Please wait, loading...

 

INTERVIEW WITH PAUL TOSSELL BY THE CANNA CONSULTANTS
(THE LONDON CBD SHOW, 22/4/22)

[Emphasis added by The Canna Consultants to assist the reader]

PAUL TOSSELL:

Some people hadn’t actually provided all the information, a lot of it was around licenses and things like that, clarifications that the list of products that companies wanted on the Public List, we’re actually eligible to do so. This has prompted us to sort of say, okay, there’s a lot… you know, we don’t want to put an artificial deadline on it, in terms of, you know, people coming in, but we have set a deadline now of the 26th of May for those that still wish to provide the evidence that will allow us to think about whether we get on to the Public List.

And after that day, if we haven’t had the full set of information that we require to allow us to evaluate whether you go on the Public List, you won’t be, the list will then stop, it’ll only change after that if there’s update to status. So, you know, the notice was just to give that verification you got like for five weeks, if you haven’t submitted the information to process your eligibility check for the Public List. We’ll be doing updates for those that we know have been added in, we’re going to expect at least a couple of updates; one very, very soon and then obviously you will, as any further information is processed, we’ll update within that. Anything that comes, as I say, after 26th of May, that’s it. If you haven’t got the information in by then, we’re not going to consider it, we won’t be updating with further products from that.

STEVE OLIVER:

Thank you, Paul. I’m going to jump right in there then with the fact that we got lots of people here, some are on the list and some aren’t on the list. Our phones have run off in the last couple of weeks with people that have had listings removed from Amazon and products removed from the shops, it’s affecting jobs, it’s affecting individuals. Do you think it would be prudent at the moment to make an announcement to say that people shouldn’t actually look at their list as being definitive and they should wait until it’s fully updated?

PAUL TOSSELL:

I mean, that’s the approach we’ve taken local authorities anyway throughout the last year. Because with local authorities, retailers, we’re engaging with them to explain that, you know, the list will come and it’ll be evolving one, you know, different statuses and stuff, and we always offered that if until it’s actually, for want of a better word, completed (and it’s hard to say it’s completed because obviously things will change status-wise), but [until] it’s not going to grow anymore, until that point, local authorities and retailers know that they can come to us and they can check the status of the application. So, if a food business says, you know, we have an expectation to get on the list because we’re still an active application, that can be verified, you know, by contacting us. That’s still the same status now, it just means that, obviously the list has… you know, having grown at the end of March, there’s a lot more that is very clear, there are some now to be added on because I’d say flurry of further information, that offer still remains there. So, if there’s, you know, there are concerns over whether more products should be added to the list, you know, we’ve been writing out to some to verify that anyway, that email can be used in discussions with local authorities with retailers to prove it, or they can happily come to us and we can verify whether they’re… you know, whether they’re on the… the list to be added onto their list.

STEVE OLIVER:

And how quickly will that first update take place? Because at the moment, we’ve got a situation where – and understandably to a certain extent, which is not good for the industry – where some of those that are on the list are using or weaponizing it, I would go as far to say by some Trade Associations and actively going out and discouraging retailers and identifying products and saying ‘take it off the market it’s an unlawful product’, when they’re all unlawful. So, personally, I think there should be an announcement, on the website to clarify some of these issues you said there, because the press release yesterday talked about a local enforcement agency being able to contact you to see if somebody was coming on the list but wasn’t clear retailer could do that or…?

PAUL TOSSELL:

Now I’m a bit hesitant on retailers because obviously, there’s confidentiality issue with companies. So, the company allows us to talk to the retailer and say like about their status, then you know, we can do, but we’re not… you know, we shouldn’t be talking about statuses of applications and everything else that is not public directly with the retailer without the permission of the company. So, that’s what we’re making there, it’s, you know, there are ways and means and forwarding our [emails] to the retailers to prove it and if you give information, we were happy to respond as well as any…

MATT LAWSON:

Paul, just to come in there, when you made the initial announcement of the Public List, you indicated that the FSA’s policy was that anybody who was not on the list should immediately withdraw their products from the market. Has your announcement of yesterday impacted upon that because it strikes me that it would do?

PAUL TOSSELL:

Yeah, that was on the implication that the Public List was complete and therefore, those products that could be directly accessible on the database would prove whether they’re in an inactive application or not. The idea was we were saying that if you remained as an active application, then, you know, enforcement or – but our suggestion to local authorities is not to enforce those, it’s to prioritise those [who are] not [involved in the] active application system which should be the ones not on the Public List. At the moment, there’s obviously some that aren’t on the list but then it’s the principle that enforcement agencies who take into account the products and things to active applications.

