Transparency data

Questions from the public for the Food Standards Agency September 2026 Board meeting

Updated 19 October 2026

Applies to England, Northern Ireland and Wales

Please note questions are listed below in the order in which they were received.

Question 1

From Dr Mark Tallon, Managing Partner, Legal Products Group Ltd (t/a Legal Foods):

We note the FSAs proposal to advise Ministers in England and Wales to authorise the three high-purity CBD novel foods, subject to the proposed conditions of authorisation.

Question 1: Is the next batch of CBD novel foods that have positive FSA opinions now under assessment by Food Standards Scotland (FSS)?

Question 2: If yes when will these be presented to Ministers in England and Wales to authorise? If no then why not and when will they be sent to FSS for assesment?

Question 3: Have many CBD applications with positive opinions are now before FSS and providing approval will be presented to Ministers in England and Wales to authorise?

Question 4: Will all future CBD applications with positive opinions by the FSA/FSS require discussion by the FSA Board before being presented to Ministers in England and Wales to authorise?

Answer to question 1:

Food Standards Scotland (FSS) is the independent food safety authority for Scotland and is responsible for advising Scottish Ministers on risk management recommendations relating to novel food applications. The FSA cannot comment on FSS’s assessment processes, priorities or timelines on its behalf.

The FSA and FSS work closely together throughout the regulated products process, including through established four-nation arrangements, with the aim of supporting a consistent and evidence-based approach across Great Britain where appropriate. However, each authority remains responsible for its own advice to Ministers.

For CBD applications that have received positive safety opinions, FSA and FSS officials are continuing the necessary risk management work, including developing proposed conditions of authorisation and considering consultation requirements. The FSA will submit recommendations to Ministers in England and Wales as soon as risk management considerations are complete.

The Board considered these first three applications because they are the first high-purity CBD novel food applications to reach this stage of the authorisation process and raised a range of scientific, policy and implementation considerations. Future CBD applications will continue to be considered on a case-by-case basis, taking account of the evidence available and the relevant risk management considerations.  During the Board discussion, it was noted that future CBD applications would generally be expected to return to normal executive processes unless new issues emerged that warranted Board consideration.

Question 2

From Cefyn Jones, Founder, The Hemp Hound Agency:

Internal FSA briefing material stated that once an ADI was identified, each CBD application would be assessed for authorisation “based on its own evidence”, expressly linking that approach to the Agency’s statutory obligation to assess each dossier “on its own merit”.

Can the Board confirm whether 10 mg/day now operates as an inflexible maximum daily intake for CBD authorisations irrespective of applicant-specific proprietary toxicological evidence?

If it does, what legal and scientific basis permits a general 10 mg/day limit to override application-specific evidence capable of supporting a higher safe intake?

If it does not, in what circumstances can an applicant’s own evidence support authorisation at an intake above 10 mg/day?

Answer to question 2:

As stated in the scientific committees’ position paper, the provisional acceptable daily intake (ADI) of 0.15 mg/kg bw/day (10 mg CBD/day for a healthy adult) acts as a basis for risk assessments of novel food products containing pure form CBD (≥98%) as an ingredient. Dependent upon the nature of the food type, further considerations and information on bioavailability of CBD in humans in different food matrices may also need to be factored into product-specific risk assessments.

The provisional ADI and the assessment of individual applications perform different functions within the authorisation process. The provisional ADI represents the FSA’s current scientific and risk management position based on the wider body of evidence considered by its scientific committees. However, it does not remove the requirement for individual applicants to demonstrate the safety of their particular novel food and proposed conditions of use on the basis of the evidence submitted in support of their application. Each application therefore continues to be assessed on its own merits and evidence, taking account of the applicable scientific advice, including the provisional ADI where relevant.

Where an applicant submits evidence capable of supporting a different intake level, that evidence would be considered through the safety assessment process and reflected in the risk management advice where appropriate. However, any recommendation above the provisional ADI would need to be supported by scientific evidence and be protective of consumers.

Question 3

From Cefyn Jones, Founder, The Hemp Hound Agency:

The September Board paper states that, under the proposed UK-EU SPS Agreement, existing GB novel-food authorisations would cease to apply unless an exception is agreed, and that the EU has accepted there may be a limited number of areas in which the UK retains its own rules.

Can the Board confirm whether the FSA, or officials acting on its behalf, have received representations from any CBD novel-food applicant, consortium, trade association or other interested party seeking an exception, grandfathering arrangement or other mechanism intended to preserve existing or prospective GB CBD novel-food authorisations under the SPS Agreement?

If so, can the Board confirm whether those representations have been communicated to officials involved in the SPS negotiations, and whether any indication has been given that such an exception may be pursued?

Can the Board also confirm whether all affected CBD applicants and wider industry stakeholders have been given an equivalent opportunity to make representations on that issue?

Answer to question 3:

The FSA recognises that applicants and wider industry stakeholders are paying close attention to the potential implications of any future UK-EU SPS Agreement on market authorisations, including CBD novel foods. Stakeholders from many sectors have raised questions about continuity, timing and the possible effect on both existing and prospective GB authorisations.

Questions about the terms of any SPS Agreement, including any exceptions or transitional arrangements, sit within the wider government negotiation process. Where stakeholders raise issues relevant to those negotiations, the FSA ensures that appropriate policy leads across government are aware. It would not be appropriate for the FSA to comment on negotiating positions or to speculate on whether any particular exception may be pursued.

The FSA has engaged with CBD applicants and stakeholders through the market authorisation process, public consultation and wider stakeholder engagement. In April, the Department for Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) ran a Call for Information to gather information on the likely impact of the Agreement on businesses. This was publicised via Defra’s social media channels and the FSA’s Market Authorisations Newsletter, and the responses will help shape the practical guidance and support that the FSA and other UK Government departments provide. We will continue to provide clear information as the position develops, while recognising that final decisions on any SPS Agreement are a matter for government.

Question 4

From Cefyn Jones, Founder, The Hemp Hound Agency:

The FSA says concerns that its CBD system could create a “cartel-like environment” are speculative. How can that be true when the Agency had already been warned that its own rules could shut competitors out and hand an advantage to a small number of companies?

