FSA Board Meeting - March 2026: Agenda and Papers

The agenda for this meeting includes:

• Programme Update: How the FSA is Preparing for a UK-EU SPS Agreement  
• Future of Food Regulation Programme
• Healthier Food Targets and Reporting
• Foodborne Disease - Update
• Final Report from the External Effectiveness Review of the FSA Board
• Report from the Chair of the Welsh Food Advisory Committee (WFAC)

09:00 Chair's Introduction and Chair's Report

Professor Susan Jebb presents the minutes and actions from the previous FSA Board meeting in December 2025 and presents the Chair's report.

FSA 26/03/01- Minutes of 10 December 2025 Board Meeting

FSA 26/03/02 - Actions Arising

Minutes of the Closed Discussion of  CLO 25/12/01 - Market Authorisations - Prioritisation

(CLO 25/12/01 was discussed in closed session at the December 2025 Board Meeting)

09:20 Chief Executive's Report (FSA 26/03/03)

Katie Pettifer presents the Chief Executive's report to the FSA Board.

FSA 26/03/03 - Chief Executive's Report

09:50 Programme Update: How the FSA is Preparing for a UK-EU SPS Agreement  (FSA 26/03/04)

Laura Blair and Sam Faulkner present an update on the Food Standards Agency’s work to support UK Government preparations for a UK–EU Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) Agreement

FSA 26/03/04 - Programme Update: How the FSA is Preparing for a UK-EU SPS Agreement  

10:10 Future of Food Regulation Programme (FSA 26/03/05)

Beth Chaudhary, Rachel Cooper, Nathan Barnhouse and David Holmes present a paper setting out the work undertaken to establish the Future of Food Regulation programme, following the November 2025 budget announcement.

FSA 26/03/05 - Future of Food Regulation Programme

10:50 Break

11:10 Healthier Food Targets and Reporting (FSA 26/03/06)

Beth Chaudhary, Rachel Cooper and David Holmes introduce an update on the Government’s commitment to introduce mandatory healthy‑food sales reporting for large food businesses and to set targets to increase the healthiness of sales

FSA 26/03/06- Healthier Food Targets and Reporting 

11:40 Foodborne Disease -Update (FSA 26/03/07)

Rebecca Sudworth and Natasha Smith present a paper setting out the evidence gathering plan and initial findings to date from the investigation into possible causes for the increases in Campylobacter and Salmonella in official data published by UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA)/Public Health Bodies for 2024, along with next steps.

FSA 26/03/07 - Foodborne Disease -Update 

12:00 Final Report from the External Effectiveness Review of the FSA Board (FSA 26/03/08)

Timothy Riley and Christopher Westwood introduce the Final Report from the External Effectiveness Review of the FSA Board

FSA 26/03/08 - Final Report from the External Effectiveness Review of the FSA Board

12:20 Report from the Chair of the Welsh Food Advisory Committee (WFAC) (FSA 26/03/09)

Rhian Hayward introduces his report as the Chair of the Wales Food Advisory Committee (WFAC) on the activity of the Committee for the period April 2025 to March 2026.

FSA 26/03/09 - Report from the Chair of the Welsh Food Advisory Committee (WFAC)

12:35 Report of March ARAC meeting (INFO 26/03/01)

INFO 26/03/01 - Report of March ARAC meeting

12:45 Report from the Chair of the Business Committee (INFO 26/03/02)

INFO 26/03/02 - Report from the Chair of the Business Committee

12:55 Reports from the Chairs of the Food Advisory Committees (Oral Reports)

13:05 Any Other Business

13:10 Questions

13:20 Close

Questions to the FSA Board

We are keen to ensure, as far as is practical, that questions are addressed in the discussion at the Board meeting. Notwithstanding discussions on the day, all questions will receive a written reply within 20 working days of the meeting.

For questions that do not relate to a paper on the agenda, please email correspondence@food.gov.uk and we will aim to respond within 20 working days.  Please note these submissions and their replies will not generally be published. 

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

The cultured meat industry has invested heavily in the UK novel foods system especially in regulatory sandboxes.

Under Recital 115 of the European Biotech Act the European Union is going to specifically exclude Sandboxes from novel foods.

In relation to the 3 tests put in place for exemptions to dynamic alignment the sandboxes do not:

1. Result in lower standards than the EU
2. Do not restrict access to EU animals or goods entering GB
3. Has no impact on EU complaint goods being exported to the EU

As this seems a statement of fact has this issue been discussed with the EU in relation to the European Biotech Act, and have the already agreed in principle that sandboxes are outside of the scope of any agreement?