MATT LAWSON:

But the question I had was that your policy was that the brands should have voluntarily withdraw from the market because they’re not on the list, but the point you’ve made yesterday is that actually there may be brands who ought to be on the list who are not.

PAUL TOSSELL:

Again, yeah, what I’m saying is that the active application part. So that those knew they were (overlapping background noise), those that knew that they no longer in an active application, they are the ones who we said you should now voluntarily withdraw. The Public List [was to be] a reflection of the active applications. Now, yeah, at the moment there’s some that needs to go on since the updated one, but that doesn’t change the principle that it’s the active application part.

MATT LAWSON:

If a brand is currently continuing to be engaged with the FSA pursuing an application then they’re okay to remain on the market from your perspective?

PAUL TOSSELL:

If we haven’t said that… well if an application hasn’t been withdrawn, an application hasn’t been said that you are no longer progressing, that’s still an active application.

STEVE OLIVER:

Thanks, Paul. We’ll come back to the list in a moment, but looking at timescales, obviously we’ve got some companies that have conducted their own toxicology, then we’ve got the this collegiate approach, could you give us an indication that the latest date you expect to receive any toxicology information?

PAUL TOSSELL:

Yeah, I mean, there’s obviously plans with some organisations to feed in the extra toxicology information that we’ve agreed is part of the awaiting evidence packages. There’s no one set date for that, you know, that we required as part of the getting along to the awaiting evidence category that we had to agree that the timescales for delivery of the data, toxicology data, stability data, all the rest of that stuff, was realistic, was achievable and, you know, fitted within what our expectations would be. So, there will be different deliveries of data throughout this period, the expectation is that we will have everything that’s on the, you know, the current list, that’s waiting evidence, will be either removed if the validation can’t carry on. You know, so if the data isn’t sufficient to actually be allowed to develop the legal validation, they will be removed, or they will have changed status from awaiting evidence to validating by the end of the year. So, nothing, you know, nothing in the current pack should be actually awaiting (overlapping background noise).

STEVE OLIVER:

So, if we’ve got a situation where I understand there are certain organisations indicating that the full toxicology report would be available at the end of this year or Q4, how long do you estimate it would take your team and the teams that are looking at this data, to look at the efficacy of it, and then making pronouncement as to its suitability and the next step which is validation?

PAUL TOSSELL:

Well, we agreed on the timescales based on the fact that there’s time factored in to actually do the suitability checks, validation checks. So, like I say, the status should be that all current applications on the list, awaiting evidence, will have been through the validation process by the end of the year.

STEVE OLIVER:

I’m going to come back to the list then and I know you’re bored with this argument with us, but we’ve always said to you that we appreciate the fact that you gave this amnesty and we respect the fact that people should make an application-

PAUL TOSSELL:

Regulatory tolerance.

STEVE OLIVER:

What we’ve always disagreed with is this date in time, so the 12th of February 2020 and this cut-off point that if you’re on the market or you weren’t on the market, and we’ve always suggested that, that would create some absurdities and one of them I think that presents to you now would be that we have companies who are not on the market on the 12th of February who will be validated in the next two or three months because they provided toxicology data that is sufficient, and you will have companies who are nowhere near that process but continue to market their products, and we’ve always suggested that the cut-off should be if your application is validated, your products could be on the market, do you have any updates with us with regards to that conversation with them?

PAUL TOSSELL:

We haven’t changed what we said. I mean, you know, taking a step back, you know, Novel Food—you know, we’ve had this conversation many times, Novel Foods should be pre-authorised. So we’ve had to retrofit a system that was designed for probably a single company, single product, single idea, going through the system, no products on the market until authorisation. So, the spirit of the legislation is that that market doesn’t keep its banding until it’s authorised, okay? So we had to park the, you know, the actual industry where it was at the time of announcement. It wouldn’t be fair to have retrospectively done that, you know, but it’s like, okay, here’s the announcement, from now onwards, no new products can enter the market.