Did the FSA ignore those warnings, or did it know about them and dismiss them anyway?

Answer to question 4:

The FSA has not ignored concerns about potential market impact. Those concerns were recorded in the consultation analysis and considered as part of the wider risk management advice. The analysis explained that while recognising these concerns, the FSA must continue to operate within the legal parameters of the novel foods framework. The FSA’s statutory role in the novel foods process is to assess safety and provide independent advice to Ministers on whether products should be authorised, and on what conditions.

The applications being considered first are the first high-purity CBD applications to complete the relevant safety assessment and consultation stages. Progression reflects the stage they have reached in the regulatory process, the evidence submitted by applicants, and the requirements of the novel foods framework, not preferential treatment.

Question 5

From Dr Geoffrey Knott FRES, Chair & Novel Foods Lead, UK Edible Insect Association CIC:

The June minutes record the Board’s call for targeted support for SMEs and describe the FSA’s SPS role as providing independent, evidence-based advice. The Annual Science Update now confirms that the FSA is developing SPS impact assessments covering effects on businesses. The CBD paper asks the Board to progress three GB novel-food applications despite SPS uncertainty, partly to bring an existing market into compliance.

The existing UK edible-insect market also depends on three GB novel-food dossiers, yet UKEIA has been informed that these dossiers are not being progressed under the SPS-driven prioritisation approach. That outcome is difficult to reconcile with the subsequent FSA/FSS classification of edible insects as a Tier 1 emerging food technology.

UKEIA’s rapid product-level assessment found that 45 of 55 classifiable SKUs—approximately 82%—would be commercially unviable under the relevant proposed EU dossier conditions. Those conditions were examined through UKEIA’s longstanding collaboration with the Belgian Insect Industry Federation. Its house-cricket and yellow-mealworm dossiers received positive EFSA safety opinions in December 2024 and January 2025, but still had no final EU authorisation by August 2026. Preparing EU applications therefore provides neither timely certainty nor sufficient product coverage. Even eventual authorisation of those dossiers would leave most assessed UK products outside their proposed scopes.

Does the Board accept that, without sector-specific protection, SPS alignment creates a foreseeable risk of severe contraction of the UK edible-insect sector, including withdrawal of currently marketed products and the loss of years of regulatory and commercial investment?

If not, what evidence contradicts UKEIA’s quantified assessment? If it does, will the Board ensure that edible insects are expressly covered in the SPS impact assessments and FSA advice to Ministers, and formally recommend an exception or bespoke arrangement that protects existing GB products and preserves a workable route to authorise additional products and uses?

Answer to question 5:

We recognise that businesses currently operating under the novel foods transitional arrangements for edible insects are seeking greater certainty about how existing products and pending applications may be treated under any future SPS arrangements. However, while negotiations remain ongoing, it would not be appropriate to speculate on transition arrangements, future authorisation routes or any exceptions that may form part of a final agreement.

In order to ensure we prepare for a smooth transition to the proposed new system of dynamic alignment under a Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) Agreement with the EU, the FSA Board and Health Ministers agreed principles for prioritisation of applications currently in the Market Authorisation Service. The FSA and FSS Boards agreed that the prioritisation principles should be kept under review as SPS negotiations progress. At the September 2026 Board meeting, the FSA Board supported a further review of the principles once the SPS Agreement is reached.

Applications that did not meet the current prioritisation criteria were prioritised lower not because of a lack of innovation, but because the prioritisation criteria focussed on applications which are within government priority sectors for innovation and growth. We are working on the basis that these three areas are cell cultivated products, precision fermentation and precision breeding, given we have been given ring-fenced funding on the first two and government has recently legislated on the third.

The EU has accepted there will be a limited number of areas where the UK will need to retain its own rules (referred to as ‘exceptions’). These will only be agreed if they meet strict conditions set by the EU. Which exceptions are included in the Agreement, their scope and operation, depends on the outcomes of negotiations. We cannot comment on negotiations while they are ongoing.

The impacts of the UK-EU SPS Agreement will vary across sectors, reflecting the different ways businesses trade and operate both domestically and internationally. The Agreement’s aim is to reduce barriers and provide greater certainty for businesses. While some sectors may see more immediate benefits than others, the overall package seeks to deliver advantages to the UK as a whole.

We recognise that this uncertainty is likely to cause concern to edible insect businesses marketing their products in the UK, who are making use of the current post-EU Exit transitional arrangements for four insect species. Once final negotiated outcomes are clear, Government will share comprehensive advice with businesses to enable further readiness preparations.

Meanwhile, the UK Government is advising that businesses should start to prepare now for an SPS Agreement with the EU. For example, businesses may decide to consider making applications to the EU or to prepare for dates of expiry for data protection on individual EU authorisations.  

Question 6

From Cefyn Jones, Founder, The Hemp Hound Agency:

Given that the FSA has now formally recorded concerns from multiple respondents that its approach to CBD authorisations could distort the market or create a “cartel-like environment”, what action has the Agency taken to investigate whether those concerns reflect actual market conditions, and how has it assured itself that its authorisation process is not entrenching unfair advantages or undermining fair competition?

Answer to question 6:

The FSA has considered the market impact concerns raised during consultation as part of its risk management work, including concerns about sequencing, data protection, Public List arrangements and the position of other applicants still progressing through the system. We have outlined our position in the summary of responses to the consultation.

The analysis explained that the FSA recognises that further consideration will be needed on how the Public List operates once the first authorisations come into force. Although the operation of the Public List is not directly covered by this consultation, these issues have been acknowledged.

The novel foods process remains application-led and evidence-based. Applications are progressed when the necessary safety assessment and risk management steps have been completed, with the same statutory process and evidential requirements applied to each application. The FSA will continue to apply the same regulatory standards to all applications and will keep under review how best to provide clarity to applicants, enforcement authorities and consumers as further CBD applications progress. We intend to maintain clear communication with applicants and stakeholders, should Ministers decide to authorise these novel foods.

Question 7

From Simon Dawson, Policy Advisor, Association of Independent Meat Suppliers:

We have 3 questions:

1. Para 5.2 of the paper mentions a FSA Efficiency Programme. What are the top 3 measures from this work that will deliver most efficiency gains and when will they be implemented?