Question 2

From: Cefyn Jones, Founder, The Hemp Hound Agency

In light of ongoing UK–EU SPS discussions, and the potential for alignment on novel foods, I would like to ask how the FSA intends to ensure regulatory certainty for sectors currently progressing through the UK system—particularly where significant investment has already been made.

Specifically, in relation to Article 4 determinations, does the Board see an opportunity for the FSA to provide early clarity on product categories where there is credible evidence of historic consumption, in order to establish a stable domestic position prior to any SPS implementation?

For sectors such as hemp and CBD, where businesses have spent several years and substantial resources navigating the novel foods process, such clarity could prevent unnecessary duplication of effort and support both consumer safety and market continuity.

More broadly, does the Board consider that the use of Article 4 determinations could form part of a proportionate, risk-based approach to maintaining UK regulatory leadership in areas of traditional food use, even in the context of closer EU alignment?

Question 3

From: Cefyn Jones, Founder, The Hemp Hound Agency

Can the Board clarify how Article 4 determinations will be approached where an application includes evidence not only of historic consumption, but of prior regulatory acceptance or tolerance by UK authorities (including the FSA and Home Office)?

Where such evidence indicates that certain hemp-derived products, including extracts, have previously been accepted or permitted within food contexts, on what basis would these products remain subject to novel food authorisation rather than non-novel determination?

Furthermore, if regulatory alignment results in greater reliance on EU processes, how will the FSA ensure that this body of evidence—reflecting UK regulatory history and practice—is given appropriate weight, rather than being disregarded within a framework that does not account for it?

Question 4

From: Cefyn Jones, Founder, The Hemp Hound Agency

In light of recent FSA communications advising businesses to prepare for EU-led authorisation processes, and indicating that applications may not reach a UK ministerial decision before potential SPS implementation, can the Board clarify how stakeholders should interpret the relevance of the current UK novel foods pathway?

Specifically, where businesses are being encouraged to consider EU applications, while still being asked to continue engaging with the UK system, what level of reliance can reasonably be placed on the UK process delivering a meaningful regulatory outcome?

In this context, how does the FSA justify the continuation of assessments under the current framework, and what assurance can be provided that ongoing engagement with the UK system will not result in duplication of effort or regulatory disadvantage for applicants?

Question 5

From: Abigial Farr

Are the board aware that the UKSHA in Surrey Sussex and Kent are taking away the investigation of infectious diseases from local authorities, due to the "lack of resources" within local authorities, but come back to us to carry out follow up, but without providing the wider context of their investigation, deskilling officers and reducing the argument for EH resource. The UKSHA have stopped any investigation of campylobacter by local authorities and themselves, and all communication with the ill person's, despite this being the most prevalent food poisoning.

As part of the FSA's work In this area, will they involve and challenge the UKSHA, where necessary, the unilateral changing of food poisoning investigation, from officers with local knowledge, to a more remote process, as without investigation, sources of the food poisoning is unlikely to be found? Many thanks

Question 6

From: Nottinghamshire County Council Trading Standards

The Board paper refers to engagement with stakeholders. Certainly in relation to Local Authorities this engagement was done at extremely short notice and a short timescale (one week) which covered the February 2026 half term holiday when a lot of people who would want to respond would be on leave. The document provided was long, detailed and had hundreds of points which would need to be considered. This was sent out at the same time another short notice request for feedback on other matters had been received by LAs from the FSA.

When the issue of this being very short notice and near impossible task was raised LA’s were advised that this timescale was needed to make sure that the FSA met the board meeting deadline. Does the board consider this to be appropriate and/or effective engagement/consultation with stakeholders? If it’s not considered a consultation by the FSA, we note that these engagements have been/are being used to form and shape content within this paper to help form decision making by the FSA and because of how the data was collected they may not be a true representation of views.

Question 7

From: Nottinghamshire County Council Trading Standards

Within the proposals, not particularly highlighted, and within the FSDM reporting, again not highlighted, there is reference that this may be expanded to include feed work. Whilst absolutely linked, if the FSA is considering this why has this not been communicated clearly and effectively to feed officers so that they are also able to engage at an early stage within this process? LA Feed Officers seem to be unaware of these proposals.

Will the national regulator cover all aspects of food? Currently some of this function is spilt between FSA, DoH and DEFRA? This can cause some problems for LAs, businesses and other regulators and can cause issues to be fragmented. Is it proposed within this review that all elements of food work will be joined up?