The ones that are on the market, we accept if we’re going to be doing a practical and pragmatic approach to not clearing it, you know, the shelves, not doing what will be the normal approach with Novel Food which is total market clearance until you’re authorised, then we’re going to have to deal with it by saying, okay, you know, our approach is local authorities take into account if they’re still active or, you know, obviously active applications then, you know, we don’t see that as a variety for enforcement because, you know, if there’s an active application still moving towards authorisation, we’re still fulfilling our goal of going through risk assessment process, being prepared to be challenged on the whole process, so we feel that, you know, the fairest way to do that was to actually say, right, you know, the products up to that point, if you fit the criteria, you know, the safety factors and everything else, they are the ones that can continue on. We can’t tell local authorities they have to do that. Local authorities have the legal right to enforce, they can even enforce the ones on the Public List. You know, we’re just making a suggestion for how they consider prioritising any decision making they think about in terms of… So the idea of that cut-off point, Public List is a help, is our way of sort of suggesting to local authorities how they deal with the market as always.

STEVE OLIVER:

So given the fact that that policy remains in place, it’s essentially a deviation by the FSA from the legal position which should be all the products are off the market until they’re authorised, there potentially will be legal challenges there because I can imagine that we’ve had a judicial review where a company says we demonstrated the safety… to the risk assessment phase of our products, we provided more data than people who are awaiting evidence. I’ve imagined that your legal department have considered this issue because to my knowledge it would leave a judge with two decisions. One would be all the products come off the market, you have to adhere to the law, or the second would be you have to treat everybody proportionally and we would come back to this position which was validating products that were on the market and can be removed if during the risk assessment phase, they fail. And I know I’m banging this drum with you and I keep asking you, it just seems to be fair.

PAUL TOSSELL:

First things first, we haven’t changed the law, we are still within the law, okay? Because we… it’s the local authorities to decide whether to enforce or not. That hasn’t changed. Local authorities still have the code of practise about how they decided on the level of enforcement. Our suggestion is, like I just said, is a way for them to prioritise it. So, we haven’t changed the law, we’re not actually breaking the law by what the policy is… What was the rest of your question?

STEVE OLIVER:

Judicial review, essential-

PAUL TOSSELL:

Okay, yeah, judicial review. We’ve had one, we’ve won one. Judicial reviews time out after three months, the decision was made, you know, a couple of years ago so that’s not a factor, we’ve already had this challenge, we won the case.

PAUL TOSSELL:

You know, there are other ones considering… I’m sure other people may rather consider it, yeah, as a factor to take into account that the decision on how we approach this is, you know, the guidance that we issued is long time ago, it was well outside the three-month window. But also, you know, we’re confident as I say we haven’t changed the law, we haven’t gone against it. The local authorities can still enforce against any CBD product, that hasn’t changed. We’ve not told them not to do that. We haven’t told them it’s an absolute requirement, it’s just guidance. So, you know, nobody’s twisted the law.

STEVE OLIVER:

In line with the fact that we’ve got three systems really in Europe now, so we’ve got your system, we’ve got a system in Northern Ireland which is totally different to the rest of the United Kingdom in that they have to follow the FSA, and then we have the European system. The commission asked EFSA in December of last year to review safety in CBD, and that was due to be published on the 31st of January this year and it’s now… we expect it at the end of this month. Would it not have been prudent to wait until that review was included to have taken the decision to publish the Public List, and having done so, will you be looking with interest to see if EFSA changes its position in any way?

PAUL TOSSELL:

Legally, the two systems are separate. We are required by statute to actually assess the risk of products of the GB market, yeah, except Northern Ireland because Northern Ireland protocol (audio breaks) on that one. So we’ll talk about GB, apologies because it’s the UK because, you know, it’s easy to… But we’ll talk about GB. So we are required to assess the risk of products that need authorisation for the GB market.

PAUL TOSSELL:

It doesn’t mean we won’t take into account EFSA opinion when it comes out, in fact we have been for other non-CBD products, you know, because obviously my team deals with all Novel Foods and we’ve, you know, some other normal CBD ones to deal with which are going through the process, getting close to it. So, you know, we took into account the EFSA opinions on those. We still had our risk assessors checked before they’d done, we were content with it that it proved the case and we move forward. So we’re not going to be, you know, where UK, that’s it, you know, we’re not going to look at EFSA opinion at all, of course we will take it into account. But we’ve already been through some of the things that they are doing. COTs, you know, we’ve looked at literature readings and worked out what that means, we’ve already got applications going through the system on the risk assessment. You know, there’s some here that, you know, their applications are already going through, there will be a lot more that we’ll be going through, you know, if they pass validation. So waiting to see what EFSA’s do when we’ve got a perfectly good risk assessment system ourselves, it makes no sense. You know, we’ve got the ability to do it, you now, not blowing the UK’s trumpet here but the Novel Foods panel deals with Novel Foods and they are dealing with it so we’ll carry on with the CBD ones.

