Tag Archives: cannabidiol

FDA Says No, CBD Does Not Cure COVID-19

By Aaron G. Biros
No Comments

Former NFL player Kyle Turley made headlines this week for some eye-catching remarks. The retired offensive lineman entered the cannabis industry in 2017, when he launched Neuro Armour (now called Neuro XPF), a brand of CBD products.

Turley and his Neuro XPF brand made claims in recent weeks, both on their website and in various social media posts on Facebook and Twitter, saying that their CBD products can cure COVID-19. Two quotes below, one from their website and one from a Facebook post, show how the company touted CBD as an effective medicine for treating COVID-19.

  • “Crush Corona . . . While scientists around the world are working 24/7 to develop a COVID-19 vaccine, it will take many more months of testing before it’s approved and available. However, there’s something you can do right now to strengthen your immune system. Take CBD . . . CBD can help keep your immune system at the stop of its game. . . . We want everyone to take CBD and take advantage of its potential to help prepare your body to fight a coronavirus infection. So, we’re making all of our products more affordable.”

  • “Crush Corona! Your best defense against the COVID-19 blitz starts with a strong immune system. It’s what protects your body from the everyday attacks of bacteria, viruses, parasites and a host of other nasties. Learn more here: https://neuroxpf.com/crush-corona/ FDAlogo

The U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) got wind of these marketing tactics and sent Turley and his brand a warning letter. “FDA is taking urgent measures to protect consumers from certain products that, without approval or authorization by FDA, claim to mitigate, prevent, treat, diagnose, or cure COVID-19 in people,” reads the warning letter. “As described below, you sell products that are intended to mitigate, prevent, treat, diagnose, or cure COVID-19 in people. We request that you take immediate action to cease the sale of such unapproved and unauthorized products for the mitigation, prevention, treatment, diagnosis, or cure of COVID-19.”

Before entering the cannabis space, Turley was diagnosed with chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE) and then early onset Alzheimer’s as a result of sustaining head injuries while playing in the NFL. Turley has a reputation for being an outspoken cannabis activist, crediting cannabis with improving his quality of life and eliminating the need for prescription opiates.

In a tongue-and-cheek response to the FDA, Turley posted the following on twitter: “OK OK, YOURE ALL RIGHT, ILL ADMIT IT! CHEAP CBD BRAND PRODUCTS WILL NOT PREVENT OR CURE COVID19!” Turley, making light of the situation, inserted the term “cheap” in there, almost challenging the FDA and disregarding their warning letter.

However, the FDA is not joking when they send these warning letters. According to the letter, Turley and his company have 48 hours to remediate the situation or face a federal court injunction.

Quality in Manufacturing CBD Products: Q&A with the CEO of Medterra

By Cannabis Industry Journal Staff
2 Comments

The Center for Food Safety is a non-profit public interest and environmental advocacy organization. They work to protect public health and the environment by helping curb the use of harmful food production and promoting organic production and other sustainable agriculture practices. Earlier this month, the Center for Food Safety launched a new campaign in the hemp and CBD space: their Hemp CBD Scorecard evaluates some of the widely-known hemp and CBD companies on their production and processing methods, testing protocols and transparency to consumers.

Medterra is a CBD products company founded in 2017. They are one of a handful of companies to receive an ‘A’ letter grade on the Center for Food Safety’s Hemp CBD Scorecard. Jay Hartenbach, CEO of Medterra, says 3rd party testing, validation and strict quality standards are the key to earning recognition from organizations like the Center for Food Safety. We sat down with Jay to hear more about how his company is leading the industry in the space of self-regulation, transparency and sustainability.

Jay Hartenbach, CEO of Medterra

Cannabis Industry Journal: Tell us a bit about the history of Medterra – how did it become the brand it is today?

Jay Hartenbach: I’ve always had a passion for entrepreneurship and science. At Duke, I focused on Engineering Management and earned my B.S. in Biomedical Engineering from Miami University in 2012.

