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.
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.
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).
Globally, 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.
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
Under 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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
Someone approached me the other day, wanting to know what was the real story about hemp and CBD.
He said he had “a guy” who gave him a CBD salve as part of a study, supposedly “the good stuff,” to help his knee. He couldn’t understand why he was the only one out of 20 people in the group that felt no relief. He happened to have this CBD salve with him, along with a second brand that he hadn’t yet tried. The “good stuff” had slick, colorful packaging, a beautiful logo and powerful marketing messages about the phytocannabinoids and essential oils in the jar. The other CBD product was in a dull grey tin, an ugly duckling, and not nearly so impressive on the outside- I’ll call it “Homer’s Brew.” My friend dismissed Homer’s Brew outright, as not even worth trying. I told him that not all CBD products are created equal, that you can’t always believe the claims on the package, including the cannabinoid potency displayed on the label.
I told him to search for the Certificate of Analysis (COA) for each of the two products, specifically, lab test results validating the CBD dosage per serving, and also the breakdown of pesticides, heavy metals and microbials. He had to do a little digging and emailing, as it wasn’t readily available for either company, but the next day, results were in. The “good stuff” with the slick packaging and bold claims had mere trace amounts of CBD, with some hemp and essential oils- no tests for pesticides or contaminants of any kind. Hmmm, no wonder he was disappointed. Homer’s Brew’s COA came in with flying colors – a reputable lab had confirmed safe levels of pesticides, pathogens and heavy metals, and the CBD level was substantial, with a detailed cannabinoid breakdown in the lab report.
In spite of the varying legality of hemp-derived CBD products from one state to the next, consumers are gobbling up costly CBD salves, tinctures and edibles in markets, gyms and online. Like moths to a flame, they are pulled in by the CBD name and lofty promises, not always understanding what they are getting for their money. They trust that these products are safe, licensed, inspected and regulated by some agency, otherwise, “they wouldn’t be on the shelves, would they?”
In spite of the 2018 Farm Bill, FDA still has not recognized the legality of products containing hemp-derived CBD, but some states have gone ahead and given them a green light anyway- check with your own jurisdiction to be sure. In the meantime, hemp-derived CBD products are slipping through the regulatory cracks, depending on the state. It is confusing, for sure, and buyer beware.
Separate yourself from the pack of snake-oil salesmen. Test your products for safety and accurate cannabinoid potency, and make a Certificate of Analysis readily available to your customers. Boldly portray your transparency and belief in the quality of your products through this COA.
Providing this information to consumers is the best path to success- safe, satisfied customers who will refer to their friends and family, and most likely come back for more of your “good stuff.”
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a warning letter to Curaleaf Inc., a multi-billion-dollar market cap company that is publicly traded on the Canadian Securities Exchange. The FDA determined, based upon a review of the company’s website and social media accounts (Facebook and Twitter), that several of Curaleaf’s cannabidiol (CBD) products are misbranded and unapproved new drugs sold are in violation of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act1 (FD&C Act). The FDA also determined that Curaleaf’s “Bido CBD for Pets” products are unapproved new animal drugs that are unsafe and adulterated under the FD&C Act2. This action by FDA holds many lessons and cautions for companies already in or looking to break into the CBD market.
Unapproved New Human Drug Claims and Misbranding
The FDA identified a variety of statements in its review of the Curaleaf website and social media accounts that it said established the CBD Lotion, CBD Pain-Relief Patch, CBD Tincture, and CBD Disposable Vape Pen products as drugs. It is important to highlight that these claims were not made on the products’ label and, in some instances, referred to CBD generally. The FDA characterized these claims as demonstrating an intent to market the products for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment or prevention of disease, as well as to affect the structure or any function of the body. For example, FDA asserted that Curaleaf made a variety of drug and disease-related claims that its products or CBD in general could be used:
To treat chronic pain;
To reduce the symptoms of ADHD, anxiety, depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, and schizophrenia;
As a natural alternative to pharmaceutical-grade treatments for depression and anxiety;
To address eating disorders;
To reduce the severity of opioid-related withdrawal;
To deter heart disease;
As an effective treatment for Parkinson’s disease and Alzheimer’s; and
To kill breast cancer cells and counteract the spread of cancer.