MATT LAWSON:

Paul, you made the point that it’s not the FSA that decides whether to take action against the company, but if trading standards follow the FSA policy and don’t… if trading standards follow your policy and don’t take action, again so for example companies that were on the Public List, one of the criteria for which it was on the market 13th of February of 2020, it has the impact of commercially benefiting those who broke the law for the longest period, because it’s been clear since January 2019 that CBD was a Novel Food and the declaration is a bit blurred to that effect, you make the point that you don’t decide whether to prosecute but is the FSA comfortable with the consequences of the policy, i.e., the commercial benefits of those who broke the law for longest time?

PAUL TOSSELL:

Well, we build the policy, so, that, the idea is that local authorities have got guidance on how to approach it. You know, we’ve said that if you’re not active in the process you’re not moving through the risk assessment. So that’s where we’re… you know, we’re confident those that actually are applying are going to go through the risk assessment process. At the end of the day, we’re doing this for the consumers and for actually for industry, because we know that, you know, consumers expect that they can trust foods that’s on their shelves, okay, and that require sometimes going through that risk assessment process. So that area, you know, that’s where we’re focusing our effort to make sure people progress through that. Outside of that, you know, we’re helping local authorities, local authorities some are already, you know, engaged and dealing with CBD issues and others will be… I can’t speak on behalf of all 450 local authorities as to what their priorities are, but we’re helping them to actually do so on that basis that, you know, we want to make sure that the products that are on the market are the ones that actually gone through the system so that consumers can be reassured they are safe.

STEVE OLIVER:

But on that point, Paul, so the Committee on Toxicity reviewed CBD in 2020 and you’ve now had nearly two years of data. Your role is to protect—oh, well, okay, let’s say 12 months then that you’ve had some data. To prevent harm to the public and consumer detriment, have you seen anything in that data that raises concerns, and secondly, are the FSA regularly responding to people who are becoming ill from CBD products or making complaints about any adverse events?

PAUL TOSSELL:

It depends on your definition of harm. So, you know, we haven’t seen cases where people are being hospitalised like they are with allergy cases. But the point is we’re also looking… that’s more of acute response, and it’s very easy to get the headlines from acute responses. We’re not expecting that, this is more looking at the chronic and other areas. That’s what comes through from the risk assessment. I can’t discuss, you know, what’s been going in the communities, I can’t discuss what’s going on with risk assessments until they’re actually… the opinions form.

PAUL TOSSELL:

So, I’m not going to say whether they’re seeing irregularities in the data, whether there’s issues moving forward, that will come out as we look at more [inaudible]. You know, there’s only a limited number that have been going through risk assessment so far, so the datasets are, you know, limited in that respect but they are obviously specific for the applications. We are seeing things that we’re having to challenge and ask for further information and clarity, until we’ve got the opinion form, I’m not in a position to sort of say what the consequences are of the different applications.

STEVE OLIVER:

What I see are the biggest problems for CBD being and consumer detriment from buying products that didn’t contain CDB, or products that were not food safe? So, you know, no check for bacteria, not looking at proper microbial testing, and people making products for ingestion in back rooms, and we have the issue of controlled cannabinoids. So, I think this is good process with Novel Foods, I think it’s implemented incorrectly for the reasons we’ve said, but I think the fact that we will ultimately have companies that are producing a product which is good for the consumer cannot be a bad thing.

One of the things I struggled with at the moment is our Home Office have sat in the background here, I know you must have had discussions with them but we don’t know what the permissible level is, at the moment it’s zero in a CBD product. So we’ve got two big issues here. We got people encouraged to spend thousands of pounds, and in some cases hundreds of thousands of pounds, and at some stage the axe has got to fall, the Home Office will actually take responsibility, and I appreciate they’re busy at the moment but they will decide on a contaminant level, and above that it will fall to the police and it will be a drug, below that it will remain with you. And when that axe falls, we can all see from the Public List at the moment that there are going to be a number of products that will be removed from the system. So, do you have any information for us around those discussions with the Home Office, do you know when they’re likely to make a decision? And what that decision is likely to be?