In 2016, I received a call from my former college mate J.P. Larsen who pitched me the idea to start a CBD company. After recognizing the potential of CBD to help a variety of issues, we set up shop in my living room and started building out Medterra in 2017.

With this growing need for trusted products without THC at affordable pricing, our startup of two expanded to nearly 100 employees in less than three years. We currently operate out of our headquarters in Irvine, California as one of today’s leading global CBD brands.

From the beginning, we recognized the power of CBD to help all walks of life. With so many companies prioritizing profits over their consumers, we saw an opportunity to stand out with world class customer service, affordable pricing, and efficacious amounts of CBD.

These priorities have remained unchanged for us as a company and it makes decision making easy for us. If you focus on prioritizing your customers, there is not any ability to cut corners or be content with the status quo of the industry. Consumers know they can trust the Medterra brand and we are continually pushing ourselves to make more effective products.

CIJ: Tell us about your quality standards – what do you do to ensure safety, quality and transparency with consumers?

Jay: We are consistently recognized in the industry for adhering to only the strictest standards for quality. From cultivation to finished product, we test our products multiple times to ensure quality standards are met and there are no unwanted compounds. Medterra CBD has always committed itself to manufacturing CBD products consumers can feel confident in.

In addition, Medterra is proud to be one the first 13 CBD companies to be given the U.S. Hemp Authority’s Certification Seal. This is currently the most stringent 3rd party certification in Hemp. With audits on cultivation, manufacturing and final products, the US Hemp Authority Seal signifies that we as a company meet the highest standards in the industry.

Furthermore, our partnership with Baylor College of Medicine was the first of its kind. Focused on testing both current products as well as validating new products, our partnership with Baylor allows us to provide the most efficacious products to our consumers.

CIJ: Tell us about your farming, processing and testing practices.

Jay: Medterra provides customers with true seed-to-sale purchases. Our industrial hemp is grown and extracted in accordance with the strict guidelines of the Kentucky Department of Agriculture. Each and every product that leaves the facility must be third-party tested to ensure consistency, quality and safety.

CIJ: How do you think the Hemp CBD Scorecard helps move the industry forward?

Jay: Given the unclear federal regulatory landscape, this is an important step in the right direction for CBD companies, because it allows consumers to be confident in the products they use. The more 3rd party testing and verification of CBD companies the better. With these presented to the public, CBD companies are less likely to cut corners and are forced to act in their consumer’s best interest. The Hemp CBD Scorecard helps move the industry forward because it forces accountability.

CIJ: How do you think the hemp/CBD industry will evolve with respect to product safety and transparency without government regulation?

Jay: We at Medterra will continue to go the extra mile and take steps to ensure consumers are getting only quality ingredients. Through these efforts, we hope to remove the stigma associated with cannabis cultivation and educate consumers on the efficacy and sustainability of hemp-derived CBD.

FDAlogo

FDA Issues Update on CBD: Still Working, Still Waiting

By Aaron G. Biros
No Comments
FDAlogo

On March 5, 2020, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a press release to the public about their work on devising a regulatory framework for cannabidiol (CBD) products. The FDA also submitted a report to Congress on their rulemaking progress.

The main theme of the report is the same story we’ve been hearing from the FDA for a while now: They are still working on figuring out how to regulate CBD products and wants to do more research before they tackle the rulemaking.

The most intriguing new development from this report is the FDA’s newfound interest in regulating CBD products like dietary supplements:

“FDA is actively considering potential pathways for certain CBD products to be marketed as dietary supplements. Under current law, CBD products cannot lawfully be marketed as dietary supplements, but FDA has the authority to create an exemption through notice-and-comment rulemaking that would allow products containing CBD to be sold legally as dietary supplements.”