2. In relation to the FSA Efficiency Programme will the FSA share with industry the terms of reference for this Programme and its governance arrangements, including the SRO and details of external stakeholder involvement?

3. In the interests of transparency can the FSA explain why the cost of an OV in England & Wales is 25% higher than that of an OV in both Northern Ireland and Scotland? How will the FSA Board seek assurances that this difference is not due to inefficient operations by the FSA and its contractors?

Answer to question 7:

A1. The programme of work referenced in paragraphs 4.2 and 5.2 of the paper is in the early stages of formation, with recruitment underway within the FSA to resource it. Part of the early work of the programme will be developing a business case which will look at options for new systems, processes and structures with associated costs and benefits, as well as the likely timetable of any implementation. It is too early at this stage to be able to commit to specific implementation dates, especially when new solutions have yet to be designed, however officials envisage this to be a 2-year programme of work. 

A2. Officials will be undertaking engagement with stakeholders in relation to any potential changes to charging policy that could be delivered alongside internal process and system efficiency improvements as part of the programme. This will begin later in this financial year once the current work on the discount model and work in relation to the Judicial Review on meat charging have been finalised. Terms of reference and governance arrangements for the programme are internal to the FSA. The Senior Responsible Officer (SRO) for the programme will be Junior Johnson, Director of Operations. 

A3. Given the geographic remit of the FSA (England, Wales and Northern Ireland) this response focuses on the difference between England/Wales Official Veterinarian (OV) rates and those relating to Northern Ireland. The different rates in Northern Ireland arise from a different approach used to deliver official controls there. In Northern Ireland, the Department for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs (DAERA) delivers official controls in all FSA-approved meat establishments, alongside a range of services delivered on its own behalf. DAERA OVs are employed under Northern Ireland Civil Service contracts whereas in England and Wales official controls are delivered by FSA-authorised OVs working for private contractors under the FSA Delivery of Official Controls (FSADOC) contracts. 

Question 8

From Jason Austin, Chair, All Wales Food Safety Expert Panel:

Local authorities in Wales continue to seek clarity regarding the specific problem or problems that the FSA is seeking to address through the proposed wholesale regulatory reform. What evidence has been used to identify these issues, and how have they been assessed as requiring regulatory change?

Answer to question 8:

The food system is becoming more diverse, dynamic and challenging, and there’s more we can do to strengthen the regulatory system that underpins food safety and standards to support local food teams and ensure people can continue to have confidence in the food they eat.  

The Future of Food Regulation Programme is not responding to a failure in the current food system. Rather, it seeks to strengthen a system that is vulnerable due to a combination of changes some of which are outlined in the National Audit Office report, ‘Resilience of the food supply chain to disruptions’. The FSA has the opportunity to do more with large businesses to boost resilience and reduce risk within the food system.  At the same time, we are clear that we need to continue to support local authority food teams and look to provide the tools that they need to keep consumers safe.

The evidence considered by the programme so far includes previous FSA work on enterprise level regulation, local authority performance information, feedback from previous Food Law Code of Practice consultations and reviews, discovery work in Wales considering enhanced registration, policy work undertaken across the six programme workstreams, legislative analysis, and stakeholder engagement which started during the enterprise level regulation proof of concept stage and has continued through to the recent local authority engagement events earlier this year. This work has identified potential system issues relating to registration, the use of data and intelligence, enforcement tools, workforce sustainability, consistency and system wide visibility of risk. However, strengthening the evidence base and testing whether proposed approaches would improve outcomes are key purposes of the next phase of detailed design.

Question 9

From Jason Austin, Chair, All Wales Food Safety Expert Panel:

Where is the evidence base supporting the need for wholesale regulatory reform in Wales, particularly given the distinct regulatory, geographical and business landscape compared with other parts of the UK?

Answer to question 9:

We recognise that Wales has a distinct regulatory environment, geography and business profile, and that stakeholders want assurance that these differences are properly understood and reflected in the programme.

In line with the Collaborative Agreement, the Board and programme team has engaged with key Welsh stakeholders throughout its development, including local authorities and representative groups, the Welsh Food Advisory Committee, Welsh Local Government Association, Directors of Public Protection Wales and Welsh Government. This engagement has informed our understanding of delivery challenges, opportunities and risks within the Welsh context.

The programme is not currently looking at nation-specific models. Work to date has focused on building a broader evidence base, exploring potential options and identifying areas requiring further analysis. In addition, the next phase will assess how different approaches might operate in Wales, building on the work already undertaken in Wales to consider enhancing business registration. We will seek to identify how national consistency can be balanced with devolved responsibilities, local intelligence and place-based delivery.

We recognise that additional work will be required to assess impacts, opportunities and implementation considerations specific to Wales, and Welsh stakeholder feedback will continue to be an important part of that process. While the programme will develop evidence-based options and recommendations, decisions on the preferred approach will ultimately be for Welsh ministers to decide whether this is taken forward in Wales.

Question 10

From Jason Austin, Chair, All Wales Food Safety Expert Panel:

What specific outcomes, objectives and success measures are associated with each of the six proposed frameworks, and how will the FSA assess whether those outcomes have been achieved?

Answer to question 10:

Any proposed model must meet the request by the UK Government for the FSA to develop a consistent, national approach for England for the regulation of large food businesses, yet the Board were also clear that the need to support and strengthen local delivery is just as important and that work on the former would enable components of the latter, especially if they require legislative change. The programme team are working to define the required components and associated outcomes of a new, coherent, connected regulatory system. 

The outcomes of the programme will include:

• enhanced registration for all to improve visibility of businesses in the food system
• triaged regulatory pathways to provide national oversight of the largest businesses
• greater use of data and strengthened intelligence sharing
• an improved guidance hub
• a revised enforcement framework with updated tools and powers
• greater transparency about food hygiene for businesses in any regulatory pathway
• including mandatory Food Hygiene Rating Display online across the UK and in-store in England (“in store display” is already mandatory in Wales and Northern Ireland) – to drive improvements in businesses and help customers to make informed choices

The FSA will assess success by measuring whether the future regulatory system delivers the outcomes it is intended to achieve. While detailed measures are still being developed, these are likely to focus on areas such as effective risk management, better use of data and intelligence, consistency of regulatory oversight, and the long-term resource and funding sustainability of the system.