PAUL TOSSELL:

Well, clearly, we were involved in the discussions on the principles of what they were going to ask the ACMD. And, yeah, I know there’s a lot of levels of recommendations from the ACMD and parking that. And, yeah, you’re right, there’s effectively zero tolerance level, and at the moment, that would mean that anything that contains a controlled substance, will itself be a controlled substance, we wouldn’t be able to make a recommendation to the minister to authorise something that’s by nature a controlled substance. The delineation that the Home Office will offer if they follow through on this legislation and as far as I know there’s the willingness to do so, there’s obviously the practicalities to sort all that about, how you write the legislation of what levels are involved, et cetera. That doesn’t really alter what we’re doing, other than we all get—we give delineation to where, like you say, where an exempted product remains to food, therefore we can look at it in the wider aspects of risk assessment for that product to see a new product, and then that gives us ability to take it through the risk management process to hopefully authorise it at the end.

Timing wise, that’s in the hands of the Home Office but what I would say is, the Novel fFoods process for bioactive products is known to be quite a lengthy process. Some products go through quicker because they haven’t got the complexities, this is a complex risk assessment to go through for ourselves so we’re actually progressing that one. Our view is if as we think the Home Office timing will be like if, you know, they seemingly will follow through shouldn’t be problem for us in considering whether we, you know, with those authorisation. And at the moment, obviously we have to take into account what the current law says and progress on that, so obviously we’re taking applications as they come, looking at them as they are because until the Home Office do or don’t get something in legislation and that sets a limit, we can’t be speculative, we have to go with what we are doing.

STEVE OLIVER:

So all these products are going to have to be retested, aren’t they, because when the Home Office makes that decision and with the issues in Ukraine at the moment, it’s unlikely to be this year I would expect.

STEVE OLIVER:

At that point, sort of in parallel we have got the British Standard Institute and we’re looking to try and find a harmonised testing regime, so, what are the levels of detection, what are the levels of quantification. So we’re going to have a situation maybe later this year or maybe early next year when a lot of companies who have validated applications that utilise analytical services and have COAs which say ‘not detected’ but should say ‘not bloody looked for’ – but never mind, you’re going to have a situation where you’re going to have to readdress it all aren’t we?

PAUL TOSSELL:

Well the risk assessment process has a window date, that is nine months on a start-stop basis when further information’s required. Obviously the CBD is a big bulk of applications but each applications is treated on it’s own merits and must be assessed. We all look at the—certainly the committee will look at whether data was given at all for levels of different control substances, other contaminants as well, you know, pesticides, things like that, what parts of the process and those residues that will look at pretty much everything. If that information is missing or it’s deemed that it’s not a good enough quality, the clock can be stopped, they can be asked for further information. If that’s not forthcoming or the reply gives us something that means that the application won’t get progressed because there’s something in the product that is a concern or there’s a potential safety issue. We’ve always said throughout the whole thing we can take them off the list, we can then deal with that, particularly if it’s a contaminant above the limit in something else, we can deal with that in (overlapping background noise) as required, so. And the risk assessment allows us to look at everything and challenge everything if it’s required so, you know, if the data’s not good enough…

STEVE OLIVER:

I have a sympathy for you in your department because I think the ACMD dodged the question altogether, they just solved the exemption in the one milligram for them and you’re caught in limbo then. So, I think we’re going to be talking for a long period of time until this is resolved. And I would just come back to the same question Paul which would be because this could be the never ending story, it could be—we could be 18 months, 24 months before we actually get to authorisation. Wouldn’t it be fair to say, if you had the validated application, the products could remain on that market? I won’t ask you that question again.

PAUL TOSSELL:

Well, yeah, partly if they existed before the announcement, we’re content for them to remain in the market if they are a validated application.

STEVE OLIVER:

Similarly, CBD in Novel Foods is a bit of a hot potato and coming out of the withdrawal of Brexit you have had an inherited framework which I know you’re responsible for drafting, if you were the headmaster and I suppose you are the headmaster, how would you mark yourself?

PAUL TOSSELL:

As far as the head teacher, well, because a head teacher relies on having good teachers, teaching assistants and heads of departments which we do. We got separate risk assessment, risk management teams under international best practice, we’ve had—we faced the biggest change in the syllabus if we’re going to use the same analogy, and for, at base it’s been a huge resource requirement, it’s been a huge challenge but we’ve been moving through it and I’m actually very proud of the work we’ve got through to be able to get to this point and actually to deal with it, like any good head teacher, I suppose the proof is in they have obviously got interest in exam results, in may ways the applicants are the the pupils, their work is going to get marked, they’ll get the certificates at the end of it, and we can take pride in if people get authorised.

STEVE OLIVER:

With regards to enforcement, how do you feel about certain Trade Associations is taking it upon themselves to act as I would suggest quasi-policeman we got this situation where when you’re driving along and somebody’s dressed their car up to look like a police car and they’ve got a CB aerial on it, I think the police take a different view. Do you not think it’s your role and trading standards to make sure that people behave themselves within this? And don’t seek to take commercial advantage?

