Tag Archives: cbd

GMPC at NoCo Hemp

Highlights from NoCo Hemp Conference Panels: How did we get here, and where are we going?

By Bethany Moore, David Vaillencourt
No Comments
GMPC at NoCo Hemp

At the 10th Annual NoCo Hemp Conference and Expo, held in beautiful Estes Park, Colorado this year, educational panels included a wide array of topics covering both the fiber and industrial potentials of hemp products as well as the plant’s supplemental and dietary applications. Our attention was focused on consuming the policy and regulatory discussions held throughout the day on Thursday, April 11. The panels brought together “prominent stakeholders and thought leaders to explore the ever-evolving regulatory framework, innovative research initiatives, and the imminent implications of the upcoming 2024 Farm Bill for the hemp industry.” The day of panels brought together economists, prominent lawyers, regulatory health experts, and more. The array of speakers could be perceived to have disparate interests whereas, throughout the day, each panel brought valuable perspective and insights with a common theme: the need for collaboration and minimum standards for market certainty.

GMPC at NoCo Hemp
GMPC with Gillian Schauer at the 10th Annual NoCo Hemp Conference and Expo.

Keynote Panel

Kicking off the event on the main stage was a keynote address by Beau Whitney of Whitney Economics, addressing the economic outlook of the industry. Some key takeaways from his remarks included observations on the difficulty of market strategies due to constantly changing rules, prompting investors to have a “wait and see” approach to the industry. Currently, pricing has stabilized for cannabinoid biomass, and there is an overall increase in production for hemp fiber and grain, though more acres of hemp growth are needed to keep up with demand. The U.S. cannabinoid market boasts more than $28 billion potential, with cannabis sitting at a similar dollar amount. The illicit market, however, is estimated to hold $79 billion of the market. Whitney also noted that companies that intend to pursue the global market should do so by preparing for GMP/GAP certification.

ASTM Standards

The next panel heeded the call for the need for the development of minimum standards for consumer safety, as emphasized in the previous panel. The panel featured various experts who are involved in ASTM, including The GMP Collective CEO and Founder David Vaillencourt, along with Darwin Millard of TSOC, Alex Escher of Hemp Hollow Consulting, and Hunter Buffington of Agriculture Policy Solutions. Escher noted that there is not a one-size-fits-all protocol for testing hemp, but that safety is paramount in all applications. He offered a specific example of health and safety issues related to toxic dust concentration and pointed to a national story where an employee suffered fatal health issues while working in a cultivation facility. Occupational safety and health issues apply to the hemp and cannabis industry just like any other industry, and in-house safety protocols need to be central to every operation. Vaillencourt emphasized the importance of collaboration in creating viable and relevant market solutions, allowing collaboration between various stakeholders including biologists, chemists, economists, lawmakers, regulators, and more. He also encouraged further participation in ASTM International, a global standards organization that develops and publishes voluntary consensus technical standards for a wide range of materials, products, systems, and services. One way for participants to get involved is to become a member of ASTM and join the D37 Committee on Cannabis, and attend the upcoming USP-ASTM Workshop on Cannabis Medicine Quality happening in June in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania during the June Committee Week. Buffington, also an ASTM member, noted that the D37 Committee is collaborating with other non-cannabis committees to leverage information and expertise from other industries. Truly, there is no need to reinvent the wheel. Millard, who chairs multiple D37 subcommittees, says that the only way to commercialize the plant is through standards. Laws beget regulations, and this is where standards become the “meat on the bone.” A lack of industry-accepted standards will prevent market adoption, he warns. Each of these panelists have rolled up their sleeves at the table of standards development, and they all echoed the invitation for more industry operators and stakeholders to get involved in ASTM and join the collaborative effort.

Buffington noted that hemp currently boasts more than 27,000 uses, and Vaillencourt emphasized the trillion-dollar market potential of the plant. “How do we go from today at a billion-dollar economy to the future trillion-dollar economy? We do that through the development of standards,” says Vaillencourt. Given that Congress has already directed federal regulators through the National Technology and Transfer Advancement Act to defer to standards that represent a balance of interest and filter out bias through the rigorous consensus voting process, all stakeholders interested in seeing a viable marketplace with safe products must pull up their seats to the ASTM table and participate in the standards creation process.

ASTM Darwin Panel Noco Hemp
ASTM Panel with David Vaillencourt and Darwin Millard at the 10th Annual NoCo Hemp Conference and Expo.

3-Pillar Vision for the Future

After the lunch break, the second keynote speaker, Rod Kight of Kight Law, offered his vision for cannabis reform, including a 3-pillar approach to regulating hemp and cannabis, noting that “what’s good for hemp now is good for cannabis tomorrow.” The first pillar emphasizes strict control of access to minors, which includes age-gating and possible parental consent for minors. He also stated that this includes non-intoxicating products as we still don’t have the data to understand the effects on developing brains. The second pillar underscored the importance of Quality Control and noted that GMP standards are objective quality standards that prevent contaminants and protect consumer safety. The third pillar addresses proper labeling and marketing, which should be informative and standardized. He emphasized the importance of transparent disclosure to consumers based on objective national standards rather than state-specific standards and should include all other relevant quality standards. “All of this requires a federal-level solution,” Kight noted. 

Regulatory State of the Union

In the next panel session, attendees heard a presentation on the 2024 regulatory “State of the Union” for the hemp plant. Panelists included Michelle Bodian of Vicente LLP, Jonathan Miller of U.S. Hemp Roundtable, Beau Whitney of Whitney Economics, and moderator Joy Beckerman of Hemp Ace International. The panel opened up with an icebreaker, asking panelists what they would like to see more of in the hemp industry. Bodian’s response pointed to the need for more definitions of hemp, in all of its forms, including the plant and its derivatives. Whitney noted that the current state of hemp creates confusion for regulators and law enforcement, and the lack of federal guidance creates problematic patchwork issues, creating heavy costs associated with aligning to various state rules. This ripple effect of keeping up with these costs can mean businesses close, employees lose their jobs, and states lose out on tax revenues, further underscoring the need for Congress to enact a new framework.