Question 11

From Jason Austin, Chair, All Wales Food Safety Expert Panel:

The scope and definition of a “large retailer” has yet to be provided by the FSA. Which large food retailers are currently being considered for inclusion within the proposed national regulatory model? For example, will eligibility be limited to the national supermarket retailers that participated in the pilot, extended to all national supermarkets, or broadened further to include other large multi-site food businesses, such as those operating under Primary Authority partnerships?

Answer to question 11:

The Future of Food Regulation programme team are developing the scope and definition of a large business.

The programme is expected to begin detailed design by focusing initially on large retail businesses. This reflects both the government’s request to consider a national approach to regulation for certain large food businesses in England and the significant role that a relatively small number of large retailers play within the wider food system. The programme is also exploring how better use of information and intelligence could support enhanced oversight of these businesses.

As the specific criteria for inclusion is being developed, the programme team will also look to future proof the criteria so that it may potentially be extended to other areas such as manufacturers and out of home.

Question 12

From Jason Austin, Chair, All Wales Food Safety Expert Panel:

Local Authorities in Wales have proposed a seventh framework for consideration, which does not appear to be reflected within the Board Paper, and have requested that it be developed in co-production and collaboration with FSA colleagues. Will the Board provide assurance that no proposals will be progressed or implemented until this seventh framework has been given full and fair consideration by the FSA?

Answer to question 12:

The Board are aware that Welsh local authorities and Environmental Health Wales (on behalf of the Food Safety Expert Panel) put forward an additional proposal including a specific request that local authorities and the FSA co-produce a “Framework 7”. The feedback provided a high-level outline of an alternative model which retained local authorities as the competent authority, retained local authority responsibility for official controls and enforcement activity, and proposed an enhanced Primary Authority role with increased oversight and scrutiny.

During the Board meeting, the Board emphasised the need to ensure that nothing is absolutely ruled out at this stage. Whilst we agreed two models to take forward for more detailed design, we were also clear that other components should not be ruled out. The Board are keen to encourage continued engagement with Welsh local authorities in line with the Collaborative Agreement, and expect them to discuss this proposal.

Question 13

From Jason Austin, Chair, All Wales Food Safety Expert Panel:

At a time when the UK Government is advocating stronger local regulatory powers to tackle public protection issues on our high streets, what evidence supports the view that national regulation would deliver better outcomes than local regulation, when local intelligence and physical inspection remain an integral part of verifying compliance and implementation within food businesses?

Answer to question 13:

The Board were very clear that proposals must strengthen the food system as a whole and this includes delivering improvements to the local system of regulation for most businesses. This includes giving local authority food teams the tools they need, whilst introducing a more consistent national approach to scrutinise a small number of large businesses. This is in line with the government’s ambitions for growth and for decision-making at a local level by default. National Approach to Regulation is not a replacement for local delivery.

Question 14

From Jason Austin, Chair, All Wales Food Safety Expert Panel:

Both the UK and Welsh Governments have recognised the importance of robust local regulation in protecting the public. Events such as the Grenfell Tower tragedy, and concerns regarding regulatory oversight in the water sector, have highlighted the consequences where regulatory arrangements fail to identify and address risks effectively. In light of this, has the FSA assessed whether increasing national regulation could inadvertently weaken public protection outcomes by distancing regulatory decision-making from local intelligence, reducing local accountability, and limiting regulators’ ability to identify and respond to emerging risks within our communities? If so, what evidence supports the conclusion that the proposed wholesale reform will enhance, rather than diminish, the effectiveness of regulatory oversight and public protection?

Answer to question 14:

The Board recognises the importance of this concern and agrees that any proposed changes to regulatory arrangements must be assessed carefully against their potential implications for public protection.

The Board recognise the importance of local authority expertise, local intelligence and professional judgement, and these considerations are informing ongoing assessment of how the future system might look.

During the meeting, the Board and Chief Executive reinforced that this work is not about the failure of the current system. Local authorities will remain at the heart of food regulation; local authority officers have the skills and local expertise that is the backbone of our food system.

Question 15

From Adam Banks, Director, CF Banks Ltd t/a Bugvita:

As director of a small family farming company that has spent several years building our edible-insect business, I am concerned about products we lawfully market in GB that may fall outside EU novel-food authorisations after SPS alignment.

Our precautionary SKU-by-SKU review of 20 products against EU Union-list entries expected to apply at mid-2027, including data-protection periods due to expire by then, found 4 with a clear route to market, 7 requiring scope clarification, and 9 with no identified compliant route under a strict reading of those entries because of species, food category or use level.

Defra’s 30 July 2026 guidance states that some edible-insect products “will need to be reformulated or withdrawn from the Great British market” when Great British authorisations are withdrawn under the SPS Agreement from mid-2027. At the same time, UKEIA has been informed that GB edible-insect novel-food applications relevant to the current transitional arrangements are not expected to be progressed under the SPS-driven prioritisation approach, making resolution before alignment unlikely. The Annual Science Update confirms the FSA is assessing business impacts.

Given this, will the FSA recommend a continuity arrangement allowing existing products lawfully marketed in GB before a defined cut-off date to remain on the GB market, subject to appropriate safety safeguards, until any necessary application under the successor regulatory route is determined or otherwise concluded? Where GB applications are already pending, will the FSA also seek arrangements allowing assessment work already undertaken to be recognised or reused in the successor process rather than businesses having to start again?

If not, what alternative will the FSA recommend to avoid lawful products being withdrawn solely because the regulatory system changes before an equivalent authorisation can be obtained?

Answer to question 15:

We recognise that businesses currently operating under the novel foods transitional arrangements for edible insects in Great Britain are seeking greater certainty about how existing products and pending applications may be treated under any future Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) Agreement. However, while negotiations remain ongoing, it would not be appropriate to speculate on the specific transition arrangements, future authorisation routes or any exceptions that may form part of a final Agreement.