PAUL TOSSELL:

Well, I mean, things like, you know, we’re the owners of the list, we’re the owners of the policy, so, we keep to that. If others want to replicate that, if others want to actually…to use that, we don’t endorse that. We’ve got our purpose, it’s linked to that one, we have said if companies, organisations, whatever, are aware of other companies that are not fulfilling the role then there’s the opportunity like there is for any part of food law to inform local authorities. But we’ve got those tried and tested routes, so we are content that they will work if outside of that, as long as it doesn’t look detrimental to what we’re doing, I don’t think it’s for us to comment whether people are trying to replicate our role as long as they’re not actually trying to fulfil our role.

STEVE OLIVER:

I think contacting retailers directly about other people’s and non-members products is policing the industry. On that point, there are a lot of us that have looked at the list, some things stand out to us, as a consultant we constantly battle with clients who say I want to talk about my product and we say you can’t talk about your product, they say, well, they’re talking about their product. So to see certain products on the list which I can only describe as being named as health claims was very surprising.

We’ve also seen products of the list which many of us here would say were not on the market. So what I would ask you as part of the updated list, are you addressing those concerns? Because we don’t feel that we should be policing that. What we would like is everybody to be successful and what we don’t want to do is people writing lists, otherwise the industry just starts to fight itself, so it’s split in three at the moment, there are people that have no intention of entering this process, they’re not interested in regulatory based practice and they just want to make a quick buck. This hall is filled with people who all are seeking regulatory based practice. Some of them have done it different ways, some of them feel that they should be on the list and they’re suffering serious detriment at the moment, you know, job losses as I’ve said before.

STEVE OLIVER:

So, I think the Public List is a huge responsibility and can you give us some reassurance that while looking at the list again, now that you have got perhaps more time that now is really the time to make sure that list is accurate?

PAUL TOSSELL:

Quite a long sentence there. I think it was a bit further on about health claims—health claims, other reasons from non-compliances, we’ve said if they are proven then we wouldn’t put items on the actual list, so we’re aware of them, and they haven’t gone on the list. There’s some that… products that fitted the criteria and everything except there was a component that meant that we couldn’t add them on, so we’ve done that. If other reasons are brought to our attention like health claims that are inappropriate then we’ll deal with that. We don’t, just for clarity, we don’t deal with health claims, that’s department of health, and advertising standards agency, they’ve got a responsibility of their own.

If we’re aware of [false entries], which we have been made aware of some, we dealt with it, so, that would be the same situation. We wouldn’t keep items on our List that don’t fit with the full criteria and that’s always been that there are other reasons that will be on there like safety issues or other illegalities then we would naturally pull them.

STEVE OLIVER:

On that, what’s your attitude to the 12 controlled cannabinoids, there are 12, we can test for five if we’re good. Let’s just concentrate on THC. Have you adopted a policy or if the Home Office discussed with you a policy for products on the list which contain THC and by the law would be unlawful?

PAUL TOSSELL:

Well, what we said is that where we’re made aware that there are policing concerns over a product that hasn’t gone on the list, they haven’t done. So if the police are involved and they consider the product as a controlled substance then naturally they wouldn’t be on the list. In the absence of a police view on it, if it’s not a, you know, if it’s not a narcotic, if it’s not a medicine, if it’s intended for consumption, and therefore we would treat it as such, you know, does it fit the rest of the criteria, if so, then it goes on the list. If it doesn’t, it doesn’t.

STEVE OLIVER:

Thank you. I realise I’m asking you questions that relate to various different other government departments but you’re the only person that’s been kind enough to come here and answer those questions.

I just want to summarise if I can then because the Public List is the elephant in the room for a lot of people. What you’re saying now is there will be two updates to the Public List, one is imminent, and I would ask what’s imminent please?

PAUL TOSSELL:

Days rather than weeks.

STEVE OLIVER:

The second one would be before the end of June, in the intervening period, the FSA accepts that there are companies not yet on the list that will go in the list, and there are products to be added, then it would be prudent for anybody who is selling CBD, buying CBD, stocking CBD to wait until the culmination of that list. Would you agree with that statement – the FSA’s position at the moment is if you have an ongoing application, products shouldn’t be removed from the market until, are we saying June 30th is on the market or off the market point.

