activity and wider system pressures.  Timothy confirmed that forward work planning continued to be reviewed to reflect emerging priorities.

13 Report from the Chair of ARAC (INFO 26/06/02)

13.1 Anthony Harbinson presented the Audit and Risk Assurance Committee (ARAC) report, outlining recent activity and key areas of focus.

13.2 The board noted the bommittee’s ongoing oversight of risk management, internal control and assurance processes.  Members welcomed the continued focus on strengthening risk management frameworks, particularly in light of the complexity of the Agency’s operating environment.

13.3 Members discussed the risk profile of the organisation, including those associated with SPS delivery, operational capability and wider system resilience. Anthony advised that these risks were subject to ongoing scrutiny and that assurance arrangements continued to be reviewed to ensure they remained effective.

13.4 The board noted the importance of maintaining robust assurance processes and clear reporting, particularly as the Agency managed a period of significant change.

14 Reports from the Chairs of the Food Advisory Committees (oral reports)

14.1 The board received oral updates from the Chairs of the Food Advisory Committees, who provided a summary of recent activity and key issues under consideration.

14.2 Rhian Hayward provided an update on the work of the Wales Food Advisory Committee (WFAC), noting its continued focus on the Welsh food system.

14.3 She highlighted the Committee’s discussions on stakeholder confidence and engagement, including how regulatory requirements and system changes were being understood by businesses and other stakeholders in Wales. The committee had considered the importance of clear communication and the need to ensure that messaging was accessible and consistent.

14.4 Rhian also noted that WFAC had discussed wider system challenges, including capacity within delivery partners and the importance of maintaining resilience across the system.  Particular attention had been given to how local pressures could impact delivery and enforcement.

14.5 Anthony Harbinson provided an update on the work of the Northern Ireland Food Advisory Committee (NIFAC), highlighting the continued focus on the implications of the Windsor Framework and the resulting regulatory landscape, including the practical challenges this created for businesses operating within and across markets. 

 The Committee had discussed the need for clarity and consistency in regulatory requirements, particularly where divergence or complexity could create uncertainty for industry.

14.6 Anthony also highlighted the importance of stakeholder engagement, noting that NIFAC had provided a forum for raising industry perspectives and identifying areas where further guidance or support may be required. In this context, he emphasised the role of the Committee in supporting understanding of how policy changes were being experienced in practice.

14.7 He further noted ongoing discussion within the committee on surveillance and intelligence, including how effectively emerging risks within the Northern Ireland system were being identified and communicated.

14.8 The board noted the update and welcomed the Committee’s role in providing insight into the specific challenges and opportunities within the Northern Ireland context.

15 Any other business

15.1 The Chair invited members to raise any additional business.

15.2 No substantive additional items were raised for discussion.

15.3 Members briefly reflected on the breadth of the agenda and the interconnection between items discussed, noting particularly the links between strategic priorities, operational delivery and system resilience.

16 Questions

16.1 A question was raised by Marika Graham Woods, representing the Cannabis Trades Association relating to regulatory clarity around SPS negotiations, about how current and future arrangements would operate in practice and the extent to which stakeholders could plan with confidence.

16.2 Officials advised that work remained ongoing across the relevant policy area, including continued engagement with industry, consumers and other government departments. 

 It was emphasised that a number of factors influencing the final position sat beyond the FSA alone, and that further clarity would depend on wider Government decisions.  It was confirmed, however, that providing clear and timely communication remained a priority, and that updates would be shared with stakeholders as soon as sufficient certainty was available.

16.3 The Chair emphasised the importance of continuing to engage openly with stakeholders and the public, particularly where uncertainty remained, in order to support understanding and maintain confidence.

17 Close of meeting

17.1 The Chair thanked members and officials for their contributions to the meeting.

17.2 She reflected on the significance of the issues discussed, noting in particular the importance of ongoing SPS negotiations and the need to maintain focus across the Agency’s full range of responsibilities.

17.3 The Chair emphasised that, while the external environment remained complex and uncertain, the Agency was well-positioned to respond, supported by strong science, effective governance and committed staff.

17.4 The meeting was closed.