The EU has accepted there will be a limited number of areas where the UK will need to retain its own rules (referred to as ‘exceptions’). These will only be agreed if they meet strict conditions set by the EU. Which exceptions are included in the Agreement, their scope and operation, depends on the outcomes of negotiations, as to any transition arrangements. Whilst we cannot give a running commentary on negotiations and must protect their confidentiality, we will, as always, work as transparently as possible with our stakeholders. 

In order to ensure we prepare for a smooth transition to the proposed new system of dynamic alignment under an SPS Agreement with the EU, the FSA Board and health ministers agreed principles for prioritisation of applications currently in the Market Authorisation Service. The FSA and FSS Boards agreed that the prioritisation principles should be kept under review as SPS negotiations progress. At the September 2026 Board meeting, the FSA Board supported a further review of the principles once the SPS Agreement is reached.

Applications that did not meet the current prioritisation criteria were prioritised lower not because of a lack of innovation, but because the prioritisation criteria focussed on applications which are within government priority sectors for innovation and growth. We are working on the basis that these three areas are cell cultivated products, precision fermentation and precision breeding, given we have been given ring-fenced funding on the first two and government has recently legislated on the third.

The impacts of the UK-EU SPS Agreement will vary across sectors, reflecting the different ways businesses trade and operate both domestically and internationally. The Agreement’s aim is to reduce barriers and provide greater certainty for businesses. While some sectors may see more immediate benefits than others, the overall package seeks to deliver advantages to the UK as a whole.

We recognise that this uncertainty is likely to cause concern to edible insect businesses marketing their products in the UK, who are making use of the current post-EU Exit transitional arrangements for four insect species. We recognise that businesses may have questions about how existing products, pending applications and future authorisation routes could be affected by any future SPS arrangements with the EU. These issues are being considered as part of wider implementation planning and impact assessment work. Once final negotiated outcomes are clear, government will share comprehensive advice with businesses to enable further readiness preparations.

Question 16

From Nicole Harding:

Board Paper: Evaluation of Meat Charging Discount

Q1: Given more and more evidence is emerging of systemic non-compliance with animal welfare legislation, why is FSAs valuable time and resources being directed towards ways of helping privately owned, and often profitable abattoirs, save money with the meat charging discounts proposals + discount model, undermining the importance of OV oversight, especially given the associated cost and resource demand placed on FSA (and tax-payer funding) to retrospectively have to address the increasing breaches and non-compliances in abattoirs, farms and transportation of farmed animals. The Meat Charging Discount has featured on four Board agendas in the last year - would FSAs time, focus and resource be better placed on creating a model based on severe penalty charging of businesses who fail to comply with existing legalisation/framework guidelines, which would retrospectively act as significant deterrent and preventative measure of ensuring professionalism within these facilities and higher standards in animal health, care and welfare.

Answer to question 16:

As Accounting Officer, the FSA Chief Executive is accountable for the stewardship of public money and assets by the FSA. Under HM Treasury guidance “Managing Public Money” and equivalent guidance relating to Wales and Northern Ireland the default expectation is for public sector organisations to recover the costs of services they provide to users and requires ministerial agreement where this is not the case.

The current scheme of discounts to meat inspection charges falls into the latter category and with the scheme approaching its tenth year of operation the FSA began a necessary evaluation of the discount scheme in autumn 2024 with a Call for Evidence. With subsequent extensive engagement with the Board and stakeholders this work has culminated in the proposals for a revised discount scheme presented to the Board in September 2026.

Defra and the Welsh Government are responsible for animal welfare laws and policies relating to slaughterhouses in England and Wales. Slaughterhouse operators are responsible for ensuring compliance with these requirements within their premises.

The FSA oversees and verifies animal welfare compliance in slaughterhouses on behalf of Defra and the Welsh Government. Through Official Veterinarians (OVs) and Meat Hygiene Inspectors operating on-site, the FSA monitors standards and takes enforcement action where animal welfare breaches are identified.

The FSA acts in response to all identified animal welfare breaches in slaughterhouses. A proportionate, risk-based enforcement approach is applied, with measures ranging from advice and guidance for minor non-compliances to formal enforcement action for serious or repeated breaches. Depending on the circumstances, this may include written enforcement notices, suspension or revocation of Certificates of Competence, criminal investigation and referral for prosecution, or the withdrawal of a slaughterhouse’s approval to operate.

Question 17

From Jason Austin, Food and Health Protection Manager, Torfaen County Borough Council:

The success of the National Food Hygiene Rating Scheme is founded on the principle of independent inspection and transparent publication of results. What assurance can the Board provide that the proposed reforms will not weaken public confidence in the Scheme, reduce transparency, or create a two-tier regulatory system in which some food businesses are subject to different levels of independent scrutiny than others?

Answer to question 17:

The Board recognises that public confidence in the Food Hygiene Rating Scheme (FHRS) depends on transparency, trust and effective regulatory oversight. The proposed reforms do not seek to weaken these principles, and the Board reiterated the importance of maintaining or enhancing FHRS in the discussion of these proposals.

The programme is considering how consumer information, transparency and assurance can continue to support effective regulatory outcomes as future options are developed and assessed.

Stakeholder feedback has consistently highlighted the importance of public confidence, independent verification and regulatory accountability. These issues are being considered as part of the programme’s ongoing policy and design work. Any future proposal would need to demonstrate that it supports public protection, effective oversight, transparency and consumer confidence.

We have asked officials to work closely with local authorities, businesses and other partners to test and refine proposals, and we will consult on the final model to hear views of stakeholders.

Question 18

From Nicole Harding:

FSA Board Meeting 16.9.26 - CEO Report

Item 7.2 - Resilience Report:

The CEOs Report notes “a very significant increase in animals arriving at slaughterhouses dead or suffering from heat stress during the summer months”.

Whilst it is noted the FSA does not enforce animal welfare law on farm or during transport, but FSAs presence in slaughterhouses means that the FSA are able to identify and record these issues and that the FSA have now worked closely with Defra and APHA to strengthen the protocol, with said improvements being put in place to include extended reporting during amber alerts, prioritisation of all heat stress cases, strengthened guidance for Official Veterinarians, increased industry awareness of mitigation measures, and earlier intervention with transporters.