The FDA stated that the Curaleaf products are not generally recognized as safe and effective for the uses described on their website and social media accounts and, therefore, the products are new drugs under the FD&C Act3. The FDA stated that, because the products have not received approval from the FDA, they may not be legally introduced or delivered for introduction into interstate commerce.
The FDA further declared that the Curaleaf products are misbranded within the meaning the FD&C Act, because their labeling fails to bear adequate directions under which a layperson can use a drug safely and for the purpose for which it is intended. The FDA will frequently add this charge when citing a product marketed as an unapproved new drug. In its warning letter, the FDA noted that Curaleaf’s products are offered for conditions that are not inclined to self-diagnosis and treatment by individuals who are not medical professionals (e.g. Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s, etc.). Therefore, the products would need to bear adequate directions for use, as well as obtain appropriate new drug approvals from FDA prior to being marketed as human drugs.
Unapproved Dietary Supplement Labeling
The FDA further concluded that Curaleaf intended to market their CBD products as dietary supplements. For example, under the disclaimer section of the Curaleaf products the FDA noted that it says that “Cannabidiol (CBD) . . . is a dietary supplement.” However, the warning letter reiterated the FDA’s longstanding position that CBD products do not meet the definition of a dietary supplement because they contain an active ingredient in a drug product that has been the subject of public research and drug approval by FDA. While the warning letter states that FDA is not aware of any evidence that counters the agency’s position that CBD products are excluded from the definition of dietary supplement, Curaleaf may present the FDA with any evidence that is relevant to the issue.
Further, the FDA noted that the Curaleaf products do not meet the definition of dietary supplement because those products are not “intended for digestion”. The CBD Lotion and the CBD Pain-Relief Patch products’ labeling states that they are intended to be applied directly to the skin and body, while the CBD Disposable Vape Pen is intended for inhalation. In addition, the CBD Tincture products contain a “Suggested Use” section on labeling that includes both edible and topical uses. According to the FDA, the addition of the topical use to labeling established that the tincture products are not intended for ingestion and therefore do not meet the definition of a dietary supplement.
Unapproved New Animal Drugs The FDA also concluded that Curaleaf’s “Bido CBD for Pets” products are unapproved new animal drugs as statements on Curaleaf’s website show that the products are intended for use in the mitigation, treatment or prevention of diseases in animals. For example, the company’s website states that its products will decrease dog separation anxiety, distressed feelings, anxiety and seizures, as well as reducing or stunting the growth of cancer, relieve muscle spasms and treat arthritis issues. The FDA stated that the products are “new animal drugs” because they are not generally recognized among experts qualified by scientific training and experience as safe and effective for use under the conditions prescribed, recommended or suggested in the labeling. In order to be legally marketed, a new animal drug must have an approved new animal drug application, conditionally approved new animal drug application, or index listing. As these products are not approved or index-listed by the FDA, these products are considered unsafe and adulterated.
What This Means to You
The FDA is paying close attention to companies marketing CBD products with unapproved drug claims for both human use and animal use. It is important for companies that currently market or are considering marketing CBD products to ensure that their marketing materials and labeling generally comply with FDA requirements and avoid making unapproved human or animal drug claims. Additionally, it underscores the fact that FDA will review more than just the label of the product, and will scrutinize statements made about the product on the company’s website and social media accounts to determine the product’s intended use. Even though the FDA is in the process of determining how to regulate CBD products, the agency will not withhold enforcement actions against companies that make unapproved drug claims, particularly those that FDA believes will steer patients from receiving approved treatments.
The receipt of an FDA warning letter may also potentially result in class action lawsuits based on state consumer protection laws or lawsuits by competitors under the Lanham Act or state competition laws. While the FD&C Act does not include a private right of action, publicly issued warning letters may form the basis of a claim that statements are false and misleading and actionable under state or other federal laws.
