page
FSA Board Meeting - June 2026: Agenda and Papers
Newcastle upon Tyne
The agenda for this meeting includes:
- FSA Strategy: Annual Update on Progress Indicators
- Annual Science Update from FSA’s Chief Scientific Adviser
- The Risky Foods Framework – Options for the future
- Incidents & Resilience Annual Report 2025/26
- Annual Animal Welfare Report 2025/26
- Report from the Director for Northern Ireland
09:00 Chair's Introduction and Chair's Report
Professor Susan Jebb presents the minutes and actions from the previous FSA Board meeting in March 2026 and presents the Chair's report.
FSA 26/06/01 - Minutes of the Food Standards Agency Board Meeting – Wednesday 25 March 2026
FSA 26/06/02 - Actions Arising
09:20 Chief Executive’s Report to the Board (FSA 26/06/03)
Katie Pettifer presents the Chief Executive's report to the FSA Board.
FSA 26/06/03 - Chief Executive’s Report to the Board
09:50 FSA Strategy: Annual Update on Progress Indicators (FSA 26/06/04)
Emily Antcliffe and David Holmes present a paper providing the third annual update on the high-level progress indicators for our strategy, ‘Food you can trust,’ agreed by the Board in March 2022.
FSA 26/06/04 - FSA Strategy: Annual Update on Progress Indicators
10:10 The Risky Foods Framework – Options for the future (FSA 26/06/06)
Rebecca Sudworth and James Cooper present a recap of the Risky Foods Framework, as agreed by the Board in 2016, exploring how the framework has been used in practice for Raw Drinking Milk and less than thoroughly cooked burgers.
FSA 26/06/06 - The Risky Foods Framework - Options for the Future
10:30 Annual Science Update from FSA’s Chief Scientific Adviser (FSA 26/06/05)
Professor Ian Young presents his first annual report to the Board as the Food Standards Agency’s Chief Scientific Adviser (CSA).
FSA 26/06/05 - Annual Science Update from FSA’s Chief Scientific Adviser
11:00 Break
11:20 Incidents and Resilience Annual Report 2025/26 (FSA 26/06/07)
Junior Johnson and Darren Whitby introduce this paper, which sets out the work done by the FSA with regulatory partners, government and industry to manage food and feed safety incidents over the past year and describes how we are improving our capability.
FSA 26/06/07- Incidents & Resilience Annual Report 2025/26
11:50 Annual Animal Welfare Report 2005/26 (FSA 26/06/08)
A paper updating the Board on the FSA’s delivery of animal welfare controls in slaughterhouses in England and Wales during 2025/26, and on related activity across farms and transport.
FSA 26/06/08 - Annual Animal Welfare Report 2005/26
12:20 Report from the Director for Northern Ireland (FSA 26/06/09)
Andy Cole introduces a high-level overview of the work of the FSA in Northern Ireland over the last year.
FSA 26/06/09 - Report from the Director for Northern Ireland
12:40 Report from the Chair of the Business Committee (INFO 26/06/01)
INFO 26/06/01 - Report from the Chair of the Business Committee
12:50 Report from the Chair of ARAC (INFO 26/06/02)
INFO 26/06/02 - Report from the Chair of ARAC
13:00 Reports from the Chairs of the Food Advisory Committees (Oral Reports)
13:05 Any Other Business
13:10 Questions
13:20 Close
Questions Received from the Public Ahead of 17 June 2026 Board Meeting
Please note questions are listed below in the order in which they were received.
Question 1
From: Cefyn Jones, Founder of The Hemp Hound Agency
The Risky Foods Framework discusses how the FSA intends to assess and regulate emerging food categories. In light of ongoing SPS negotiations and the continued availability of the Article 4 route, can the Board clarify whether businesses pursuing Article 4 determinations can continue to have confidence that evidence submitted under the current UK framework will remain capable of delivering a meaningful regulatory outcome should SPS arrangements subsequently alter the UK's novel foods regime?