Not withstanding these are commendable reactive measures now being undertaken by FSA, therefore, may I respectfully ask FSA/Board if more proactive influencing, on the data of deaths and cause, to positively further influence for proactive prevention measures to be undertaken by DEFRA/AHPA, understanding typically animals feel the effects of heat stress when their bodies exceed 25 degrees.

Answer to question 18:

We recognise that the evidence collected by OVs in slaughterhouses is useful and important in supporting improvements in animal welfare before animals reach the slaughterhouse. We share data regularly by default, and we escalate the frequency to daily reporting during periods of extreme weather to support timely interventions.

The FSA is committed to doing everything possible within its statutory remit to support improvements in farm and transport animal welfare. While we do not have regulatory powers in these areas, we are actively working with the responsible authorities, Defra and APHA, to identify opportunities to reduce animal welfare breaches and strengthen preventative measures. In particular, we are collaborating to consider what further action may be needed to mitigate the future risk of heat stress and improve outcomes for animals during periods of high temperature. We are also working to ensure that slaughterhouse-derived evidence and intelligence are used effectively to inform policy development and operational decision-making.

Question 19

From Elizabeth Gilchrist, Assistant City Protection Manager, NI Food Managers Group:

1. What specific problem(s) is the proposed national regulatory model intended to address, and what evidence is there that these problems exist in Northern Ireland?

2. What evidence is available that would support the need to extend the proposals for national regulation of large retailers to NI? Our unique regulatory landscape in terms of geography, EU governance and compliance with the FLCOP Official Control timeframes does not suggest that an extensive change to our current system is necessary.

3. What evidence is available that a national model would deliver better outcomes than the current District Council arrangements, where local intelligence in conjunction with a reactive workforce provides rapid and effective food safety regulation?

4. What assessment has been made of the impact of each proposed framework on the current role of NI District Councils, including the use of local knowledge, intelligence, physical inspection and risk-based enforcement?

5. What is the scope of businesses that will fall into the category of ‘large retailer’?

6. How will the objectives and success of each framework be measured?

Answer to question 19:

A1. The food system is becoming more diverse, dynamic and challenging and there is more we can do to strengthen the regulatory system that underpins food safety and standards, to support local food teams and ensure people can continue to have confidence in the food they eat.  

The Future of Food Regulation Programme is not responding to a failure in the current food system. Rather, it seeks to strengthen a system that is vulnerable due to a combination of changes some of which are outlined in the National Audit Office report, ‘Resilience of the food supply chain to disruptions’. The FSA has the opportunity to do more with large businesses to boost resilience and reduce risk within the food system.  At the same time, we are clear that we need to continue to support local authority food teams and look to provide the tools that they need to keep consumers safe.

The evidence considered by the programme so far includes previous FSA work on enterprise level regulation, local authority performance information, feedback from previous Food Law Code of Practice consultations and reviews, discovery work in Wales considering enhanced registration, policy work undertaken across the six programme workstreams, legislative analysis, and stakeholder engagement which started during the enterprise level regulation proof of concept stage and has continued through to the recent local authority engagement events earlier this year. This work has identified potential system issues relating to registration, the use of data and intelligence, enforcement tools, workforce sustainability, consistency and system wide visibility of risk. However, strengthening the evidence base and testing whether proposed approaches would improve outcomes are key purposes of the next phase of detailed design.

The Board and programme team has engaged with key Northern Irish stakeholders throughout its development, including district councils and representative groups as well as the Northern Ireland Food Advisory Committee. This engagement has informed our understanding of delivery challenges, opportunities and risks within the Northern Irish context.

The programme is not currently looking at nation-specific models. Work to date has focused on building a broader evidence base, exploring potential options and identifying areas requiring further analysis. In addition, the next phase will assess how different approaches might operate in Northern Ireland. We will seek to identify how national consistency can be balanced with devolved responsibilities, local intelligence and place-based delivery.

We recognise that additional work will be required to assess impacts, opportunities and implementation considerations specific to Northern Ireland, and Northern Ireland stakeholder feedback will continue to be an important part of that process.

A2. The Board recognises that Northern Ireland operates within a distinct regulatory, legal and operational context. The implications of these differences, including governance arrangements, legislative requirements and delivery through district councils, will need to be fully understood and assessed as part of the detailed design process.

The programme is continuing to engage with stakeholders in Northern Ireland to ensure local circumstances and evidence are reflected in any future assessment on whether future proposals might apply in Northern Ireland. This remains under consideration as part of the programme’s ongoing policy and design work. Stakeholder feedback will continue to inform the development of future proposals.

A3. At this stage, the programme has not concluded that any specific future model would deliver better outcomes than current arrangements. However, strengthening the evidence base and testing whether proposed approaches would improve outcomes are key purposes of the next phase of detailed design.

The Board recognise the value of local intelligence, local responsiveness, professional judgement and effective inspection activity. The programme is considering how these strengths can be reflected in future frameworks while also exploring opportunities to improve the use of intelligence, oversight and coordination.

Any future proposal would need to be supported by evidence demonstrating benefits for public protection, regulatory effectiveness and consumer confidence. While the programme will develop evidence-based options and recommendations, decisions on the preferred approach will ultimately be for Northern Irish ministers to decide whether this is taken forward in Northern Ireland.

A4. The frameworks assessed to date are high-level and do not yet contain sufficient operational detail to support a full assessment of impacts on District Council responsibilities, local intelligence, inspection activity, enforcement functions, workforce arrangements or information systems. Developing that operational detail and assessing those impacts are central purposes of the next phase of detailed design.

The Board recognise that local authority expertise and operational experience is fundamental to the food system, and they will continue to play an important role in shaping and assessing future proposals.

A5. The Future of Food Regulation programme team are developing the scope and definition of a large business.

The programme is expected to begin detailed design by focusing initially on large retail businesses. This reflects both the government’s request to consider a national approach to regulation for certain large food businesses in England and the significant role that a relatively small number of large retailers play within the wider food system. The programme is also exploring how better use of information and intelligence could support enhanced oversight of these businesses.