References to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act(FD&C Act).
For all the excitement about the “CBD” or “Cannabis-Lite” possibilities in Europe thanks to Switzerland over the last few years, the reality as of 2019 is proving to be a little different.
As of the end of May, Italy’s top court, the Court of Cessation, ruled that selling derivatives of cannabis sativa (from the buds and leaves to oils and resins) is illegal. Hemp of course, is excluded from this decree. And in fact, this decision was intended to close a loophole that was created in 2016 for so-called “Cannabis-Lite.” In other words low THC, CBD products and extracts that are showing up in the market as is or as an ingredient in something else (from food to makeup).
While this development is certainly a blow to those who were not in the know already, it is hardly surprising– especially given current events next door. German authorities just declared that they could find no use for “CBD”. This of course confuses the issue even further (since CBD is obviously found in both hemp and cannabis sativa.) Austria did the same thing late last year- and further did so on a level unseen anywhere else in Europe (namely putting cosmetics on the list too).Novel food regulation, at its heart, is all about the source of the plant and how it is processed.
In fact, and certainly in comparison, far from being nebulous, Italy appears to have taken, surprisingly, a rather scientific, if not clear-headed, approach to the issue in general. Not to mention a step that is absolutely in line with current EU policy on the same.
Novel food regulation, at its heart, is all about the source of the plant and how it is processed. This entire discussion about CBD falls squarely within that- although of course, hardly limited to just this one cannabinoid or in fact, plant genus.
What Should Investors Be Aware Of?
There is, as always, a hype around CBD. That is true in almost every legalizing market, but Europe, with a much stricter regional regulatory regime and at least a four-year path to recreational, has seen an odd twist in all of this for the last two years.
There is the potential for a CBD play in Europe, but it is niche, and country-by-countryIn the EU, the distinction between hemp and cannabis-derived cannabinoids (including but not limited to THC), is a well-known fact for those with any stripes in either the cannabis, or beyond that, mainstream food and drug industry. The largest confusion, in other words, is strictly at the lower rungs of the biz. Not to mention all foreigners.
Proof of the same? Purvey the contents of even the most wide-ranging Dutch Seed shop catalogue, and you will be hard-pressed to find non-hemp products. And even though such entities know how to get around loopholes themselves (starting with the online sale across Europe of cannabis seeds from all over the world), novel food is not a regulation even these cannabis entrepreneurs want to cross.
In other words, there is the potential for a CBD play in Europe, but it is niche, and country-by-country in an environment where both local and regional rules are shifting. And further are likely to do so for some time to come.
And in the meantime, those who make the grade, are certainly freed from one pressing if not looming question. The market in Italy is, in fact, not only far from “illegal,” but opening up both in terms of import and export to cannabis products from all over the world. Including of course, Canada and the United States.
The novel foods discussion in Europe is a thorny one- and further one very misunderstood by natives, let alone those who would take Europe by canna storm. Within Europe, this discussion has festered and percolated for the better part of two years. Last year, despite a huge bump in sales in certain regions (see Switzerland), police were directly involved on the ground in Spain and rumblings of the same possibility took place in Austria at the end of the year. Early this year, further indecision at the EU level has continued to confuse the entire discussion.
In fact, the debate in this region of the world may drive not only European but UN policy. For that reason, the road currently is a thorny one, with lots of drama shaking out along the way in policy fights that still, at least in many European countries, involve the fuzz and what has been ostensibly packaged and labelled as “health food.”
It is for that reason that the most recent move by the German Federal Office of Consumer Protection and Food Safety (or BVL), which said that CBD should not be sold in food at all, has gotten all the attention lately. Especially and more worrying for the nascent CBD industry across the continent, the agency also opined that it does not see a case where CBD-containing cannabis would be marketable in foods or health supplements.
Last month, on April 11, the European Industrial Hemp Association (IEHA) issued a sharp rebuttal to the same. As they have just been asked to serve in an advisory role in setting EU regulations on novel foods and hemp extracts, this is likely to move the conversation forward regionally. Including in the DACH region where this issue is all over the place.