Lawmakers and Regulators Perspective

As the afternoon progressed, the next panel took the stage to address a regulatory path forward. Speakers included Rod Kight of Kight Law, Gillian Schauer of CANNRA, Tami Wahl, and Tyler Klimas of Leaf Street Strategies. Schauer began by explaining that CANNRA is a non-partisan, non-advocacy group with a focus on education, and that members of the organization include specific states and government agencies with the goal of learning from each other. She also provided clarity on the role of regulators, which is to implement the regulations that were passed in the ballot measures and to protect consumer safety while stabilizing businesses and not letting “one bad actor tank an entire industry.” She notes that at times, many aspects of the laws can become too scientifically dense for lawmakers and regulators who lack a scientific background. While discussing how the cannabinoid market can come together or overlay with current regulations, she underscored the need for more data, as well as standardized manufacturing, processing, and testing. Kight offered praise to CANNRA for attending the event and being present to listen and learn from the industry itself. He noted the crossroads we have come to, where hemp and cannabis are being marketed through two separate paths that have almost become at war with each other. “Now is the time to move forward,” he urged. Wahl emphasized the importance of product standards and data and the need for real-time data to ensure consume safety. “It is up to the brand holder to ensure their product is safe,” she said. As the panel wrapped up, Schauer pleaded for industry stakeholders to interact with regulators productively, and emphasized the distinction between who passed the law versus who has been tasked to enforce it. She noted the discouraging reality of regulators being harassed and receiving death threats, which she herself has also sadly experienced. (The GMP Collective webinar held on April 24, 2024 on bridging the regulatory gaps and challenges can be attended live on Zoom or the recording can be accessed on our YouTube channel.)

Bethany Moore, David Vaillencourt, and Alena Rodriguez at NoCo Hemp
Bethany Moore, David Vaillencourt, and Alena Rodriguez at the 10th Annual NoCo Hemp Conference and Expo.

FDA Fireside Chat

In the final panel session of the day, attendees sat in on a fireside chat with Patrick Cournoyer, Senior Science Advisor at the FDA, and Garrett Graff, Managing Attorney at Moye White. The conversation began by clarifying the distinction between what was laid out in the language of the Farm Bill versus the authority the FDA holds. Cournoyer noted that the “Drug Preclusion Clause” creates one of several barriers that prevent cannabis and hemp from being included in food and dietary supplements, and underscored the importance of consumer safety in both the immediate, as well a need for high assurance that consumers will be safe consuming a substance over the long term. Cournoyer explained that the FDA CBD Policy Working group, established in 2019, which also opened a public docket for feedback and comment, found that CBD and CBD products should not be considered food or dietary supplements. Scientific studies found that high levels of CBD consumption can have negative interactions with certain drugs, interferes with the metabolization of caffeine, and can contribute to liver toxicity and reproductive issues. Based on these findings, safeguards should be put in place as we continue to seek a path forward. Cournoyer emphasized that the goal of the FDA is to be solutions oriented, provide technical assistance upon request, and that they want to hear from stakeholders as they continue to wade through these complex issues.

Overall, the day of panel discussions underscored the importance for industry stakeholders, consumers, and government entities to keep the lines of communication open and flowing as we continue to find the balance between the existing and future marketplace while ensuring consumer safety. Although cannabis and hemp have historically been seen as completely separate lanes, we now know that this is not the reality any longer. For example, how can non-cannabinoid areas of the industry like hempcrete production for building materials collaborate with hempseed producers of a nutritional product or livestock food? In what ways can we continue to truly “free the plant” in all of its 27,000 uses? As the complexities of both the cannabis and hemp industries begin to align and merge through clearer definitions of use and application, it becomes clear that we must all understand the various lanes we’re in and how to navigate the future together. The 10th Annual NoCo Hemp Conference offered a platform for these discussions to take place as this important and complex conversation continues to evolve. We look forward to seeing the results of these conversations go beyond the educational panel stage and into the day-to-day workings that will ensure our industry continues to not only survive, but thrive. 

Cannabis in Texas: A Look Ahead to Legalization and Beyond

By Abraham Finberg, Rachel Wright, Simon Menkes
1 Comment

A Uniquely Texas Approach to Cannabis

The last few decades have seen the United States move forward state-by-state with the legalization of cannabis. Every state is charting its own unique path, and nowhere is this truer than with the state of Texas.

The Lone Star State has made its way from being staunchly anti-cannabis to expressing its own blend of temperance and careful action, combined with a medical cannabis program that’s expanding.

Any predictions regarding the future of cannabis in Texas must take into consideration both the state’s past and its values. In the end, it’s clear that Texas will embrace cannabis in its own individual way and at its own pace, but with a timeframe that appears to be arriving sooner rather than later.

The Debate Continues

108 years after Texas first banned cannabis and the debate continues. Even though Texas has a medical cannabis program, cannabis is still illegal in the state, with possession of less than two ounces a misdemeanor. Possession of more than four ounces is a felony punishable by a $10,000 fine and from 2-99 years in jail.

Texas’s 2015 Compassionate Use Act created the state’s medicinal cannabis program, which now makes treatment available only in the form of low-THC oil of a maximum strength of 1%, and only to a small list of serious conditions: epilepsy, terminal cancer, autism, multiple sclerosis, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), seizure disorders, incurable neurological disorders such as Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, Huntington’s Disease and PTSD.

Support for a Stronger Medicinal Cannabis Program Comes from Prominent Politicians

Texas Department of Agriculture Commissioner Sid Miller, a leader in Texas politics and one of the architects of Texas’s burgeoning hemp industry, has encouraged Texas legislators to create a more complete medical cannabis program.

Texas Department of Agriculture Commissioner Sid Miller

“I am for medical use,” Miller said in an August 2023 interview. “We have so much good science now. And we know what diseases it can treat, yet our legislature picks winners [and] losers. If you’ve got this disease, you can get treated, but if you’ve got this disease and cannabis will help you, you can’t get treated. We need to let the doctor-patient relationship make those medical decisions and not some bureaucrat or some politician … I’m not a supporter of recreational marijuana, but if someone has a condition that this chemical will help, they should be able to use it.”