PAUL TOSSELL:

Not sure I’m following, why on off…

STEVE OLIVER:

The crux of the question is at the moment we’ve got people being removed from the market, and we know some of them being told by you that they will appear on the list imminently. Is there a message for retailers and for people in the industry that whilst we have a list, we shouldn’t act on that list at the moment, we will have a complete comprehensive list at the end of June, so potentially we jumped the gun somewhat?

PAUL TOSSELL:

Well, as I said before, there’s the open offer. If local authorities can check with us and if we’ve written to you to actually say you’re going on to the list, we can have that dialogue with retailers to verify that. I don’t think we need to stop because obviously there’s products that are on the List, there’s reassurance, and that there’s a wider perspective as well that if a business has never applied, so hasn’t got an RP number, well, clearly they should be off the market so I wouldn’t say park everything and don’t do everything until the List is complete, because there’s a lot of companies out there are never going to get authorised, local authorities can deal with those if they haven’t voluntarily withdrawn which has been our message for the last two years, they know they’re not in an active application, so they can be outside it. I think we’re talking, you know, a small percentage of those that are, you know, in between the update, the majority are clear as to what their status is.

MATT LAWSON:

Paul, today we’ve now introduced the concept of what I would say of an active application and that is not the same as being on the Public List. What we’re seeing in the present time is retailers looking at the Public List and saying a company is not on it and therefore I will remove them from sale immediately.

MATT LAWSON:

Today we’ve heard about actively engaged with the regulatory process, but that engagement isn’t public. And clearly where somebody has not made an application or have been absolutely rejected, that’s information that could be verified with you, but we’ve got plenty of companies now by the sound of it who sit in a “No Man’s Land”. They’re not on the Public List, they haven’t been rejected and you are continuing to assess their application as to whether it should be put on the Public List. Everybody who falls into that category is invisible and retailers are removing their product from the market, people are being laid off as a result of it because sales aren’t being made, and almost at this stage, 1st of July, those companies go on the Public List, it may be too late for them because they may not exist anymore.

PAUL TOSSELL:

So the last year, we had, what, 57 products on the list because we were getting to the point where we could actually raise it to the three and a half thousand that are on the current list. They haven’t been invisible because you’ve had that opportunity for local authorities to engage with us to actually sort of say that they are still an active application. And I disagree that we haven’t been talking about active applications, the Public List is always set – to get on the Public List, you need to be an active application, and there are two categories, validating and awaiting evidence, they’ve gone hand in hand. So the Public List has always been a reflection of the active application, so for the last two years we’ve been talking about that idea.

MATT LAWSON:

But you now acknowledge that the Public List is a manifestation of a number of active applications but not every active application, and it’s that balance that now falls into a “No Man’s Land”.

PAUL TOSSELL:

Yeah. And it’s been the case for the last—last year, we’ve been getting evidence together to actually issue that Public List, the update is the same status.

And if there’s any doubt, local authorities can come to us, we can discuss with retailers, the companies can ensure whether they’ve got the information from us as to whether they’re in or out, to be added. That list is being created, for the last year that status hasn’t changed in terms of our willingness to engage to actually sort of say we’ve never had an application from this company or yes we have and they are being processed, but they’re still being considered therefore they’re on the law enforcement side.

MATT LAWSON:

A slight linked but tangential general question. Are there any circumstances in which company that didn’t exist on the 13th of February 2020 should have products on the Public List?

PAUL TOSSELL:

I suppose potentially because it wouldn’t depend on the company per say it would depend on the product. If the product existed by Company A for instance, and then got bought out by Company B after that deadline, the product would still be able to show that it was a pre-existing product, assuming they’ve got an active application or they’re linked to an awaiting evidence one, so similarly fit with all the criteria, that’s potentially one where a company may not have existed [inaudible].

STEVE OLIVER:

The product’s name has changed?

PAUL TOSSELL:

Well, not necessarily, CBD in oil, it’s a matter of looking at the manufacturers, as long as you can identify it because the list is built on the… The list is built is on the fact that you can identify the product, it doesn’t necessarily- and then the product is the same specification, same process, it fits with the application was, if a company is bought out by another company, that doesn’t ultimately process, that doesn’t alter the fact that you can verify it.

PAUL TOSSELL:

The way that we viewed the idea of the Public List is Trading Standards officer when they could go into the shops, now they can do, comes in, picks the product up, reads the label, knows what the product name is, you know, the size and everything else, the details on the Public List, they can identify that this product existed at the time of the announcement therefore it fits with the criteria. It doesn’t matter if it’s… I was going to say a company name, V-Sauce, whether V-Sauce was a pre-existing company or had been bought by somebody else, or if V-Sauce bought them, that doesn’t matter, as long as you can identify things of pre-existing product.