Question 2
From: Cefyn Jones, Founder of The Hemp Hound Agency
The FSA has historically accepted that certain hemp-derived foods have a history of consumption prior to 15 May 1997. Within the Risky Foods Framework, how does the FSA distinguish between evidence relating to historic consumption of hemp-derived food preparations and evidence relating to individual cannabinoids, and how is that distinction reflected in Article 4 assessments?
Question 3
From: Cefyn Jones, Founder of The Hemp Hound Agency
The Risky Foods Framework places significant emphasis on evidence-based decision making and maintaining public trust. How does the Agency ensure that evidence or concerns which challenge established regulatory positions are not dismissed merely because they are inconvenient to existing policy assumptions?
In particular, what safeguards exist to ensure that officials involved in the development or defence of a regulatory position remain open to evidence that may undermine that position?
Question 4
From: Steven Croft
How will the board improve regular and routine monitoring of abbatoir CCTV footage beyond the minimum requirement of 15 minutes per shift in light of repeated exposés by hidden camera or whistleblower when FSA officials are present but unaware of abuses?
Question 5
From: Angela Nanni
In light of repeated undercover exposés revealing serious abuses taking place while FSA staff are supposedly present but unaware, what steps will the Board take to ensure CCTV footage is monitored far more rigorously than the current minimum requirement of 15 minutes per shift?
Question 6
From: Bridget O'Meara
In slaughterhouses a slaughterman is required to hold a Certificate of Competence, relevant to the type of livestock he is slaughtering and also the method of slaughtering he is using. In many instances this Certificate has been issued by an Official Veterinarian, who will then become the trainer of the holder of this CoC and will also be the Enforcement Officer. Once awarded, this CoC is valid for life, which could potentially be 49 years currently. Will the FSA put in place a regular and periodic re-assessment in order to maintain high and ethical standards of procedure and also offer on an even more frequent timescale easily accessible mental health counselling relevant to this type of work? Will the FSA also be more thorough in their initial assessments of applicants for CoCs (in slaughtering) and actually carry out DBS checks themselves rather than relying on applicants to make their own disclosures as to convictions for animal cruelty and sexual or violent crimes.
Question 7
From: Malcolm Best
Will the FSA consider as part of your staff training, including white collar workers, of all relevant departments connected to the slaughtering of livestock be required to spend time (to be determined) in an active abattoir following livestock through from arrival at the plant to death, in order to provide them with a full understanding of the processes they are monitoring and policing via their forms, reports etc. Careers are better built from the ground up and this would only serve to improve the understanding of what they are policing and the effectiveness of staff in ensuring Animal Welfare Laws are adhered to.
Question 8
From: Nicole Harding
The animal welfare regulatory framework exists to ensure farmed animals to prevent pain and suffering and ensure full compliance with abattoirs in the UK.
The undeniably invaluable work undertaken by private undercover investigations and footage which has been captured by third parties and revealed that serious and repeated animal welfare breaches continue to emerge and present themselves. which is undoubtedly of growing concern and importance.
Having read with interest your ‘Incidents and Resilience Report’ which outlines a ‘clear shift towards a more preventative and intelligence-led model’, will FSA Directors/Board be undertaking a swift review of existing framework and what robust preventative measures will be put in place; will harsher enforcement actions and penalties, mandatory DBS checks, be considered to act as a real preventative deterrent and will intelligence-led initiatives, such as ‘live streaming 24/7 CCTV monitoring to a central control centre* which can, using available AI system/technology with facial recognition, provide an immediate trigger alert of any animal welfare abuse or breaches and initiate CoC on-line checks, resulting in immediate FSA intervention/personal visit by relevant person/investigation without any ensuing delays when concerns are identified. Given current challenges of recruitment/labour shortages, capacity ratio of OV vs abattoirs, multiple process stages for current in-person monitoring and unpopular work conditions/conflicts for Ovs role, would the investment/use of such current technology be promptly considered?