Texas Representative Joe Moody from El Paso has worked for many years to promote adult-use cannabis. He recently co-authored two pro-cannabis bills, HB 1805, which would have expanded covered medical conditions and defined a per-doze THC limit instead of a percentage limit on cannabis products, and HB 218, which would have decriminalized cannabis.

Although both bills passed the House of Representatives, they were stopped in the Senate. The next session of the state legislature, which happens every two years, won’t begin until January 2025, so that is the earliest any change in cannabis statutes could take place.

The Future of Medicinal Cannabis

There are currently only three dispensaries in Texas. They appear to be servicing the state’s 268,000 square miles through a series of weekly drop-offs to satellite “partner locations,” which are open an average of only two days per week. This is not exactly a corner-CVS type of arrangement, and the need for new dispensaries for the state’s 61,000 registered patients is high.

The Texas Department of Public Safety took applications for new medical dispensary licenses between January and April 2023. Tony Gallo, managing partner of Sapphire Risk Advisory Group, which helped twelve licensees prepare their applications during this round, anticipates around ten new dispensaries being approved.

All licensees must be vertically integrated – product must go from seed-to-sale under one license – and each applicant paid $7,356 to apply. If approved, the applicants will owe another $488,520.00 for a two-year period.

Many knowledgeable Texans, including Agriculture Commissioner Sid Miller, predict a fully-functioning medicinal cannabis market is just a few years away. “If you can get it to the floor, probably 70% or 80% of the legislative body will vote in favor of it because we have such good science on it. [Originally] we thought, ‘Well, that’ll lead to recreational use or more drug use,’ but it’s not. It’s a plant derivative. Medical marijuana is not nearly as addictive as some of the prescription drugs we use now.”

The Push is On for Adult-Use

Representative Joe Moody believes that adult-use is not too far away in Texas’s future either, and that the way to speed its arrival is through education. He recently sponsored HB 3652, the Texas Regulation & Taxation of Cannabis Act, in order to start a dialogue on what a retail cannabis market will look like in Texas.

Texas Representative Joe Moody

On April 26, 2023, Moody and his bill received a public hearing in the House Committee for Licensing and Administrative Procedures in which many points about setting up a retail market in Texas were discussed. A 10% cannabis tax was proposed by Moody, to be split evenly between the state and local government. Licenses would be required for those growing, selling, transporting or testing cannabis, although individuals would be allowed to grow or possess it in small amounts for personal use. Legal sale and consumption would be limited to adults 21 years of age and older, like alcohol. And of course, cannabis possession would be decriminalized.

How Strong is the Market Potential for Cannabis?

One indication of how strong even a fully-open medical cannabis market might be in Texas came during Moody’s hearing from the testimony of Estella Castro. Castro owns two medical dispensaries in Oklahoma just across the state line from Texas and suspects most her buyers are from Texas. “They have a Texas plate and they come in and buy $500 to $600 worth of product,” she said. Her two shops generated $158,000 in taxes to Oklahoma, most of which she believes should have gone to Texas.

New Mexico recently legalized adult-use cannabis, and the small towns along the Texas-New Mexico border are seeing a lot of traffic from Texas. In the first week of adult-use sales, the New Mexico did adult-use sales totaling $6 million. Of those sales, $1.5 million came from dispensaries in 5 small border towns.

Florida and California Suggest the Scope of a Mature Cannabis Market in Texas

The potential for a fully developed medical cannabis market can be gleaned by studying the next smaller state, Florida, which has an open, mature, medical cannabis market. Florida, with 20 million people, is about two-thirds the size of Texas, which has 30 million inhabitants. Right now, Florida boasts 700,000 cannabis patients whereas Texas only has 61,000. Simple math suggests a fully open, mature, medical cannabis market in Texas could see over a million patients gain relief.

California is the nation’s most populous state with 39 million inhabitants, and its cannabis revenue gives some perspective as to the size of a Texas adult-use market. 2024 estimates of California’s cannabis revenue suggest the Golden State will see $7.2 billion legal cannabis sales while the illegal market will generate another $6.4 billion for a total of $13.6 billion. With a reduction for Texas’s smaller size, these numbers suggest a fully-mature Texas adult-use cannabis market could generate close to $10 billion in annual revenue.

Large adult-use states like California and New York are notorious for having an illicit market that threatens to derail their legal, tax-paying cannabis license holders. Texas’s strong business-friendly focus should help deter such an illicit marketplace from gaining too significant a foothold.

The Back-Door Cannabis Industry

Meanwhile, an extensive “back door” cannabis industry is in full swing in Texas. CBD shops now sell delta-9 (fully psychoactive) THC/CBD gummies and tinctures made from the hemp plant, which is the low THC-version of the cannabis plant. These THC/CBD products adhere to the 0.3% definition of hemp as required by the federal 2018 Farm Bill and are legal and available for over-the-counter or online purchase in Texas’s CBD stores.

Gummies, tinctures and other products made form them hemp plant

Current estimates are that there are over 5,000 hemp, CBD and cannabinoid retailers, manufacturers and distributors in Texas that employ more than 50,000 workers and generate more than $8 billion in annual revenue. With these numbers, the 1,100+ licensed Texas hemp growers are sitting well where they are and are poised to take advantage of a legal adult-use market if and when Texas decides it is ready to go down that path.

Next Steps for Texas’s Cannabis Market

People familiar with Texas’s cannabis market believe that adult-use is a ways down the road for the Lone Star State, and that the near-term focus needs to be on decriminalization and achieving an unincumbered medical cannabis system. Tony Gallo of Sapphire Risk Advisory Group advises the Texas cannabis community to concentrate on “increasing what conditions are allowed for medicinal use” and “increasing what areas of the state it’s allowed to be sold.”

There is a groundswell of public support for decriminalizing cannabis as well as for allowing adult-use. A December 2022 poll showed 55% of Texans support legalizing at least small amounts of cannabis for recreational purposes, and another 28% said it should be legal for medicinal purposes.