What Exactly Does Novel Foods Regulation Cover?
Novel Foods regulation in Europe covers two things, and this is true far from cannabis. It is consumer rights legislation and guidelines that cover all plant-based food and supplements across the continent. It also covers beauty products (since the skin is the body’s largest external organ) although so far, this tiny part of a niche industry has largely escaped attention. Do not expect that to last.
Where this crosses with cannabis is an interesting discussion. Hemp and cannabis of course have been consumed in Europe for thousands of years. As such, food and extracts of the plant, from species that occur naturally here, normally would not raise a fuss. However, this discussion has also become complicated for a few reasons. Starting with the fact that the seeds and strains now being developed in the U.S. and Canada are not “native” to the European region.
In fact, the early exports across the Atlantic (and there have now been a few) are all on the hemp side of the equation. Currently hemp is the only plant containing CBD that is recognized as viable under novel foods. Cannabis sativa strains that are low in THC are where this whole discussion gets dodgy. The strain, Girl Scout Cookies, and its contents including CBD for example, would under this regime, never be allowed. Nor would cannabis strains bred for their low THC in the United States.
The second issue is how such plants are processed and the cannabinoids extracted. That is another issue that directly relates to how concentrates, tinctures and extracts are made in the first place. This is also in the room.
But that is also where the entire debate also spins off into other semantic hair-splitting that the industry so far has found not only tedious but largely impenetrable.
Why Is The German Announcement So Cynical?
Germany is following its DACH neighbour Austria to directly put the brakes on the CBD and THC discussion across the border with Switzerland. In contrast to its Teutonic trading partners, the Swiss have been experimenting with all kinds of CBD products, from all sorts of sources, and are now talking THC recreational trials (even if sold out of pharmacies).
In contrast, over the last six months, both Germany and Austria have come out with statements and official pronouncements not about hemp, per se, but rather CBD- a cannabinoid found in all instances of both hemp and cannabis sativa. While politically this might send a statement that both countries are not ready to engage the cannabis debate on the next level (beyond medical in other words), scientifically of course, this is a silly argument to make. A cannabinoid is a chemical compound that acts the same whether it comes from cannabis, hemp or synthetic sources (see the synthetic dronabinol).
In the meantime, CBD itself has not been declared a “novel food.” In other words, for all the legal regulatory “brakes” and excuses, the dust is starting to clear on the debate as both regional and international bodies finally take on the entire cannabis discussion, albeit in a plodding, multi-year way. That, however, is undeniably under way at this juncture.
In the meantime, look for political grandstanding about every cannabinoid under the sun and further such drama will not abate even with “recreational” reform. Even when Europe accepts full boat regulated, recreational, novel food regulation will still be in the room. Even if politicians no longer play games with individual cannabinoids.
That said, at this point, that is also unlikely. In other words, expect the battle on the novel food front to continue for the entire industry, and shift, when recreational comes, to merely another cannabinoid, unless policy makers address the bottom-line issues now.
Folks from around the country and the world tuned into the U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) website as they held a public hearing on Friday, May 31. Manufacturers and suppliers asked the FDA to regulate CBD like food or dietary supplements, while the FDA seemed to want more evidence on the safety of CBD products before giving the greenlight.
Background On The Hearing
For the uninitiated, after President Trump signed the Farm Bill into law back in December 2018, Scott Gottlieb, now former director of the FDA, issued a statement the same day the Farm Bill passed, clarifying the FDA’s regulatory authority. In the statement, Gottlieb explained that Congress preserved the FDA’s authority to regulate products containing cannabis and its constituents under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act).
In April 2019, around the same time he resigned from the FDA, Gottlieb issued another statement, acknowledging the quickly growing industry throughout the country and total lack of federal regulatory guidance. This time around, Gottlieb laid out a handful of steps that the FDA plans on taking to address regulations around hemp and cannabidiol (CBD). Those included scheduling the public hearing for May 31, where written and oral public comments were submitted by stakeholders, sharing “their experiences and challenges with these products [hemp and CBD products], including information and views related to product safety.”