Question 9
From: Anonymous
In an email reply (via an MP query), from Dame Angela Eagle on behalf of DEFRA, she states ''OVs of the FSA are present in all approved slaughterhouses during slaughter operations to monitor and enforce animal welfare requirements. In addition to physical observations, the OV carries out daily reviews of CCTV footage recorded by the slaughterhouse CCTV systems.'' However, covert investigations show that horrendous suffering and cruelty take place on a regular basis. My understanding is that the slaughterline could be stopped by the OV, and an animal obviously severely suffering would be humanely euthanized. This does not always appear to be the case though. Please can I ask are OVs present in all approved slaughterhouses (whatever the size and number of animals being slaughtered) and actually present on the killfloor whenever the facility is operating (whether day or night)? Also, does the OV have the authority to stop the slaughterline and euthanize an animal to prevent further pain and suffering? Is there a full record of instances such as this for the last 12 months?
What immediate action would be taken to prevent further instances of cruelty and suffering in the slaughterhouse, particularly at that time? What future actions are put in place to ensure the slaughterhouse is complying with FSA directives.
How severe do animal welfare violations have to be for the FSA to close the slaughterhouse facility?
Question 10
From: Camryn Clarke
Where the FSA identifies serious animal welfare concerns at an approved slaughterhouse and opens a formal investigation, what is the FSA's policy on whether that establishment may continue operating while the investigation is ongoing — and under what circumstances would the FSA suspend an establishment's approval as a precautionary measure to protect animal welfare before an investigation concludes, rather than only after?
Question 11
From: Anonymous
The FSA has a legal duty to enforce animal welfare, with OVs present in slaughterhouses during all live operations, so why is it left to animal activists to expose (undercover) examples of extreme animal cruelty rather than your own on-site inspectors? If your officials are on the floor every day, are they failing to see these abuses, or are they choosing to ignore them?
Question 12
From: Callum Courtney
The FSA's animal welfare framework is intended to prevent unnecessary suffering and ensure compliance with welfare legislation through measures including mandatory CCTV, Official Veterinarian (OV) oversight and regulatory enforcement. However, serious welfare breaches continue to be identified across the slaughter sector, with some high-profile cases only coming to light following the release of third-party footage rather than through routine regulatory intervention.
Given these ongoing incidents, does the FSA consider the current animal welfare oversight framework to be fully effective in identifying and preventing welfare non-compliance before animals suffer avoidable harm?
In particular:
1. Has the FSA assessed the potential use of independently monitored, AI-assisted CCTV systems capable of automatically identifying indicators of potential welfare breaches and alerting regulators in real time? If so, what were the findings, and if not, does the FSA intend to explore this technology?
2. What specific assurance mechanisms does the FSA use to satisfy itself that Official Veterinarians and other regulatory personnel are consistently identifying, escalating and taking appropriate action when welfare breaches occur?
3. In light of recent enforcement action within the sector, does the FSA believe that additional safeguards, oversight measures or reforms are required to strengthen public confidence that animals are being adequately protected at the point of slaughter?
I would welcome the Board's view on whether technological innovation and enhanced regulatory assurance should now form part of the future development of the UK's animal welfare enforcement framework.
Questions from Cannabis Trades Association
Questions relating to FSA 26/06/02, Action 1: SPS communications for SMEs and non-exporting food businesses
1. Will the FSA confirm that CBD food and supplement businesses are within scope of the strengthened, targeted communication plans being developed for SMEs and non-exporting food businesses in relation to SPS-related changes?
2. If CBD businesses are not currently within scope of those SPS communication plans, why have they been excluded?
3. Will the FSA confirm whether the SPS communication plans will specifically address sectors already affected by divergence between Great Britain, Scotland, Northern Ireland and the EU, including CBD food products and hemp-derived ingredients?
4. Will the FSA consult directly with CBD sector representatives before finalising any SPS-related communication materials that may affect CBD foods, CBD food supplements, hemp-derived ingredients or local authority enforcement?
5. Will the FSA confirm whether the communication plans will include specific guidance for businesses whose products are already on the FSA public list of CBD products linked to novel food applications?