As the specific criteria for inclusion is being developed, the programme team will also look to future proof the criteria so that it may potentially be extended to other areas such as manufacturers and out of home.

A6. How will the objectives and success of each framework be measured?

Any proposed model must meet the request by the UK Government for the FSA to develop a consistent, national approach for England for the regulation of large food businesses, yet the Board were also clear that the need to support and strengthen local delivery is just as important and that work on the former would enable components of the latter, especially if they require legislative change.

The programme team are working to define the required components and associated outcomes of a new, coherent, connected regulatory system. The outcomes of the programme will include:

• enhanced registration for all to improve visibility of businesses in the food system
• triaged regulatory pathways to provide national oversight of the largest businesses
• greater use of data and strengthened intelligence sharing
• an improved guidance hub
• a revised enforcement framework with updated tools and powers
• greater transparency about food hygiene for businesses in any regulatory pathway
• including mandatory Food Hygiene Rating Display online across the UK and in-store in England (“in store display” is already mandatory in Wales and Northern Ireland) – to drive improvements in businesses and help customers to make informed choices

The FSA will assess success by measuring whether the future regulatory system delivers the outcomes it is intended to achieve. While detailed measures are still being developed, these are likely to focus on areas such as effective risk management, better use of data and intelligence, consistency of regulatory oversight, and the long-term resource and funding sustainability of the system.

Question 20

From Elizabeth Gilchrist, Chair, National Food Hygiene Focus Group:

1. What evidence demonstrates that the current local authority-led regulatory model for large businesses is failing and requires structural reform?

2. How will Frameworks 3 and 5 improve food safety, food standards and consumer protection outcomes beyond what could be achieved through investing in and strengthening the current local authority and Primary Authority led system?

3. What is the rationale behind choosing Framework 3 and 5 rather than prioritising licencing, enhanced registration and the implementation of mandatory Food Hygiene Rating display, all suggestions from LA’s across the three nations identified as being a stronger means for developing the future of food regulation?

4. How will local authorities be involved in the design, governance and ongoing evaluation of the delivery arrangements?

5. What role will local authorities retain in relation to nationally regulated businesses operating within their areas?

6. What are the proposed arrangements for sharing intelligence, inspection findings, enforcement information and incident response activity between national regulators and local authorities and how will adaptations to Information Management systems be funded?

7. How will accountability and governance arrangements operate where responsibility for regulatory oversight is divided between national and local bodies?

8. What safeguards will the FSA put in place to ensure that any redistribution of responsibilities does not inadvertently weaken local authority capability or resilience?

9. What will happen to existing Primary Authority partnerships?

10. How will success be measured and what criteria will be used to determine whether the reforms have delivered better outcomes?

11. What safeguards will ensure that any future expansion of national regulation will be subject to further consultation and stakeholder engagement?

12. What is the criteria that will be used to determine which businesses fall within the scope of a nationally regulated retail model and how will this criteria be reviewed over time?

13. How will local authority intelligence be considered where it differs from centrally held assurance data or third-party audit findings?

Answer to question 20:

A1. The programme has not concluded that the current local authority-led model is failing, nor that structural reform is required.

Local authorities play a critical role in the delivery of food regulation and stakeholder feedback has consistently highlighted the value of local knowledge, professional judgement, inspection activity and responsive enforcement. The programme is instead considering whether there are opportunities to strengthen the overall regulatory system in response to changes in the food sector, including the increasing scale and complexity of some large multi-site businesses, the growing availability of assurance and operational data, and the need to ensure the system works for people, for businesses, and for the teams delivering it.

The purpose of the current phase of work is therefore to assess regulatory models, identify risks and benefits, and test whether different approaches could improve regulatory outcomes while preserving the strengths of the existing system. No final conclusions have been reached.

A2. The next phase of the programme will focus on developing and testing proposals to strengthen the food safety system. This work will build on the evidence gathered so far, extensive stakeholder engagement, and the assessment of a range of possible approaches.

The purpose of the next phase is not to assume better outcomes, but to determine which systems can deliver measurable improvements compared with the current system and other reform options. This will include assessing whether they can:

• maintain and strengthen public confidence in food safety and standards
• support businesses to do the right thing through clearer, more consistent regulation
• enable local food teams to focus their expertise where it is needed most
• improve the identification of emerging risks through better use of data and intelligence
• strengthen regulatory oversight and accountability
• deliver a more effective, resilient and trusted food regulatory system for the future

The Board recognise that investment in local authority services is an important factor in supporting regulatory delivery. However, stakeholders have consistently highlighted that the challenges facing the current system are not solely related to resources, but also to issues such as consistency, intelligence, oversight, data sharing and the changing nature of food businesses. The purpose of the programme is therefore to assess whether wider system reforms, alongside existing arrangements, could deliver additional benefits for public protection, business compliance and regulatory effectiveness.

A3. The Board has supported further design work on a package of changes intended to strengthen the food safety system as a whole, recognising that no single reform will address all of the challenges facing the current system. During the Board meeting, the Board emphasised the need to ensure that nothing is absolutely ruled out at this stage. Whilst the two models will be taken forward for more detailed design, it is not a decision to rule out other approaches that have been considered through the programme,

As the Future of Food programme team move into the next phase, detailed design work will continue with local authorities, businesses and other stakeholders to ensure that any future proposals deliver a regulatory system that is effective, proportionate, evidence-led and practical for those responsible for delivering it.

A4. The Future of Food Regulation programme team will draw on local authority expertise and operational experience through the programme’s Technical Advisory Committee as well as through the routine engagement with established groups. Local authority and professional membership bodies also sit on the Senior Advisory Forum.

A5. Evidence gathered through stakeholder engagement and the frameworks themselves recognise the importance of local authority expertise, local intelligence and place-based knowledge. Understanding the future relationship between local authorities, nationally regulated businesses and any national regulatory function is an important part of the detailed design phase.

The Future of Food Regulation programme is assessing how any future model could maintain effective local regulatory capability while ensuring that intelligence, assurance and oversight operate effectively across the wider system. Over the coming months the team will continue to work closely with local authorities, businesses and other partners to test and refine our proposals.