If you’ve been living under a rock for the past couple years, here’s a recap: In June of 2018, the FDA approved GW Pharma’s drug, Epidiolex, for the treatment of rare forms of epilepsy. This allowed a drug containing CBD to go to market, but only through the agency’s drug approval process. When the 2018 Farm Bill (Agricultural Improvement Act of 2018) was signed into law in December later that year, the federal government removed cannabis (hemp) with less than 0.3% THC from the Controlled Substances Act, essentially legalizing it on a federal level. Congress tasked the FDA with figuring out how to regulate the market. Without any FDA guidance in the early days, the subsequent market growth created mass confusion for the industry and consumers alike, with no one really knowing if selling CBD products is legal or not. In May of 2019, the agency held a comment period and public hearing on CBD, which included a lot of discussion around the benefits, the risks and further research on CBD. Throughout 2019, the FDA sent a large number of warning letters to companies marketing CBD products with unsubstantiated health claims. Towards the end of 2019, Congress passed a bill mandating that the FDA update them on their progress to regulate the market within 60 days. That deadline came and went, and then the FDA issued the public update and submitted the report mentioned above to Congress last week. FDAlogo

The FDA says they intend to take a number of steps towards providing some market clarity, while still protecting the public from unknown risks. Firstly, they want to educate the public more about potential risks associated with CBD. “We remain focused on educating the public about the number of questions that remain regarding CBD’s safety,” reads the update. “There may be risks that need to be considered before using CBD products outside of the monitored setting of a prescription from your health care provider.” Those concerns mentioned above include potential liver injury, drug interactions, reproductive toxicity and more benign side effects like drowsiness.

The agency also wants to try and close knowledge gaps in the areas of safety and potential benefits. In this section of the update, the agency asks industry stakeholders for help. “We’re seeking reliable and high-quality data.” The agency is requesting data on sedative effects, impacts of long-term use, pharmacokinetics, safety of various drug delivery mechanisms, safety for animals, different processes for full or broad spectrum or isolate derivation, among other areas of interest. They plan to re-open the public docket from the public hearing back in May 2019, extending the comment period indefinitely as a tool for stakeholders to share information with the FDA.

As far as enforcement actions go, the agency wants to take a risk-based approach to it. While there is still no official enforcement policy, the FDA is working on it. Their biggest concern is with companies marketing CBD products using drug and health claims, which could “deter consumers from seeking proven, safe medical therapies for serious illnesses – potentially endangering their health or life.” The agency is also worried about potential contamination risk and consumer exposure to things like residual solvents and heavy metals. Their last concern in this area involves truth in labeling, like making false label claims, not listing every ingredient or incorrectly stating the amount of cannabinoids in the product.

“Our ongoing efforts related to CBD, including the steps we’re announcing today, are in line with our mission to protect the public, foster innovation and promote consumer confidence. We recognize the significant public interest in CBD and we must work together with stakeholders and industry to develop high-quality data to close the substantial knowledge gaps about the science, safety and quality of many of these products. We are committed to working efficiently to further clarify our regulatory approach to these products – as always, using science as our guide and upholding our rigorous public health standards.”

Overall, the public update and the report don’t disclose anything groundbreaking. They do, however, provide some much-needed guidance for the CBD market on how stakeholders can help the FDA’s efforts. The fact that they are investigating dietary supplements as a path toward a regulatory framework is the by far the biggest take away from all this.

USDA Announces Risk Management Programs for Hemp

By Aaron G. Biros
2 Comments

According to a press release published earlier this month, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) announced two new programs available for hemp growers to mitigate their risk.

The first is called Multi-Peril Crop Insurance (MPCI), which is a pilot hemp insurance program designed to cover against “loss of yield because of insurable causes of loss for hemp grown for fiber, grain or Cannabidiol (CBD) oil.” The second plan is Noninsured Crop Disaster Assistance Program, which protects against losses from lower-than-normal yields, destroyed crops or “prevented planting” where permanent crop insurance is not available.

Both of the programs are now accepting applications and the deadline to apply is March 16, 2020. “We are pleased to offer these coverages to hemp producers. Hemp offers new economic opportunities for our farmers, and they are anxious for a way to protect their product in the event of a natural disaster,” says Bill Northey, Farm Production and Conservation Undersecretary.

The MCPI program is available for hemp producers in 21 states, according to the press release. Th program is available in certain counties in Alabama, California, Colorado, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia and Wisconsin.