There is also a real chance that a two-tier system could emerge between the larger businesses and smaller/medium enterprises, the latter who may not have been engaged within this consultation and may be outside the scope of some of this reform. How does the FSA propose preventing a two-tier system and effectively engaging with smaller/medium enterprises for their views.

Will there be mechanisms to share data/intelligence collected by the FSA in relation to interventions, audits and corrective actions undertaken by both themselves and third-party assurance schemes with LA regulators to enable them to have a comprehensive intelligence picture, particularly in relation to business within their LA area?

Throughout this document, food standards work and indeed trading standards work has only been fleetingly mentioned. Only food safety functions seem to be highlighted, and in Annex 2 only specific reference is given to EH views which have been collected. Is there any reason any reason TS roles, functions and views haven’t been proportionally referenced?

Question 8

From: Nottinghamshire County Council Trading Standards

Within the proposal there is comment that the FSA are looking to move to using third party assurance schemes to undertake inspections of the larger premises. This would obviously be a chargeable service. If as proposed funding for LA regulators will be through a cost recovery model this will mean in affect that a business will be paying twice, How do the FSA perceive this to be cost effective model base on comments in point 16 of Annex 2 where it states the “ the FSA have been urged to be mindful of the context where their operating costs have already increased substantially”? Would it not be better for Local Authority regulators to undertake these assurance inspections as part of their normal activities? which would also prevent the fragmentation of regulation and intelligence and would also mean a business would only be paying once.

It is not unlikely that roles to fill the third-party assurance schemes would need to be resourced from officers who currently sit within local authority regulators. Has this been considered as a further skills drain from LAs?

How would any issues identified during a third-party assurance audit be translated into a business risk profile and who would manage this?

Question 9

From: Nottinghamshire County Council Trading Standards

In light of the Elliot report following the horsemeat scandal, focus was placed on maintaining a robust and joined up inspection system and checks by regulators at all levels to highlight problems. One of the findings of the report was that there was a reliance on data and paperwork rather than inspections and sampling. How does this proposed reform promote those findings within the Elliot report and how will independent formal samples on which corrective/enforcement actions etc be procured at these larger businesses?

Samples are not normally procured during third party assurance scheme visits and if they were, and thus not procured formally by a regulatory body/Competent Officer. How is it proposed that any formal regulatory sampling and subsequent enforcement follow up work, if needed, could be effectively undertaken?

Returning to take formal samples, should serious matters be found during informal sampling, could introduce delays, loss of key evidence and be burdensome to businesses if repeat visits were needed etc. This could also and cause a delay in protection to the public and identification of food safety issues. How is this more efficient and/or effective?

Question 10

From: Nottinghamshire County Council Trading Standards

Most businesses have multi functions e.g. importer, retailer (both online and in person) and manufacturer in one site. How would it be decided how to approach these, who has primacy over these visits and who will decide which model they fit into, could a business be subject to inspection by both FSA and LAs?

It is likely that Trading Standards and Environmental Health services will still need to visit premises to undertake other work including Metrology, Feed, Health and Safety and other functions and this will not reduce the incidence of visits. Has it been considered that the proposals could increase the number of regulator visits to businesses?

Similarly with the FSA’s proposed work in the online space TS have a huge breadth of advice and guidance they pass to businesses across the full scope of a business’s needs rather than focussing on one area. There is a real chance that this will lead to the siloing of skills and create a further burden to businesses having to navigate even more regulators and incur a greater cost. What work has the FSA undertaken to understand the full breadth of work and activities that TS and EH undertake whilst at these premises, and with their online presence, rather than just the singular food element?

With the proposal that the FSA will take over certain function from LAs, has consideration been given that in turn central government funding to LAs to undertake food work may in turn be reduced placing a greater resource burden on LA regulators?

Question 11

From: Nottinghamshire County Council Trading Standards

In relation to Annex 2 point 10. where it comments about concerns with the Primary Authority Model and conflict of interest, it should be noted that there are in built mechanisms, including review by the secretary of state, should there be disagreement with Assured Advice which has been issued.