A February 2023 poll by the University of Houston found that 82% of Texans support the Legislature passing a bill that would allow people to use marijuana for a wide range of medical purposes with a prescription. The belief that cannabis is a “gateway drug” that would make people more likely to use other illegal drugs is losing traction as well – 70% said it would make people less likely to do so or would have no impact.

Final Thoughts

The demand for cannabis in the Lone Star State is strong. With the likelihood of a fully-functioning medical cannabis market coming soon, and the possibility of decriminalization not too far behind, it’s clear that the future of cannabis is bright in Texas.

While the legalities around adult-use will take longer to work out, and the place of hallucinogenic hemp in the mix needs to be examined and clarified, one fact is certain. The path forward that Texas cannabis takes will certainly be a unique one, as unique and as individual as the Texan people themselves.

Texas Takes Advantage of the 2018 Farm Bill

By Abraham Finberg, Rachel Wright, Simon Menkes
No Comments

When Texas Governor Greg Abbott signed Senate Bill 339, also known as the Texas Compassionate Use Act, into law in 2015, many Texans expressed frustration. The purpose of the act was to allow the THC treatment of illness via prescription, opening up the state’s medicinal cannabis market. However, the act authorized only low-THC cannabis oil (maximum strength 0.5% THC) and only for epilepsy. Many Texans with other medical conditions that would have benefited from cannabis were unable to access it, and the dosage was seen as weak and minimally effective.

In addition, those residents hoping the Lone Star State would take a significant step forward towards legalizing adult-use cannabis experienced a rude awakening. A long road was still left to travel before recreational cannabis sales would be allowed to take place.

The Texas Department of Public Safety, which oversees the Compassionate Use Program, did a study of other state’s compassionate use programs and determined that three licenses were the minimum needed to supply the state’s epilepsy population. They updated Health and Safety Code to require a minimum of three licenses, and only three licenses were issued in 2017. This, for a state with a population of 29 million.

Then, the following year, a quiet revolution began. It started with the passage of the federal 2018 Farm Bill, signed into law by President Donald Trump as the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018. Among its many provisions were several sections dealing with the production of hemp. Because the hemp plant and the cannabis plant are the same plant, the Farm Bill defined hemp as “the plant Cannabis sativa L. and any part of that plant, including the seeds thereof and all derivatives, extracts, cannabinoids, isomers, acids, salts, and salts of isomers, whether growing or not, with a delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) concentration of not more than 0.3 per-cent.”

The Farm Bill also removed hemp from the Drug Enforcement Administration’s schedule of Controlled Substances and authorized states to submit plans to administer hemp programs, making sure to keep the THC of plants and products under 0.3%.

The Texas Department of Agriculture, led by its enthusiastic three-term commissioner, Sid Miller, was instrumental in promoting the hemp section of the 2018 Farm Bill. Upon the bill’s passage, Miller backed Texas House Bill 1325 which authorized the production, manufacture, retail sale and inspection of industrial hemp crops and products. HB 1325 passed unanimously in June 2019, and the Texas Department of Agriculture opened the online hemp licensing and permit application process on March 16, 2020. The cost to be licensed by the Department of State Health Services is a yearly fee of $258; a licensee either purchases a license to grow, manufacture and sell hemp products wholesale or a license to sell hemp products retail in-store and online.

The hemp is tested before harvesting to make sure the THC level stays below 0.3%; otherwise, it must be destroyed. (The type of THC being measured is delta-9 THC, the same THC used in cannabis flower, gummies and other products being sold in fully legal states.)

That being said, what the hemp farmers realized was that, by keeping the delta-9 THC content of their hemp and hemp oil to 0.3%, they could still make CBD gummies with strong psychoactive properties. A typical 4-gram gummy would support 10mg of THC and a 6-gram gummy would support THC of 15mg, while still maintaining the 0.3% legal hemp concentration. This is a similar number of milligrams of THC found in cannabis gummies sold in cannabis shops in states such as California.

The Texas state list of approved hemp varietals reads like the list of cannabis flower sold in a dispensary: names like Hemp Kush, Bubba Kush and Blu Haze abound. Additionally, because it is still hemp by the 0.3% strength definition, there is no age limit to purchases and products may be purchased online by anyone and mailed anywhere.

There were 1,123 licensed hemp growers in Texas in 2021. “We started out growing hemp for CBD oil,” commented Agriculture Commissioner Miller recently. “Typical farmers saw a lot of profit in doing that.”

A 2023 study revealed that the Texas hemp industry currently employs more than 50,000 workers and generates more the $8 billion in annual revenue. Also, between $19.1 and $22.4 billion in economic activity is generated by the 5,033 hemp, CBD and cannabinoid retailers, manufacturers and distributors in Texas.

“It is vital that Texas continues to support the hemp industry, which has become a key component of the state’s overall economy,” said Cynthia Cabrera, chair of the cannabinoids council of the Hemp Industries Association and chief strategy officer at Austin-based Hometown Hero CBD. “The results of this study demonstrate the positive economic and social impact of hemp in Texas, and that its small businesses and farmers need to be protected to continue to thrive, providing jobs and tax revenue.”

In 2020, smokable hemp, including vapes, was banned in Texas, a ban that was upheld by the Texas Supreme Court. The only allowed consumable hemp products are oil-based products, like tinctures and gummies.

The only allowed consumable hemp products are oil-based products, like tinctures and gummies.

Agriculture Commissioner Miller lobbied against the ban and feels it puts Texas hemp farmers in an uncompetitive position compared to other state’s hemp farmers. “After three years of administering our hemp program, it’s clear the legislature’s effort to ban smokable hemp products has reduced our competitiveness to other states and harmed our farmers,” he said earlier this year. “The ban on smokable hemp products has confused and discouraged licensed growers and forced out processing facilities on which those growers depend.”