There are a handful of requirements to be eligible for that program, such as having one year of growing under their belt and have contracts in place for the sale of their crops. Hemp growers producing CBD must have at least 5 acres and hemp growers producing fiber must have at least 20 acres cultivated.

In 2021, the press release states, “hemp will be insurable under the Nursery crop insurance program and the Nursery Value Select pilot crop insurance program.” With those programs, hemp crops can be insured if grown in containers and in accordance with federal law.

To apply for any of these programs, hemp growers must have a license and must be totally compliant with state, tribal or federal regulations, or be operating under a state or university research plot from the 2014 Farm Bill. Growers need to report their hemp acreage to the Farm Service Agency, a division of the USDA.

The press release also mentions that if the crops have above 0.3% THC, the crop becomes uninsurable and ineligible for any of the programs.

Is 2020 the Year of New CBD Markets?

By Marguerite Arnold
No Comments

If you were at Davos this year, you heard alot about CBD. The cannabinoid will again be a headliner in business analysis and bottom line reports this year. But as the market matures, globally, what is the real temperature of the industry? And how fast will regional hiccups resolve?

Regulatory Issues Are In The Room

From the US state markets to the EU, hemp is coming into its own, even though almost everyone also refers to it as CBD (cannabidiol).

european union statesIn the United States, things are even more murky because of a lack of federal reform and the individual rules and regs of existing state markets. To an extent, the market is being “federalized” on the testing front (see ISO for example) and GMP (at the federal pharmaceutical level), producers are beginning to be able to get certified on a global scale. However, the vast majority of the U.S. market is not anywhere close to the regulatory muster now required of even the most-humble commercial hemp farmer anywhere in the EU.

In Europe, the entire cannabis discussion is already far more defined, and as a result, very much likely to set the rulebook globally, especially as so many people want to import here. And this is going to be a bugbear for the next two years. The rules on EU Bio for starters, are still in flux. And where this ties into GMP downstream, those who brave such waters are in for choppy seas for the time being.

Tie this into Novel Food, and this is an area right now that should only be charted by the most experienced navigators, and not just using the stars.

The Battle Is On – Both On The High Seas And The High Streets

For all the desire to bring “whole plant” into the room, (in other words recreational cannabis and medical cannabis with the THC still attached), CBD fever at least has spread in Europe faster than any pending flu epidemic from China.

There are positives and negatives that come with this discussion. Namely, the ever pounding need to commercialize the legal industry and remove all Drug War stigma and barriers from the discussion.

CBD-only legalization is also a powerful answer to those who claim that if CBD is legit, then the police will not chance busting people, no matter how much THC is or is not in the offending substance in question.

These are also the same people frequently who also have a stake in some level of the industry as it legalizes. And this is also where some of the fiercest battles for regulatory control and definition have also begun to happen.

The structure of cannabidiol (CBD), one of 400 active compounds found in cannabis.

Where they have come to a head (see Italy), it appears that governments are indeed reconsidering the whole “insurance” if not “home grow” discussion. Not to mention, as a result, recreational after that. The conversation in Italy, of all places, right now, is a good indication of this trend. It is a conservative country in every way, yet it is the first to not only cancel a government controlled monopoly license, but also the largest country in Europe to again tinker with limited home grow of cannabis plants.

Ironically this is also the place where the most dedicated “CBD revolutionaries” have also hit. In places like the UK right now, the lack of appetite for EU regulatory control generally (see Brexit) has resonated, particularly with a pro cannabis crowd sick and tired of more delay on a topic whose day in the sun has finally come. If not more government wobbles on discussion on the medical side (see the recent NHS decision to ignore cannabinoids and chronic pain).

In other places like Europe however, and this certainly showed up at Davos, CBD is a hardy foot soldier if not cannaguerilla from the hills that is beginning to chalk up discussions if not yet wide-ranging sovereign victories.

This is absolutely clear to see in places like the African market (and Lesotho is about to become a hot ticket globally if not within the African continent). Indeed, the first seeds were sown several years ago).