That statement also announced the formation of an internal agency working group to “explore potential pathways for dietary supplements and/or conventional foods containing CBD to be lawfully marketed; including a consideration of what statutory or regulatory changes might be needed and what the impact of such marketing would be on the public health.”
Fast-forward to May 31, the day of the public hearing, and all eyes in the industry focused on what all these stakeholders had to say to the FDA about CBD. The day started off with about two hours of oral comments, each speaker had roughly two minutes to deliver their thoughts.
Industry stakeholders representing cannabis businesses sang much of the same tune, clamoring for wise regulations on safety, testing, banking and interstate commerce, among other standards. NCIA Policy Director Andrew Kline’s comments included running through five major positions of the industry trade organization representing CBD companies. Those included recommending the FDA act quickly in setting up regulations, stressing the massive economic impact of the industry, saying that CBD products are generally safe, clamoring for voluntary, consensus-based standards and informing consumers of any potential risks. “The bottom line is this – an overwhelming preponderance of evidence indicates that cannabis and cannabis-derived compounds present minimal health and safety concerns,” Kline told the folks at the FDA. “Time is of the essence. Hemp-derived CBD products are in very high consumer demand and the industry is eagerly awaiting FDA’s regulatory framework for these products. We strongly recommend that FDA act quickly to clarify the regulatory environment because there is significant confusion in the market.”
Anna Williams, representing the American Association for Laboratory Accreditation (A2LA), stressed the importance of testing for contaminants and adulterants as well as advocating for national standards on lab testing, instead of the state-by-state network of different standards.
Patients & Public Safety
After industry stakeholders had their chance to speak, the FDA allowed a group of advocacy organizations representing patients time to speak. That included representatives for the Alzheimer’s Association and the American Epilepsy Society, both of which were hesitant to throw their full support behind CBD as medicine. Kevin Chapman with the American Epilepsy Society said he wants to see clear warning labels, testing standards, more clinical trials and more studies before the group is ready to form a position on using CBD as medicine. Keith Fargo with the Alzheimer’s Association supports clinical trials to study it more, but thinks CBD is risky for patients without serious evidence of efficacy. A representative from the Tuberous Sclerosis Alliance also echoed similar concerns. They want to see labeling of drug interactions on labels of CBD products.
After those comments, some organizations had the chance to speak followed by comments from retailers and distributors. Patrick Bird, owner of PMB BioTek Consulting, spoke on behalf of AOAC International, where he primarily discussed public safety. He said they want cannabis products to be regulated with food safety in mind, asking for FSMA to apply to hemp products. They want to adequately ensure product safety with things like mandating HACCP plans, recall readiness, saying hemp products should be treated just like food products.
Retailers & Distributors
Peter Matz, representing the Food Marketing Institute, the trade association for the supermarket industry, said that regulatory ambiguity is a serious issue that needs addressing. “There is mass confusion in the marketplace for the public, suppliers, retailers and state regulators,” says Matz. “Demand for CBD products in human and animal use is growing rapidly. ¼ of American have already tried it. We are fielding questions from companies seeking clarity regarding the current federal regulatory framework.” He added, what many others also mentioned, that the FDA needs to move swiftly to provide a pathway to regulation.
Next on the docket came presentations from state government entities, including state departments of agriculture, followed by healthcare professionals. The state regulators that spoke mentioned a lot about food safety, standards, testing regulations, GMPs and things like that to protect consumer safety. “Currently states are struggling with the lack of sound scientific research available in CBD and long-term health impacts,” said Pam Miles, representing the Virginia Department of Agriculture.
One interesting aspect on their talks however was telling the FDA just how large their markets have gotten already and how they need guidance on how to regulate markets in their own states. Joseph Reardon, with the North Carolina Department of Agriculture, said they already have about 600 farmers growing hemp and thousands of processors working with the product in their state. “We urge the FDA to resolve the statutory issues improperly establish a legal pathway for CBD products to enter the market place,” Reardon commented. He also asked that the FDA extend the written comment period from July to August. “We are simply looking for a regulatory framework on the extraction, production and reconstitution of CBD or cannabinoid related products.”