6. Will the FSA confirm whether the communication plans will explain the difference between isolate and broad-spectrum CBD, full-spectrum whole-plant hemp CBD extracts, and illicit or chemically converted psychoactive cannabinoids?
Questions relating to local authority liaison and inspector materials
1. Will the FSA confirm whether the supporting materials for local authority inspectors will include a dedicated CBD section?
2. Will the inspector materials explain how local authorities should deal with CBD products that are on the public list but may not yet be authorised?
3. Will the inspector materials explain how local authorities should assess products that have reformulated to meet the FSA’s current advice on CBD intake and naturally occurring trace delta-9 THC?
4. Will the FSA ensure that local authority materials do not conflate lawful CBD food products with illicit psychoactive cannabinoid products?
5. Will the FSA confirm whether Trading Standards, local authority food teams, the Home Office, police and the MHRA will receive consistent guidance on CBD products?
Questions relating to FSA 26/06/02, Action 2: the June SPS progress update
1. Did the June 2026 SPS progress update consider CBD, hemp-derived ingredients, novel foods or food supplements?
2. If CBD was not considered as part of the June 2026 SPS progress update, why was it omitted?
3. Did the SPS update assess the implications of UK-EU SPS alignment for regulated food products where Great Britain, Northern Ireland and the EU already operate different practical positions?
4. Did the SPS update assess the possibility that closer UK-EU alignment could affect the UK’s current approach to CBD novel food authorisation, CBD intake advice, data requirements or enforcement?
5. Will the FSA publish any internal analysis it holds on whether UK-EU SPS alignment could require, encourage or indirectly pressure the UK to follow EFSA’s approach to CBD?
6. Will the FSA confirm whether it has assessed the potential impact of EFSA’s provisional safe intake level for CBD on the UK’s current ADI of 10 mg per day adult advisory intake?
7. Will the FSA confirm whether the Board has been asked to consider the consequences for UK CBD businesses if SPS alignment were to move the UK closer to the EU position on CBD novel foods?
8. Will the FSA explain how the Board intends to protect UK regulatory discretion over CBD where domestic consumer use, business investment, public list status and UK risk-management decisions differ from the EU position?
Questions arising from Actions from Previous Meetings: CBD consultation summary and risk-management decisions
1. The Actions from Previous Meetings section states that the Policy team is to provide a paper to the Board summarising CBD consultation responses ahead of risk-management decisions on CBD products. On what date will that written summary be provided?
2. Will the written summary be published publicly, or will it only be provided internally to the Board?
3. Will all stakeholders who responded to the CBD consultation receive a copy of the written summary before the September CBD authorisations session?
4. Will stakeholders be given an opportunity to correct, clarify or respond to the written summary before the Board considers CBD authorisations and risk-management decisions?
5. Will the written summary include the views of SMEs, retailers, manufacturers, laboratories, trade bodies and consumers, or will it focus mainly on applicant data?
6. Will the written summary include a dedicated analysis of the impact of the Novel Foods CBD process on SMEs?
7. Will the written summary address the 10 mg per day adult ADI, including calls for review, bodyweight-based guidance, international comparison and the evidence base for the current level?
8. Will the written summary address the difference between authorising CBD isolate and providing a workable route for broad-spectrum CBD, full-spectrum CBD and whole-plant hemp extracts?
9. Will the written summary address the commercial impact of data protection and whether authorisations based on protected data could create de facto monopolies?
10. Will the written summary address the risk that authorising only isolated or highly purified CBD products could narrow the lawful market by default?
11. Will the written summary address trace THC limits, analytical variability, laboratory limits of quantification and the practical enforcement implications for finished CBD foods?
12. Will the written summary address the interaction between CBD food regulation, controlled cannabinoid issues, Home Office licensing, Trading Standards enforcement and MHRA medicines classification?
13. Will the written summary include a clear recommendation on transitional arrangements for products currently on the public list?