Yes, it is ridiculous that CBD is being banned. And it is also obvious that governments are unwilling to be bankrupted over medical cannabis of any kind or THC concentration, and know they must also seek other ways to deal with the issue.

CBD, in other words, is a kind of Che Guevara that is going to take down a few of the established orders in this revolution that is now global. And for that very reason, taking on a character if not place at the table all of its own.

Cannabis Featured at World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland

By Marguerite Arnold
1 Comment

So, cannabis was at Davos, like a lot of Very Important People who paid to be seen. What does that mean, however, for 2020 if not beyond, particularly in Europe?

In general, the industry is setting itself up for the next round of “invasion” just about everywhere. In Europe this is going to be a very interesting next couple of years as cannabis as a crop is integrated into the mainstream via changing rules both on a national and regional level.

There are two possibilities for the now Brexited UK. Either the UK is also going to be an insane madhouse of cannabis innovation, set free from its EU “overlords” or the entire discussion is going to get bogged down in another kind of elite private room. Namely which British company gets mostly monopoly rights on what is left of NHS patients (see GW Pharmaceuticals), and which foreign (probably US or Canadian) company is going to be able to buy market accessone way or another to both the medical market that flows over from this discussion and the budding recreational one. See CBD for starters.

In the meantime, strange hybrids are going to enter markets. British distilled hemp infused rum showed up in German mainstream grocery stores just before Christmas. Chocolate makers are setting out stakes across European states with suppliers attached globally.

In Italy, home grow has entered the discussion again, and recreational count down calendars are also on the walls if not sales projections of everyone in the industry. That said, the strategies and ground covered between now and the beginning of 2022, must be strategically chosen. There is no easy, much less “one” path in. All things cosmetics and tinctures will be difficult paths for years to come – although lucrative markets.

CBD vs THC

This discussion is in the room as a political topic as well as an economic one. Technically, anyone with a working farm and used to producing standards demanded across the EU, should be able to enter the industry at this point. That said, getting in, and getting established is not only expensive but also time consuming. The many quirks and stigmas of the past are still in the room. And as fast as norms are establishing, the rules are changed again.

As much as anyone wants to set out even a stake (medical vs. recreational, THC Vs. CBD), the rules, if not debate is bunted again – certainly this has been the case in Europe over the past few years. In fact, the entire plant must be and always is in the room, even if in discussion with several agencies at a time.

2020, in other words, is going to be an interesting year for the industry, even if the most significant achievements, companies and people are not “seen” much less lauded in any spotlight.There is no way THC can be entirely left out of the discussion to begin with. Starting with alarmed reports about the fact that traces of THC in CBD products can show up in human bloodstreams. Until there is a real understanding about the tolerance levels of THC, and for whom in other words, the CBD market will always be haunted by this bugbear. And when they do, recreational reform of all kinds will also be much easier to support.

That said, you cannot pay overhead with promises about future reform. And in the short term, it is necessary to find your niche, and stick to it.

Europe also is a far more interesting regulatory market. Namely, there are more trials afoot, and more people are exposed to the idea of cannabinoids and how to use them.

How long will this take to resolve? It’s anyone’s guess, but the likelihood is that the next two years are set to be just as interesting as the last several have been, although the ground, as well as the goalposts are also just as clearly changing.

2020 in other words, is going to be an interesting year for the industry, even if the most significant achievements, companies and people are not “seen” much less lauded in any spotlight. Namely a general, mainstream and global population is now being introduced to a wonder if not miracle plant, and in a variety of ways.

That is surely, just in and of itself, perhaps the most important aspect of celebrating at a Swiss resort and playground of elites. Cannabis has “arrived” and taken its sophomore spin at the ball.

Banking Rights in the Hemp Industry

By Jonathan Miller
2 Comments

The hemp industry has experienced and continues to see a surge of growth and awareness nationwide. Following the passage of the 2018 Farm Bill, permanently legalizing the crop and removing hemp from its classification as a controlled substance, consumer demand for hemp and hemp products like CBD have skyrocketed.