Meanwhile, the medicinal cannabis industry has expanded, at least in terms of the conditions for writing a medical prescription and the allowable THC strength. Terminal cancer, autism, multiple sclerosis, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), seizure disorders, and incurable neurological disorders such as Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, and Huntington’s Disease were approved in 2019, and in 2021, House Bill 1535 raised the THC concentration from 0.5% to 1.0% and added PTSD to the list of approved medical conditions.

From January to April 2023, Texas Department of Public Safety took applications to open more dispensaries at an applicant cost of $7,356 for each application. All licensees must be vertically integrated – product must go from seed-to-sale under one license. If approved, the applicants will owe another $488,520.00 for a two-year period. This will allow them the opportunity to serve almost 61,000 registered patients who are supported by 747 physicians approved by the Regulatory Services Division to prescribe low-THC cannabis through the Compassionate Use Program.

Tony Gallo, managing partner of Sapphire Risk Advisory Group, helped twelve of the recent license applicants prepare their applications. In addition, his firm has been assisting cannabis companies in Texas since 2017. 420CPA reached out to Tony for an “in-the-trenches” view of cannabis in Texas. Gallo believes an adult-use market is a long way away.

“Concerning growth in the Texas cannabis industry,” Gallo says, “two factors come into play — increasing what conditions are allowed for medicinal use, and increasing what areas of the state it’s allowed to be sold.”

420CPA co-founder Abraham Finberg CPA suggests hemp companies position themselves to enter the cannabis market should state legislators and the people of Texas have a change of heart and decriminalize cannabis and authorize an adult-use market. “Hemp entrepreneurs can start with CBD products as they’re doing now and expand their offerings as the laws change,” Finberg says.

HHS Recommends Rescheduling Cannabis, Surprising an Entire Industry

By Joshua Weiss, Osiris Morel
No Comments

In the most unexpected development to hit the cannabis industry in years, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS) Secretary Xavier Becerra shared his agency’s recommendation that, based on data and scientific analysis, cannabis, a Schedule I drug under the Controlled Substances Act, should be reclassified as a Schedule III drug. The announcement was made on Wednesday, August 30.

The Background

HHS’ conclusion was sent by letter to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), the agency with authority to reclassify how various substances are treated under federal drug laws. The HHS recommendation means that the nation’s top health agency no longer considers cannabis a drug that lacks medical value and carries the high potential for abuse.

The announcement comes just under a year after President Biden and his administration made a statement on cannabis reform. In that statement, which he made on Oct. 6, the president requested that the Secretary of HHS and the Attorney General (AG) initiate an administrative process to review how cannabis is scheduled under federal law, in addition to pledging to pardon all prior federal offenses of simple cannabis possession, directing the AG to develop an administrative process for the pardons and urging all governors to follow suit for state and local offenses. In a statement, Secretary Becerra said the agency acted “expeditiously” and completed the rescheduling process in less than 11 months, “reflecting the department’s collaboration and leadership to ensure that a comprehensive scientific evaluation be completed.” Indeed, the agency’s announcement reflects the administration’s desire to quickly resolve the country’s failed approach to cannabis reform, as prior rescheduling efforts have taken years. Few thought the federal government would move quickly on cannabis, let alone under a year.

The White House has chosen not to comment on the HHS recommendation as the “administrative process is an independent process led by HHS and DOJ and guided by the evidence.” During a press conference, White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre reiterated the administration’s position, saying that the administration is taking a more hands-off approach and allowing the federal agencies to determine cannabis’s classification without political influence.

What Does This Mean for the Cannabis Industry?

Although a historic announcement, many industry members hoped for a report that would completely remove cannabis from the CSA. Rescheduling cannabis as a Schedule III drug could provide a route for the FDA to assume a more hands-on regulatory role, and it could open up opportunities for interstate commerce in cannabis. A Schedule III designation does not amount to federal legalization, which means the industry will continue to lack a comprehensive regulatory framework addressing the conflicts between federal and state cannabis laws. Rescheduling cannabis also does not address long-overdue concerns about decriminalization and the effect the war on drugs has had on incarceration rates and racial disparities among the imprisoned.

With the HHS recommendation out in the open and the ball firmly in the DEA’s court, concerns have shifted to the DEA’s timeline for considering rescheduling. No hard deadline exists for the agency to complete its review, and industry stakeholders already know that the rescheduling process can be grueling and lengthy. The last time the DEA rescheduled a drug, hydrocodone combination products (HCPs) in 2004, the process took nearly a decade. In fact, each time the DEA has previously considered rescheduling cannabis, in 2001 and 2006, the process took over two years and resulted in no changes.

While many stakeholders speculate that a decision will be made ahead of the November 2024 presidential election, others remain skeptical given the strict anti-drug posture hardwired into how the DEA operates. In fact, the HHS recommendation coupled with the DEA’s approach to drug policy has led some to speculate that the DEA may compromise by moving cannabis into Schedule II, a category reserved for medicines with high potential for abuse and dependence, including most common opioids.

Either way, the agency’s recommendation is a momentous moment for an industry that has been reeling from falling sales and rising costs. Rescheduling cannabis could open the floodgates to more and better research into cannabis. The Schedule I designation has severely limited scientists’ access to cannabis for research purposes. A Schedule III designation would also have a significant financial impact on cannabis companies that have been deprived of tax deductions and banking services on which most companies depend.

The DEA has confirmed that it received the HHS letter and recommendation and will initiate its five-factor review, which differs from HHS’s eight-factor criteria. It remains to be seen what the DEA will do or when it will be done, but thousands of cannabis companies across the country will be watching closely.

The CBD Regulatory Environment in Europe: Part 4

By Shelley Stark
No Comments

This is the final piece of a four-part series discussing European cannabis regulations. Click here for Part One, here for Part Two and here for Part Three. Part Four wraps up the series below. 

Where is the future of CBD heading?

A review of these various jurisdictions, the EU, the UK, and the USA, makes it clear that testing of CBD to ensure public safety is paramount to staying in business, and indeed to the survival of the industry. In the UK it is imperative to be active in the Novel Food licensing regime to remain on the market. In the EU, it is imperative for a legitimate market at all.