Healthcare & Research
Healthcare providers, and physician testimony also echoed a lot of the same concerns, including the lack of research done, concerns about effects on at-risk populations and concerns about use as ingredients in dietary supplements and food. Some of the presentations also highlighted the room for nefarious activity in an unregulated marketplace. Some went as far as to mention cases where they found CBD vape juices with DXM in it (the active ingredient in cough syrup), CBD products found to contain THC, as well as synthetic cannabinoids responsible for drug overdose deaths. Some advocates in the hemp and CBD community have equated these arguments similar to reefer madness.
The major takeaway from this hearing is that everyone wants to see more data. Researchers and healthcare providers want to study the efficacy of CBD used in medicine, regulators want public safety information, patient advocates want to see data about effects on at-risk populations, trade organizations want data to back up label claims and the FDA wants to see just how safe CBD really is.
Products using hemp-derived cannabidiol (CBD) designed for pets is not a new concept; Companies have been marketing CBD pet products for quite some time now, making their way into pet stores across the United States. Some pet owners have embraced the trend, using CBD oil to calm pets down, help alleviate joint pain as well as inflammation, while others are understandingly skeptical when it comes to using novel remedies for their furry friends.
Researchers at the University of Pennsylvania’s School of Veterinary Medicine hope to find some answers to those questions, particularly regarding the efficacy of using CBD remedies for dogs. According to a press release, a team of researchers at University of Pennsylvania’s Veterinary Clinical Investigations Center will perform the first major double-blind clinical trial to study the effectiveness of CBD in treating joint immobility in dogs. The trial will be led by principal investigator Dr. Kimberly Agnello.
According to the press release, this is the largest trial for cannabinoid therapy in pets so far. The trial will include use of the CBD-infused pet product, Therabis’ “Mobility.” Therabis is a subsidiary of Dixie Brands, Inc., a large cannabis infused products company in markets across the United States. Here are some of the details on the clinical trial, shared through the press release:
Dogs known to be suffering from inflammation secondary to osteoarthritis will be studied to determine whether those who receive the Therabis supplement achieve better outcomes than untreated dogs. One group of dogs will receive the formula for a proprietary veterinarian-specific formula Therabis product; a second group will receive Cannabidiol alone which previous studies have shown may have benefit in osteoarthritic dogs; a control group will receive a placebo. Study designers are targeting inclusion of up to 20 dogs in each group. The design of this study will provide valuable data defining the synergistic potential of the additional ingredients in the Therabis formula.
According to Dr. Stephen M. Katz, co-founder of Therabis, they think the data from the trials will show a positive outcome for dogs using their products. “We are honored to have a Therabis product selected by the world-renowned experts at Penn Vet for their first major study of the effects of natural hemp oil to reduce joint pain in dogs,” Says Katz. “Our experience in my clinic has shown that cannabidiol (CBD) is an effective treatment in reducing inflammatory response. We have a passion for improving dogs’ quality of life, and we look forward to learning all we can about therapeutic methods to achieve this.”
The results from this clinical trial, to be published in an academic journal upon conclusion of the study, should be of great interest to the hemp industry. Brightfield Group estimates that the CBD-infused pet products market is a $199 million industry, expected to grow up to $1.16 billion by 2020.
Strictly Necessary Cookies
Strictly Necessary Cookie should be enabled at all times so that we can save your preferences for cookie settings.
We use tracking pixels that set your arrival time at our website, this is used as part of our anti-spam and security measures. Disabling this tracking pixel would disable some of our security measures, and is therefore considered necessary for the safe operation of the website. This tracking pixel is cleared from your system when you delete files in your history.
If you disable this cookie, we will not be able to save your preferences. This means that every time you visit this website you will need to enable or disable cookies again.