Unfortunately, there remain many challenges. Confusion about hemp’s legal status – and the differences between hemp and its intoxicating cousin, marijuana – has too often stymied commerce in the industry, particularly with traditional banking products and merchant services being limited in their availability to those trying to grow their businesses.

This month, we witnessed a breakthrough development. Upon the bipartisan urging of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Senator Ron Wyden, four federal banking regulatory agencies – Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the Federal Reserve, Financial Crimes Enforcement Network – joined by the Conference of State Bank Supervisors – issued joint guidance confirming the legal status of hemp and the requirements for banks providing financial services to businesses.

Just some of the many CBD products on the market today.

The new guidance achieves many necessary benchmarks integrating hemp and banking, such as no longer requiring banks to file suspicious activity reports for customers solely because they are engaged in the growth or cultivation of hemp in accordance with applicable laws and regulations. Further, the guidance clarifies the difference between hemp businesses and marijuana businesses – adding yet another point of relief to banks concerned with national and state legality.

The hope is that the joint guidance should alleviate any fear of audits or regulatory crackdowns that have slowed financial institution integration with the hemp industry. However, this does not require banks or financial entities to participate in business with hemp companies. Nor does this guidance directly address the legality of hemp-derived CBD commerce.

With all of this in mind, there is still work to be done. Priority #1 is passage of the SAFE Banking Act. This bipartisan legislation, initially focused on providing a green light to marijuana banking in states where pot is legal, was amended to ensure a separate safe harbor for hemp, with far fewer hoops since it is not a controlled substance. It also directs federal financial agencies to provide clear guidance to both banks and other financial institutions – such as credit card companies – that hemp and CBD commerce are legal. The bill was passed overwhelmingly by the House in September and we are hopeful to see full Senate consideration soon.

Banking is one of the key targets that the hemp industry is aiming to secure, as this will allow for an increase in legal hemp business growth and practices. The goal of the U.S. Hemp Roundtable is to provide consumers with safe and legal hemp products along with the knowledge that the companies are meeting the highest standards and complying with national and state law.

Soapbox

Hemp in the United States: An Opinion

By Dr. Anthony Macherone
No Comments

The Agriculture Improvement Act, also known as the Farm Bill, was signed into law in December 2018. A major provision in the law legalizes hemp as an industrial crop. In August of 2016, USDA, DEA, and FDA published a Statement of Principles in the Federal Register (FR 53365) that defined industrial hemp as any part or derivative (including seeds) of the plant Cannabis sativa L. with a dry weight concentration of tetrahydrocannabinols not greater than 0.3% (wt/wt).

USDA LogoGlobally, the hemp market was estimated at $3.9 billion in 2017 and the hemp seed segment is predicted to grow “at a CAGR of 17.1%” through 2025. Some of the markets affected by hemp production include nutraceuticals, food, textiles, construction materials, and personal care products. It is also anticipated that cannabidiol (a non-psychoactive cannabinoid extracted from hemp) production will grow to support the burgeoning recreational and medicinal cannabis markets in the U.S., Canada and other countries around the world.

In U.S. states and Canada where recreational or medicinal marijuana programs have been legalized, regulations have been defined to assure the safety and quality of the products sold to consumers. These regulations include analytical chemistry and biological assays to identify and quantify pesticides, mycotoxins, heavy metals, residual manufacturing solvents, terpenes, and microbial contaminates. With regards to hemp, the USDA recently released guidelines for testing of hemp. To date, the only required test from the Federal perspective is total ∆9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) content < 0.3% by weight. Total THC is essentially the sum of tetrahydrocannabinolic acid (THCA) and THC (Total THC = 0.877(THCA) + THC) but this may be eventually expanded to include all salts and isomers of cannabinols as noted above. Another complication: what constitutes “dry”? The CFR does not answer this.

Agilent Technologies has invested in the development and implementation of the analytical protocol, the services needed to support these assays, the required consumables, reagents, and supplies, and the training of sales and support personnel to comprehensively ensure compliance of hemp with USDA regulations.

Soapbox

Where Does the FDA Stand on CBD?