14. Will the Board be asked to make, endorse or influence risk-management decisions before stakeholders have had a fair opportunity to understand and respond to the written summary?
Questions relating to full-spectrum CBD and whole-plant hemp extracts
1. When will the FSA address full-spectrum CBD products, broad-spectrum CBD products and whole-plant hemp extracts within the Novel Foods and risk-management process?
2. Does the FSA accept that much of the existing consumer CBD market is not limited to isolated or highly purified CBD?
3. Does the FSA accept that authorising isolated or highly purified CBD first, without a clear pathway for full-spectrum and broad-spectrum products, could narrow the lawful market by default?
4. Will the FSA publish a specific pathway for full-spectrum CBD products, broad-spectrum CBD products and whole-plant hemp extracts?
5. Will the September CBD authorisations session address full-spectrum CBD specifically, or will it focus only on the three CBD applications currently under consideration?
6. Does the FSA accept that toxicological data for CBD isolate cannot automatically answer all safety questions for full-spectrum or broad-spectrum hemp extracts?
7. What evidence will the FSA require for full-spectrum CBD products, including cannabinoid profile, terpene profile, trace THC, contaminants, stability, batch consistency, extraction method and manufacturing controls?
8. Will the FSA distinguish clearly between lawful full-spectrum hemp-derived CBD products and illicit or chemically converted cannabinoids such as HHC or delta-8 THC?
9. Will the FSA confirm whether full-spectrum and broad-spectrum CBD products currently on the public list will remain able to progress through a proportionate authorisation route?
10. If the FSA does not intend to provide a route for full-spectrum CBD products, when will that be stated openly so that businesses, retailers and consumers can understand the consequences?
Questions relating to FSA 26/06/07, Incidents and Resilience Annual Report 2025/26
1. Will the FSA confirm whether any CBD-related food incidents were recorded between December 2019 and the present date?
2. Will the FSA provide a complete list of all food incidents with full details involving CBD products from December 2019 onwards?
3. Will the FSA confirm how many CBD-related records are held across incident notifications, consumer complaints, adverse event reports, food alerts, allergy alerts, PRINs, recalls, signals, root cause analysis records, PRISM records or other incident systems?
4. Will the FSA distinguish between incidents involving compliant CBD food products and incidents involving non-compliant products, or products of unclear category?
5. Will the FSA distinguish between incidents involving CBD itself and incidents involving THC, HHC, delta-8 THC, other cannabinoids, contamination, mislabelling, excessive dosage, illegal conversion, manufacturing failures or consumer misuse?
6. How many CBD-related incidents resulted in local authority action, product recall, PRIN, food alert, Home Office referral, police referral, MHRA referral or no further action?
7. If no CBD food incidents have been recorded since January 2020, will the FSA confirm this clearly as a nil return?
8. If CBD food incidents have been recorded, will the FSA publish an anonymised summary before any CBD risk-management decisions are made?
9. Will the FSA confirm whether CBD appears in the incident data or signal case studies underpinning the Incidents and Resilience Annual Report 2025/26?
Questions relating to proportionality, consumer access and regulatory impact
1. Has the FSA conducted an economic impact assessment of the Novel Foods CBD process on SMEs?
2. Has the FSA assessed product withdrawals, staff losses, compliance costs, lost investment, cancelled product development, retailer delisting and business closures arising from the Novel Foods CBD proc
3. Will an FSA proportionality assessment consider consumer access, affordability, product choice, SME viability, competition, innovation, enforcement capacity and the risk of consumers moving to unregulated online channels?
4. Will the FSA confirm that CBD products sold without medicinal claims remain capable of being regulated as foods or food supplements rather than medicines?
5. Will the FSA confirm that concerns about medicinal claims, psychoactive derivatives or illicit conversion of CBD will not be used as a justification for medicalising lawful, non-intoxicating CBD food products?
6. Will the FSA confirm that any future change to CBD’s regulatory treatment, whether through SPS alignment or domestic risk-management decisions, will be subject to consultation, evidence review and economic impact assessment?