In the USA, it may very well become an imperative, if not because of the FDA or even Congress, but rather because as the U.S. market matures, lawsuits over product liability are almost inevitable, pointing to the lack of toxicology reporting or to the way a product was manufactured or marketed. Until the FDA plays a more robust role in establishing standards for the safety of CBD in food products, the best means for companies to protect themselves is with a Novel Food inspired testing regime to confirm product safety.

What this means for the CBD industry

Companies want a clear path forward for investments in the CBD sector. Litigation is predictable, especially in a litigious society like the U.S., as companies prepare themselves with toxicology reporting that satisfies the FDA. There will be clear winners and losers in the CBD market place, most likely based on a toxicology report.

The EFSA, FSA, FDA, the various state level hemp associations dotted across America and more intriguingly, businesses who see testing requirements as a legal means of ousting the less-well-financed competition, are all advocating for testing. This makes sense: There is no future in betting on the unknown. Anything short of a clear safety standard is just guessing with people’s health and thus the company’s future.

So, what are we left with?

Clearly, there is a need for a toxicology report prepared on behalf of the CBD sector. And one about CBD as a food supplement, not as a medicine. It is worth noting that Miller also remarked on how Epidiolex contained high doses of CBD. It needs to be made clear that the medical study of Epidiolex is not consistent with a study of non-medical levels of CBD when used as a supplement.

At present, the biggest challenge facing CBD product manufactures, whether in the USA, EU or UK, is the lack of controlled studies and thus the inability to illustrate the necessary toxicology reporting in their portfolio. Even in the US, the FDA has said it can’t conclude that CBD meets the standard of “generally recognized as safe” (GRAS) for use in human or animal food. Thus, the future of CBD lies in a company’s ability to illustrate by means of a study and accompanying toxicology reports that their brand is firmly in line with the required safety and data standards.

Just some fo the many CBD products in the U.S. market out there

Here is where the EU and the UK may have an advantage, through involvement in the Novel Food application and licensing procedures. The needed legal security for the marketing of CBD products can only be achieved by their approval as Novel Foods. Projected costs for an individual company registering CBD isolate and full spectrum distillate under the Novel Food guidelines requires an investment of €3.5 million. As this is prohibitively high for most companies, at the June 2019 General Assembly, the EIHA proposed the creation of a consortium, with the aim of submitting a joint Novel Food application and sharing these costs among the members.

How the “EIHA projects GmbH” Partnership Works

The founding members of the EIHA projects GmbH have a preferential partnership rate. As a partner, I am able to sub-license products or brands in the EU and this license will be valid in the UK when the application is validated and on the Union list, and is equally valid in the USA.

The Atlantic Ocean is getting smaller and it appears that the FDA might very well decide that the US needs the same European safety standards applied to products at home. Sub-licensing is clearly an inexpensive pathway for an American brand to claim toxicology and safety testing PLUS get access to the EU market. It is imperative for businesses going forward to take a serious look at their future business goals and align themselves with an advancing regulatory environment confirming their commitment to approved quality products.

The CBD Regulatory Environment in Europe: Part 3

By Shelley Stark
No Comments

This is Part Three of a four-part series discussing European cannabis regulations. Click here for Part One and here for Part Two. Part Three dives into dosage, approvals and more. Stay tuned for the final Part Four, coming next week.

But does CBD harm the liver?

Here, it is important that we compare apples to apples. Supplements are intended in addition to one’s usual diet. Medicines, on the other hand, are meant to alter a condition to solve a problem. Epidiolex is a medicine, not a supplement. According to Epidiolex the recommend dosage of Epidiolex, a highly purified form of CBD, is between 5mg and 25mg per kilo body weight per day. That means that an average 70 kilo adult would need to take between 350mg and 1750mg per day!

At this moment, even the FSA states that a recommended dosage should not exceed 70mg per day and most recommendations are much lower. This is because supplements are not medicines.

Epidiolex-GWThe point is that Epidiolex is an FDA-recognized medicine and should not be compared to a supplement. Supplements may range from vitamins, minerals, herbal products and botanicals, and are offered without a prescription to people who wish to maintain or improve their health. Purchasers of supplements, as the word suggests, are supplementing their diet or lifestyle, they are not seeking a doctor prescribed medicine.

The supplement or additive industry has no desire to confuse the objective of a supplement with one of a medicine. The objective of testing CBD is to confirm its usage as a supplement, so a firm line can be drawn between what is a medicine, formed to make conditional changes to the body, and what is a supplement to a normal diet.

Despite the FDA’s website warning that CBD is not a legal additive to food or drinks, at this point, the Agency seems to limit actions to claims, and not the safety of the product itself.

This position may be about to change.

The FDA has made inquiries with the European authority, EFSA, concerning testing and safety requirements. It is quite possible the FDA prefers the ‘EU approach’ over the current ‘wild west approach’ driving the American CBD industry.

In response to interview questions directed to FDA spokesperson, Courtney Rhodes says:

“CBD cannot lawfully be sold as a dietary supplement or as an ingredient in food under the FD&C Act. (Bold italics by the FDA) Food ingredients must be shown to be safe to be lawfully added to food. That means, there must be a reasonable certainty that an ingredient’s intended use won’t cause harm”.

FDAlogoIf this is the case, one may well wonder why the FDA is not enforcing the FD&C Act. The answer might lay in great part to the specifics of the 2018 Farm Bill (formally, the Agriculture Improvement Act), where the only statutory metric for cannabis as a controlled substance is the reference to the 0.3% delta 9 THC level. Many see this poorly written bill as an open door for cannabinoids to hit the markets legally, much to the chagrin of many state lawmakers.

FDA spokeswoman Rhodes says that the 2018 Farm Bill effectively “removed hemp from [DEA] regulation.” By defining hemp as Cannabis sativa L. with a delta-9 concentration of 0.3% or less, “hemp derivatives, [like] CBD, …meet that definition of hemp and [are] not prohibited under the Controlled Substances Act.”

Thus, any enforcement on the part of the FDA is legally hamstrung due to the way the 2018 Farm Bill was written.

But is change in the air?