By Nathan Libbey
No Comments

CBD Intro

Cannabidiol, or CBD, is one of over 1000 cannabinoids found in the Cannabis plant. CBD was identified as an isolate from Minnesota Hemp in the 1930s (Gururajan, 2016). Unlike many other cannabinoids and compounds found in cannabis flower, CBD is not adversely psychoactive. CBD, upon its discovery entered the field of vision for US regulators. There are two routes of regulation for the FDA under the 1938 Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act – as a drug and as a food (Oconnor, 2018). The FDA has jurisdiction over drugs in a broad sense from border to border, intra and interstate. Their jurisdiction over food, however, only extends to food that crosses interstate lines. CBD therefore, because of potential food uses and medicinal uses, darkens what is already a muddy regulatory landscape.

CBD as a drug

FDAUnder the FD&C Act, a drug is defined as “any product, including a cannabis product (hemp or otherwise), that is marketed with a claim of therapeutic benefit, or with any other disease claim (Mayol, 2019). In 1995, Cannabidiol was identified as a possible solution to help combat epilepsy. Since 1995, studies have been performed to evaluate the effectiveness of CBD to treat epilepsy and lessen the frequency and severity of seizures. In 2018, the FDA approved the first cannabidiol drug, brand named Epidiolex (White, 2019). Drug approvals under the FDA jurisdiction require specific approval before they can be launched into market. That is, while Epidiolex has a specific approval, this approval does not lead to implicit approval of similar CBD drugs that treat other illnesses.

Bottom line: CBD is a recognized drug for use to treat epilepsy. Future use as a drug needs to be approved by the FDA.

CBD as an ingredient

What is seemingly the easiest route to market for CBD derived products is increasingly complicated. For ingredients, the easiest road to allowance in food is to be identified as Generally Recognized as Safe (GRAS). GRAS status is granted to ingredients that have been studied and deemed safe for human consumption by FDA-recognized experts. CBD, to date, is not GRAS. Without GRAS status, the FDA has similar mandates to CBD as a drug above. Ingredients must gain premarket approval prior to being offered for sale in interstate commerce.

Bottom line: CBD is not a recognized ingredient in food – it is neither premarket approved by the FDA nor accepted as generally safe for human consumption.

FDA Action

The structure of cannabidiol (CBD), one of 400 active compounds found in cannabis.

CBD product offerings continue to rise, ranging from CBD infused pillows to suppositories. While products containing CBD have increased in popularity, the FDA has stood at a distance until recently. The result of this lack of enforced policy has led to a scenario where upwards of 70% of all CBD products available online are mislabeled (Caroon, 2018).

This lack of enforcement and flexing of authority seems to be a thing of the past, however. In late November, the FDA sent a warning letter to 15 facilities that had engaged in interstate commerce with a CBD product. These warnings stemmed largely from non-compliant claims of health benefits, CBD use as a dietary supplement, and CBD used in food products offered for sale across state lines.

Until CBD is either identified as GRAS or a specific product gets preapproval, the current issues with CBD in food will remain. In the meantime, manufacturers must be aware of their ingredients, their claims, and the ramifications these may have on the FDA jurisdiction over their products.


References

Cohen, P., & Sharfstein, J. (2019). The opportunity of CBD — reforming the law. The New England Journal of Medicine, 381(4), 297-299.

Corroon, J., & Kight, R. (2018). Regulatory status of cannabidiol in the united states: A perspective. Cannabis and Cannabinoid Research, 3(1), 190-194. doi:http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.neu.edu/10.1089/can.2018.0030

Gururajan, A., & Malone, D. (2016). Does cannabidiol have a role in the treatment of schizophrenia? Schizophrenia Research, 176(2-3), 281-290.

O’Connor, S. and Lietzan, E. (2018). The surprising reach of FDA regulation of cannabis, even after descheduling. American University Law Review 68, 823.

Mayal, S. and Throckmorton, D. (2019).  FDA Role in Regulation of Cannabis Products.  Retrieved from https://www.fda.gov/media/128156/download

White, C. (2019). A Review of Human Studies Assessing Cannabidiol’s (CBD) Therapeutic Actions and Potential. Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, 59(7), 923-934.