A6. Detailed operational arrangements have not yet been developed. However, improving the way information, intelligence and data are used across the system is an important component of the programme.

Data and digital capability are one of the programme’s enabling workstreams and is intended to support assessment of how different models could operate in practice. Issues relating to information sharing, interoperability, system requirements, governance, assurance, funding and implementation will form part of the next phase of detailed design and assessment.

A7. Governance and accountability arrangements have not yet been determined. Any future proposal would need to demonstrate clear responsibilities, effective decision-making arrangements, appropriate governance structures and transparency for stakeholders and consumers.

A8. The Board recognises this as an important concern that has been raised through stakeholder engagement. Consideration of workforce impacts, operational capability, local authority resilience, implementation risks and system capacity forms part of the next detailed design phase. Any future proposal would need to demonstrate that it supports effective delivery, strengthens regulatory outcomes and does not create unintended consequences that undermine public protection. These issues will be considered as part of detailed design and assessment before any decisions are taken.

A9. The Board recognises that Primary Authority forms part of the current regulatory landscape and that any future proposals would need to consider the impacts on existing (and future) partnerships.  Any potential implications will be assessed through the next phase of detailed design and stakeholder engagement. 

A10. Any proposed model must meet the request by the UK Government for the FSA to develop a consistent, national approach for England for the regulation of large food businesses, but the Board were also clear that the need to support and strengthen local delivery is just as important. The programme team are working to define the required components and associated outcomes of a new, coherent, connected regulatory system. The outcomes of the programme will include:

• enhanced registration for all to improve visibility of businesses in the food system
• triaged regulatory pathways to provide national oversight of the largest businesses
• greater use of data and strengthened intelligence sharing
• an improved guidance hub
• a revised enforcement framework with updated tools and powers
• greater transparency about food hygiene for businesses in any regulatory pathway including mandatory Food Hygiene Rating Display online across the UK and in-store in England (it is already mandatory in Wales and Northern Ireland) – to drive improvements in businesses and help customers to make informed choices

The FSA will assess success by measuring whether the future regulatory system delivers the outcomes it is intended to achieve. While detailed measures are still being developed, these are likely to focus on areas such as effective risk management, better use of data and intelligence, consistency of regulatory oversight, and the long-term resource and funding sustainability of the system.

A11. Stakeholder engagement has been integral to the programme from the outset and has informed both the development and assessment of the frameworks presented to the Board.

Over the coming months the programme will continue to work closely with local authorities, businesses and other partners to test and refine their proposals. Stakeholder feedback will continue to inform the development and assessment of future proposals. A formal consultation is planned for 2027.

A12. The specific criteria have not yet been developed. The Future of Food Regulation programme team will now work to develop and test the entry criteria which could include business size, complexity, cross-boundary operations, centralised controls, compliance history and risk profile.

The next phase of design will develop and test objective entry criteria for any future national model. Potential considerations may include factors such as business scale, organisational complexity, cross-boundary operations, the degree of centralised control, risk profile and compliance history. Consideration will also be given to how any future arrangements remain proportionate, transparent and adaptable as the food system continues to evolve.

Any criteria would need to be evidence-based, operationally practical and capable of supporting effective regulatory outcomes.

A13. The Board recognises that local authority intelligence, inspection findings and professional judgement are important sources of regulatory evidence. Stakeholders have consistently highlighted the value of local knowledge and operational insight, and the Board has heard strong views that intelligence-led approaches should not rely on a single source of information.

Detailed operational arrangements have not yet been developed, but future design work will consider how information from different sources can be brought together to support effective regulatory decision-making, oversight and regulatory response. Over the coming months the programme will continue to work closely with local authorities, businesses and other partners to test and refine our proposals.

Question 21

From Peter Brett, Chair, London Food Coordinating Group (LFCG):

We have drafted a number of questions below, but importantly have also sent a more substantive submission which we would be pleased to discuss further.

Evidence base: What specific problem is national-level regulation intended to solve, and what published evidence shows that existing local authority arrangements are currently insufficient in relation to the regulation of the large retailers?

Business assurance data: How will business-generated assurance data be independently verified, and what safeguards will apply where that data conflicts with any local authority intelligence or direct observation?

Resources and workforce: How will the FSA ensure that local authority food service resources, expertise and capacity are not further reduced or displaced as a consequence of national-level regulation?

Primary Authority: Why were existing Primary Authority mechanisms, including the FSA’s potential role as a specified supporting regulator, considered insufficient, and what evidence justifies creating new regulatory structures?

Scope and definitions: How will “large food business” be defined, and what criteria will determine entry into, review within or removal from any national regulatory framework?

Answer to question 21:

The Board are grateful for the detailed points raised, many of which were acknowledged during the board meeting.

The food system is becoming more diverse, dynamic and challenging, and there’s more we can do to strengthen the regulatory system that underpins food safety and standards to support local food teams and ensure people can continue to have confidence in the food they eat.  

The Future of Food Regulation Programme is not responding to a failure in the current food system. Rather, it seeks to strengthen a system that is vulnerable due to a combination of changes some of which are outlined in the National Audit Office report, ‘Resilience of the food supply chain to disruptions’. The FSA has the opportunity to do more with large businesses to boost resilience and reduce risk within the food system.  At the same time, we are clear that we need to continue to support local authority food teams and look to provide the tools that they need to keep consumers safe.

The evidence considered by the programme so far includes previous FSA work on enterprise level regulation, local authority performance information, feedback from previous Food Law Code of Practice consultations and reviews, discovery work in Wales considering enhanced registration, policy work undertaken across the six programme workstreams, legislative analysis, and stakeholder engagement which started during the enterprise level regulation proof of concept stage and has continued through to the recent local authority engagement events earlier this year. This work has identified potential system issues relating to registration, the use of data and intelligence, enforcement tools, workforce sustainability, consistency and system wide visibility of risk. However, strengthening the evidence base and testing whether proposed approaches would improve outcomes are key purposes of the next phase of detailed design.

The Future of Food Regulation programme team will respond directly with more detailed answers.