Primary Authority functions also cover a wide range of other non-food focussed legislation and business advice provision. Primary Authority offers a wide range of statutory tools within the scheme, including the development of business inspection plans which direct, in a not too dissimilar manner to what the FSA is proposing under the third-party assurance scheme, an inspecting officer to focus inspections on key parts of a business operation. There is nothing to suggest these existing schemes could not be further expanded or integrated. Has the FSA considered the use of Primary Authorities and the inspection plans etc in its Future of Food Regulation proposals? This would seem to complement the existing risk-based work undertaken by LAs and be easily expanded and implemented.

Question 12

From: Elizabeth Lewis, BAFSAM Secretary General, BAFSAM, AIC, UK Pet Food and BETA

Feed additives are recognised to constitute the highest number of regulated product applications received by the FSA. Since November 2023, more than 40 feed additives with positive ACAF opinions remain stalled in the risk management phase. As highlighted previously, these non-safety related delays to approval are having significant negative business and economic consequences with the situation now critical for the feed additive industry.

In this context, please could the FSA Board clarify:

1. What economic impact assessment was conducted before deciding not to prioritise the authorisation of feed additives before mid-2027?
2. On what grounds are additive applications, with the benefit of a positive ACAF opinion (in some cases passed over 24 months ago), not deemed being ‘very near the end of the process’
3. What assessment has the FSA made of the impact that current delays in feed additive authorisations are having on innovation within the UK feed and pet food sectors, and what steps are being taken to mitigate these impacts?
4. Given the intent is dynamic alignment, what solutions are actively being pursued to allow at least EU authorised feed additives to enter the market before mid-2027 to minimise further damage to the industry?
5. In parallel, what contingency plans are being developed to allow market access should negotiations extend beyond mid-2027?
6. When may we expect the Regulated Products Application Register to be updated to indicate the priority status of each application to provide transparency to the feed industry and assist business decision-making?

Question 13

From: Marika Graham-Woods, Executive Director and Chairman of the Board of the CTA, CTA - Cannabis Trades Association

In the CEO report, the FSA states that ‘a substantial number of applications are unlikely to progress to ministerial decision before the Agreement is in place’, while the Programme Update confirms that Great Britain would ‘dynamically align’ with EU SPS rules and that the scope of legislation remains under consideration.

Taken together, this suggests that businesses are being asked to continue investing in a UK system that may not deliver authorisations before it is overtaken by an EU-aligned framework.

Can the FSA explain, clearly, what businesses are expected to plan for?

Specifically, should businesses proceed on the basis that EU market authorisation will become the primary route to market in Great Britain, and therefore that current UK applications carry a risk of becoming redundant or duplicative?

Is the FSA actively planning for a period of dual compliance, where businesses must meet both UK legacy requirements and EU-aligned rules, and if so, what concrete support will be provided to SMEs facing that burden?

Can the FSA confirm whether CBD products will fall fully within the scope of SPS alignment, or whether they remain outside it?

At a strategic level, is the FSA preparing for regulatory convergence with the EU, or the continuation of a distinct UK system?

Finally, the Board papers do not address Article 4 submissions or full-spectrum products. Where do Article 4 submissions sit in this future model, will they remain valid, and how are full-spectrum products expected to progress through a system that has so far primarily supported isolates?

Question 14

From: Carl Haffner, CEO, Haffner International

I have 3 questions.

1. Can the FSA clearly define the intended end-state regulatory framework for CBD and hemp derived products in the UK post UK EU SPS negotiations, including whether the UK will maintain an independent Novel Foods pathway or move towards alignment with EU EFSA standards?
2. What protections or transitional assurances will the FSA provide to businesses that have already invested significantly in UK Novel Foods dossiers, in the event that SPS alignment introduces new or duplicate compliance requirements?
3. How does the FSA intend to prevent or mitigate a dual compliance burden for UK CBD operators who may be required to meet both UK Novel Foods and EU SPS/EFSA requirements simultaneously, particularly for full-spectrum products?

Question 15

From: Dr Duncan Campbell, Public Analyst, The Public Analyst Service Limited

In the November 2025 Budget the Government asked the Agency “to streamline food standards and hygiene regulation for large and regulation-compliant supermarkets.” , also stating “The FSA will develop a consistent, national approach in England for the regulation of large food businesses.”

Does the Board agree that this request puts equal emphasis on food standards and food hygiene and that the scope of the request includes large food importers and manufacturers as well as retailers?

Does the Board acknowledge that breaches of food standards regulation generally occur at manufacturing rather than retail level?

Will the Board consider introducing central coordination of food standards enforcement of large manufacturers and ensuring that funding is provided for adequate specialist audit of these food businesses together with targeted sampling and analysis of ingredients and final products?"