The Great European Cannabis Cosmetics Confusion

By Marguerite Arnold
7 Comments

If the “recreational” discussion is off the table for now except in a few local sovereign experiments (Luxembourg, Switzerland, Denmark, Holland), and the medical discussion is mired in “efficacy” and payments (Germany, UK), where does that leave this third area of cannabis products?

Namely cosmetics.

The answer? Because this conversation involves cannabis, as usual, the discussion is getting bogged down in confusion even as industry groups press for clarification and guidelines.

The Problem

Cosmetics, including externally applied creams, lotions and potions, are of course subject to regulation and testing beyond cannabinoids. Think of your favourite cosmetic product and the notices about no animal testing (et al). Yet when the conversation comes to cannabis, of course, even of the hemp kind, the current discussion in the EU is mired in confusion, and of course ongoing stigma. Not science. Or even logic.

The structure of cannabidiol (CBD), one of 400 active compounds found in cannabis.

According to the EU Working Group on Cosmetic Products earlier this year, ingredients containing CBD (even derived from hemp) should be banned from cosmetics production because of the ban on cannabis as an illicit substance under the 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs. Guidance under the Cosing Catalogue (a database of allowed and banned ingredients)  gives individual EU member states a framework to set national rules for cosmetics.

To add to the confusion, the EU also added new entries to the EU inventory of cosmetic ingredients which outlaw CBD derived from extracts, tincture or resin. But – in a bizarre bureaucratic swerve, they did approve “synthetically produced CBD.”

Opponents of the ruling – including the European Industrial Hemp Association (EIHA) have of course opposed the newest guidelines on regs. CBD, as the EIHA has mentioned repeatedly, is not referenced specifically in the 1961 Convention.

The EIHA wants the EU to treat cosmetics like other CBD products – namely requiring that they have less than 0.2% THC.

The EIHA Proposal

The EIHA has its own proposal for setting guidelines under Cosing. Namely that extracts from industrial hemp and pure CBD should only be prohibited from use in cosmetic products if they are not manufactured in compliance with laws in the country of origin.

Further, the EIHA has also pointed out that the seeds and leaves of industrial hemp and any products derived from the same are also clearly excluded from the 1961 Convention.

However, and herein lies the rub – even within the EU, there is not yet harmonization on these standards between countries. So, what may pass for “legal” in the country of production may also not pass for products that are then exported – even within the EU and or in Europe.

EIHA also has proposed new wording for the definition of Cannabidiol based on the International Nomenclature of Cosmetics Ingredients (INCI), the most comprehensive and widely recognized international list of ingredients used in cosmetics and personal care products.

Where Does This Cross With Novel Food?

Of course there is also the confusion in the room about cannabis extracts as “novel food.” Cosmetics of course are designed for external application, but cannabis tinctures and extracts containing “CBD” are being put in that category right now by regulators in the EU. The fact that novel food is also in the room may in fact be the reason that regulators are apparently sanguine about synthetic CBD in cosmetics, but not that derived from the actual plant.

The cannabis discussion is going to be in the room for many years to come and on all fronts – from medication to food to cosmetics.Bottom line? There are, at present, no easy answers. This leaves the CBD industry in the EU, at all levels, as the planet barrels into the third decade of this century, in basically a state of limbo. If not absolute confusion.

What Is The Outlook?

While it may not be “pretty” right now, the industry is clearly moving through channels to pressure and challenge regulators at key international points and places.

What is increasingly obvious however, is that the problem with cannabis – at all levels – will not be solved soon, or easily. Even calls for “recreational reform” or even “descheduling” will not cure them.

Cannabis as a plant, if not a substance used in everyday living has been so stigmatized over the last 100 years that a few years of reform – less than a decade if one counts the organization of the industry since 2013 globally – will not come close to fixing if not ironing out the bugs.

The cannabis discussion, in other words, is going to be in the room for many years to come and on all fronts – from medication to food to cosmetics.