Research has yet to settle on “how much CBD can be consumed, and for how long, before causing harm,” says FDA Principal Deputy Commissioner Janet Woodcock. The existing regulatory framework for food and supplements are inappropriate for CBD, she says, and the FDA does not, in fact, intend to pursue rulemaking that would allow for the inclusion of CBD in dietary supplements.

So, what does the FDA intend to pursue?

While the FDA has generally focused on unsubstantiated health claims for food and beverage products, it is also on record stating that available data did not show CBD products as meeting the safety standard for a human or animal food supplement. “A new regulatory pathway for CBD is needed,” the Agency says, “that balances individuals’ desire for access to CBD products with the regulatory oversight needed to manage risks.”

What would such “a new regulatory pathway” look like? Most likely, that new testing requirements for CBD could come into effect. This could eventually mean testing requirements much like those in the EU.

Have the studies of Epidiolex, with findings based on extremely high dosage levels tainted the CBD discussion?

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

“The FDA is relying on pharmaceutical studies that show risks at larger doses,” says Jonathan Miller, general counsel for the U.S. Hemp Roundtable, adding that there is a decade of clear and established evidence of the safety of CBD products sold at retail. This is hard to deny: The industry has been selling CBD products for the last 10 years without any significant health issues arising. Thus, says Miller, creating a new regulatory pathway would not be necessary as the dietary supplement and food pathways are already provided for under the FD&C Act.

Authorities and industry leaders alike want regulations that promote business while at the same time protecting consumers. “The FDA’s inaction for the past year has facilitated an unregulated marketplace — which is bad for consumers and bad for business. It’s time for FDA to announce a legal pathway to market for these CBD-containing supplements and to commence meaningful enforcement against products that flout category-wide requirements for dietary supplements,” says Steve Mister, president and CEO of the Council for Responsible Nutrition (CRN), quoted on the crnusa.org website.

It is clear that the FDA does not want CBD in food and beverages and likewise claims there is no clear regulatory pathway, citing scientific data on CBD based on the Epidiolx study, which has little room for claiming CBD could be safely used as a supplement because the study is based on medicine, not a supplement.

Parallel to this, the US Hemp Roundtable and other industry stakeholders are urging the U.S. House Committee on Oversight and Accountability to move forward with an investigation into the lack of regulatory action on CBD products by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Does this mean that hemp lobbyist Jonathan Miller for Hemp Roundtable wants toxicology testing? “Yes,” he definitively answered.

Serious business requires the security that only toxicology reporting can give. Most of the large industry stakeholders have been engaged in toxicology testing for years, as time, not just funds, is a crucial factor. The EIHA projects GmbH began testing in 2020 and is not yet finished.

If congress and the FDA were to require toxicology reporting tomorrow, would your company be ready?

Soapbox

Congress Wants YOU To Make Safe Products.

By David Vaillencourt
No Comments

Recently, Congress requested detailed information regarding the regulation of CBD and other cannabinoids. This comes on the heels of frustration around federal inaction with regards to cannabinoid-containing products produced from Cannabis sativa L. plant extracts that can be classified as “hemp” products amidst the clear need for safety standards that goes above and beyond state minimum compliance requirements.

A Historical Deja Vu?

The author will be joined by his colleagues leading the Seed to Sale Safety Workshop on October 16 at the Cannabis Quality Conference. Click here to learn more. Product safety standards predate the birth of our nation (and many others). From the days of the first pharmacopeias which rival the oldest documented use of the cannabis plant, to modern regulations, the quest for safety has been a constant theme. But as the saying goes “Old habits die hard,” but so do safety issues. From peanuts to thalidomide and tobacco, we’ve seen this movie before – and it is time for a new ending.

A Universal Desire for Safety

Whether you are an investor, executive, technician or anywhere in between – nobody in the cannabis industry (and all its end uses, including industrial hemp) wants to knowingly produce unsafe products. The risks of ignoring safety are real and tangible. Whether it is 20+ years in jail for being an executive of a company that knowingly sold adulterated products and was linked to seven deaths or 10,000+ deformed children, many of whom died at birth because of a drug approved for morning sickness – there is no shortage of case studies we can learn from. Even cannabis has been known to cause injury and death in consumers – not because of the d9-THC, but the impurities. As the industry continues to innovate and develop new product form factors – whether it is new delivery methods of d9-THC in soluble beverage forms, or the rise of manufactured cannabinoids in unregulated marketplaces – it’s critical to understand the risks of your entire production process and to mitigate them. No cannabis company is immune from making costly and dangerous mistakes. It’s not just about compliance – it’s about public health and safety.

Safety Can Be a Sticky Subject

Safety is indeed a complex subject, especially when it comes to cannabis products. For instance, acceptable limits for microbial contaminants for the inflorescence of a Cannabis sativa L. plant are quite literally all over the map. What about the route of administration? Take an inhaled product (like a vape pen) vs. an ingested product (e.g. an edible). Many outdoorsy people like myself may enjoy the smell of cooking s’mores over a campfire, but the particles and VOCs can irritate our lungs, especially when exposed over long periods of time. We aren’t inhaling those s’mores – so the production of the marshmallow, chocolate and graham crackers come with different risks we need to evaluate. It’s not just about the product – it’s how it’s consumed.

Safety Standards – the Fabric of Our Society

Standards are unsung heroes of our daily lives. Whether it’s to keep planes from falling out of the sky, cribs and dressers from crushing young children, preventing train derailments or ensuring the safety of our food and medical products – standards keep us protected – just like grandma’s quilt. The absence of standards can be expensive, and anyone familiar with the accusations of d9-THC lab-shopping and inflated label claims knows that the cannabis industry is the poster child for this.