MATT LAWSON:

On that score, two weeks ago, a company in the industry made some quite public announcements that it was launching a new product, a new product at a new strength, but it turns out that that new product was on the Public List. How would that fit? Because either they’ve missed their view as the regulator or they’ve misled the consumer when they announced that it’s a new product.

PAUL TOSSELL:

Well, I don’t know the specifics of the case but I can give parallel once where we’ve been informed of the new products and when we’ve actually investigated it, it’s effectively a relaunch of a pre-existing product. So where it says new product, we have to investigate to see whether it genuinely is a new product and that information get passed onto local authorities and they’ve been doing that for us, because in some cases as I say where we’ve done that, it’s turned out it’s a marketing ploy, and we’ve been able to prove that the product pre-exist.

And also is that, you know, no products got on the Public List from our perspective where we haven’t been provided by—we’re provided with information that fits the criteria.

PAUL TOSSELL:

If information is, you know, if everyone can prove that the information that we were given was falsified, clearly that we would take that very seriously and we would deal with that but for—we processed all the information and that was taken, that, you know is a lot of work, is a huge number products that are on the list, there’s a huge number that didn’t make it on the list because they didn’t offer the proof or they offered proof that we were able to discredit, so where information is showing to be false then we will deal with that, then we’ll take the product off the list.

STEVE OLIVER:

Okay. Well, I’m conscious of the time. Is there anything you would like to say?

PAUL TOSSELL:

Well, nothing I haven’t covered from the start, thank you for the opportunity to come along. I mean, the timing is good because obviously we’ve launched, the list, ideally with the updates, we’re going to progress applications through the system, I know there’s a – people think it takes a long, you know, it’s a long old process, and I think from our perspective, we know from consumer feedback that a well regulated product is actually going to aid sales, so it’s something that we’re keen to make sure that the process works for both sides because it’ll help industry, it might feel like it’s painful in the meantime and there’s still a lot to get through but trust me when I say that we’re keen if we can do, to get authorisations done, because that means we’ve succeeded so we’re there to for help and I know that many people doesn’t feel like that. Yeah, but we are there to help to do this.

We’re not here, I’ve said this many times, we’re not here to endorse, we’re not here to promote the industry, we’re here to make sure the consumer interest is covered by the risk assessment.

PAUL TOSSELL:

At the end of the day, this is the – consumers are the sole reason that we do apply the full normal approach to a Novel Food that’s unauthorised on the market, we’ve had other, yeah, other instances where Novel Foods have gone on the market, in certain cases talking to local authorities, they speak to the food company, withdraw it. We decided against that for CBD because of the consumer interest in the product, and but which to actually clarify, today there’s a lot of claims it’s safe, prove it by going through the system and then allowing everybody to see that in a full approach and that’s what we’re doing.

STEVE OLIVER:

Thank you very much, I’d like to welcome you to wander around for as long as you can because I’m sure there may be some questions all over the floor.

MATT LAWSON:

But I’m not too sure whether it was Frost – Nixon or maybe it was Parkey and Muhammad Ali but it’s been important that Paul’s come here today because we might not all like what the regulator has to say but we do need a regulator and it’s good that Paul comes and addresses people directly so nobody is 100% reliant on second-hand information, therefore in that context whether you agree with Paul’s position, agree with the FSA’s position or not, I think it would be grateful, beneficial for us all to show our thanks that he attended today and was willing to come and answer questions on behalf of the regulator.

COMPANY INFORMATION
MAST CONSULTING LTD
Company Number: 12191810
ico. Reg. Number: ZA547887
VAT Reg. Number: 334 8110 23
COMPANY ADDRESS
COMPANY HEADQUARTERS

20 Old Bailey
London, EC4M 7AN
ENGLAND

US OFFICE

280 Madison Avenue
9th Floor – Room 912
New York, NY 10016
US

THE CANNA CONSULTANTS
COMPANY INFORMATION
MAST CONSULTING LTD
Company Number: 12191810
ico. Reg. Number: ZA547887
VAT Reg. Number: 334 8110 23
COMPANY ADDRESS
COMPANY HEADQUARTERS

20 Old Bailey
London, EC4M 7AN
ENGLAND

US OFFICE

280 Madison Avenue
9th Floor – Room 912
New York, NY 10016
US

USEFUL LINKS

Copyright © 2019 MAST CONSULTING LTD

Copyright © 2019 MAST CONSULTING LTD