An Open Letter to the Food Standards Agency - A Review of Process, Evidence, and Accountability of the FSA in CBD Novel Foods
- 2 days ago
- 4 min read
To whom it may concern,
I am writing publicly, not out of preference, but out of necessity.
Over the past several years, I have engaged with the Food Standards Agency (FSA) in good faith—submitting evidence, raising concerns, and participating in formal processes surrounding the regulation of CBD products in the UK.
What has emerged, particularly through recent Freedom of Information responses and internal review outcomes, raises serious and unresolved questions about the integrity, consistency, and transparency of that process.
This letter is not written to make accusations. It is written to ask clear questions which are grounded in your own statements.
The Standard Set by the FSA
The FSA’s own published guidance states:
"The list of CBD products linked to novel food applications contains CBD food products which meet the following criteria:
• they were on the market at the time of our announcement on CBD (13 February 2020)
• we received an authorisation application for the products by 31 March 2021
• we validated the application or agreed that it is sufficiently progressing towards validation
Any products which do not appear on the list or are marked as ‘Removed’ must be withdrawn from the market."
It was clear, binary, and consequential.
Products were either:
on the market by 13 February 2020, or
they were not permitted to remain on sale after 31 March 2021.
Everything that follows must be assessed against that position.
1. Evidence Without Scrutiny
The FSA has confirmed that it holds documentation relied upon to validate certain products as being on the market prior to 13 February 2020, including invoices and purchase orders.
At the same time, that information has been withheld in full on the basis of commercial sensitivity, including where disclosure may be considered to prejudice the interests of the public authority itself, leaving those decisions effectively shielded from independent scrutiny.
This creates a fundamental problem.
The CBD industry was required to meet a strict evidential threshold to remain on the market. Yet the evidence used to validate some participants cannot be independently scrutinised—by competitors, by affected businesses, or by the wider public.
Transparency is a fundamental requirement in regulatory decision-making.
So the question is simple:
How can a regulatory threshold be considered fair or consistent if the evidence underpinning it cannot be examined?
2. Variability in Product Identity
In reviewing disclosed materials, one statement stands out:
“Slight variability in exact name of products but traceability indicates that products branded under the name Pureis were on the market in the UK before 13/02/20.”
This raises immediate concerns.
If there is variability in the identity of a product—its name, its branding, or its presentation—then the question of whether that specific product was on the market at the required time becomes unclear.
The evidential standard appears, at least in part, to rely on interpretation rather than certainty.
So the question becomes:
What constitutes sufficient proof of product identity when names, branding, or formats are not consistent?
To note: The FSA, including Paul Tossall, former Head of Novel Foods, has stated on multiple occasions that companies were not permitted to rebrand products.
The evidence disclosed in this case appears to show variability in product identity being accepted in practice, raising questions about how that position has been applied.
3. A Shift in Regulatory Position
The guidance to industry was explicit: products needed to be on the market on or before 13 February 2020.
However, subsequent correspondence from the FSA introduces a broader interpretation:
An application may be linked to products already on the list, “but equally could be for future products yet to be developed or marketed.”
At the same time, reliance has been placed on Regulation (EC) No. 178/2002 and its definition of “placing on the market,” which includes holding food for the purpose of sale.
Taken together, this suggests a shift:
From a requirement based on demonstrable consumer availability to one based on interpretation of market presence or intent.
This is not a minor clarification.
It is a material change in how the rules are applied.
So the question must be asked:
When did this shift occur, and how was it communicated to the industry expected to comply with a fixed deadline?
Please be advised: The FSA has, at times, taken inconsistent positions on whether The Hemp Hound Agency constitutes an industry stakeholder. On that basis, and in the absence of any formal industry-wide communication, it is unclear how this position can be said to have been communicated effectively. Furthermore, the FSA guidance referred to earlier was updated on 18 March 2026 and still states that companies had to prove products were on the market on or before 13 February 2020.
Available evidence suggests that Pureis products were not available to consumers until after their novel food application was validated in early 2021.
On that basis, it is unclear how they could be considered to have been holding food or feed for the purpose of sale at the relevant time.
4. Consistency and Consequence
The CBD market has been shaped by these decisions.
Businesses were removed. Products were excluded. Investment was lost.
All on the basis of a rule that was presented as fixed:
Be on the market by 13 February 2020—or do not trade.
If that rule has since been interpreted differently, or applied inconsistently, then the issue is no longer technical.
It is one of fairness.
5. Process and Resistance to Scrutiny
Across FOI handling, complaint management, and escalation procedures, there appears to be a consistent pattern of resistance to scrutiny.
This includes attempts to classify requests as vexatious, the involvement of individuals connected to the subject matter in complaint handling, and indications that outcomes may have been predetermined.
These are not isolated issues. Taken together, they raise legitimate concerns about whether the processes intended to ensure transparency, independence, and accountability are operating as such in practice.
Closing
This letter is not an endpoint. It is an opportunity.
An opportunity for the Food Standards Agency to clarify its position, address these contradictions, and restore confidence in a process that has had profound consequences for an entire industry.
Until then, the questions remain.
And they are not going away—regardless of how the future regulatory landscape is defined.
Sincerely,
Cefyn Jones
Founder - The Hemp Hound Agency
Comments