Congress has long recognized the importance of standards in protecting everyday consumers, as demonstrated by numerous legislative acts. A few notable and relevant ones to cannabis are below:

  • 1848 Drug Importation Act: First major act that combated the importation of substandard – adulterated drugs imported from overseas into the nation which was having a major impact on soldiers of the Mexican-American War.  This Act included legal requirements for drugs to meet the US Pharmacopeia’s standards for strength, quality, and purity.
  • 1906 Food and Drugs Act: After an increase in adulterated and misbranded foods and drugs – made famous by Upton Sinclair’s The Jungle, the relentless work of Dr. Harvey Wiley, a Chief Chemist with the then US Department of Agriculture and his “poison squad” – led to significant oversight of adulterated food and drugs including legal adherence to the US Pharmacopeia and paved the way for the current FDA.
  • 1938 Food Drug, Cosmetic Act: Shortcomings in the 1906 Food and Drugs Act were catalyzed by over 100 deaths after a wonder drug that was analogous to antifreeze led to an outcry that led to the passage of the FDC&A. From factory inspections, to strict marketing and label requirements, to legally enforceable food standards and tolerances for certain poisonous substances – the FDA was given substantial more oversight to protect the growing United States. It also expressly recognized USP quality standards for medicines with USP standards also binding for any dietary supplement manufacturer that labels their products as being compliant with USP specifications.
  • 1994 Dietary Supplement Health Education Act (DSHEA) defined and regulated dietary supplements which carved out significant exemptions for the dietary and herbal supplement industry from most FDA drug regulations. This act has been met with significant controversy as it greatly limited the FDA’s capacity to ban or restrict supplements until evidence of a major safety or adverse event is tied to the product of concern.
  • 1995 National Technology Transfer Advancement Act (NTTAA) – A lesser known act that is focused on standards and technology that requires participation of federal agencies in voluntary consensus standards bodies. Extending beyond foods and medicines – this act covers a broad array of infrastructure and technology regulations that ensure the fabric of our society operates (largely) without issue.

Over 1,000 ASTM standards are incorporated by reference in the US Code of Federal Regulations across nearly 30 federal agencies (searchable here), a demonstration of the value and impact public voluntary standards have in our society.

At the FDA, ASTM standards are used every day to keep us safe. Whether it is to measure the absorbency of tampons (21 CFR 801.430), enforce safety specifications of synthetic and natural wax coatings that are used to coat much of our produce, gummies and more (21 CFR 178.3770), quantifying the impurities in our bottled water (21 CFR 165.110) and many more.They have long been recognized as the de facto minimum standards that balance the need to protect consumers without imposing undue burdens on innovation by industry.

The process of developing an ASTM standard, which was developed and used to keep our trains from derailing 125 years ago, is now the home of 510+ cannabis industry specific standards. Whether it’s acceptable water activity levels in cannabis flower, a truly universal symbol to alert consumers of intoxicating cannabinoids, medical cannabis flower specifications developed in close guidance of the US Pharmacopeia, or how to apply the principles of HACCP to cannabis products, a lot of the hard work has already been done for the industry. It’s simply a matter of knowing where to look and how to use them!

The path to safe and sustainable cannabis products is clear, and the tools are available. It’s time that we learn from the past, apply the standards of the present and mitigate the risks of the future. Now more than ever before, it’s easy to make safe cannabis products and a credible marketplace not just a goal, but a reality.

The CBD Regulatory Environment in Europe: Part 2

By Shelley Stark
No Comments

This is Part Two of a four-part series discussing European cannabis regulations. Click here for Part One. Part Two analyzes the differences between the UK, the EU and the US. Part Three, coming next week, dives into dosage, approvals and more. Stay tuned for more.

EU Regulatory Environment

We Europeans look with envy at the American market and wonder, why can’t we be more like that? The differences between the American market, the UK and the EU economic zone couldn’t be more different, but changes seem to be on the horizon. While both the UK and the EU apply the Novel Food law, implementation varies significantly.

In the EU, applications are submitted to the EU Commission, and approval can take up to nine months – just for approval of the application – not the testing that will follow. And while the application carries no fee, collecting the required data just to make the application can be expensive, and can run into six figures or higher. Once the application is approved, there may still be data gaps and uncertainties, with toxicology testing that can take years to complete, and ultimately must be approved and validated by EFSA (European Food Safety Authority). The required toxicology testing is where things get really expensive, with both the EIHA (European Industrial Hemp Association) and EFSA estimating costs around €3.5 million.

The EFSA’s Panel on Nutrition, Novel Foods and Food Allergens (NDA) has received 19 applications thus far for CBD as a novel food, with more in the pipeline. According to their website, NDA chair Prof. Dominique Turck reported that they “have identified several hazards related to CBD intake” and that many data gaps need filling before evaluations can go ahead. However, she concluded, “It is important to stress that we have not concluded that CBD is unsafe as food.”

As always, with food and drug reviews, it is up to the applicant to prove that a product is safe for human consumption. And for the EU Commission, EFSA is conclusive. And while initial testing is with animals, it also includes human testing, which helps explain the high cost.

At present, the EFSA has been unconvinced by the applications submitted so far, and seeks more data regarding the effect of CBD on the liver, gastrointestinal tract, endocrine system, nervous system and on people’s psychological well-being, as well as the impact on human reproduction.

Thus, in 2019, the EIHA formed a German corporation, the “EIHA projects GmbH”, formed for the purpose of pooling partners money to pay for the application and toxicity testing. The Novel Food applications (NFAs) for CBD isolate and synthetic CBD were submitted on November 4, 2022 and full spectrum will follow in April/May of 2023. It should be noted that the application for synthetic CBD has been completely dropped as no testing was ever preformed.

The applications must be reinforced by a series of tox studies under the auspices of the EFSA and for the UK, the FSA. The EFSA will start the risk assessment as soon as the suitability check is performed. The suitability check is a process performed by EFSA to make sure that they have enough data to perform the risk assessment. According to their webpage, the risk assessment can take nine months.

In the case of the application put forth by the EIHA projects GmbH, the CBD isolate dossier will be submitted to the EFSA in September and enter the risk assessment phase. In this phase, the EFSA will go over the data and can ask for more data, should they feel it necessary. They are allowed 9 months to complete this task and submit their recommendations to the EU commission for a 27-member vote, whereby the EIHA projects GmbH application will be valid and legally binding. The EIHA projects GmbH is expecting a validation during the course of 2024. This is a huge game changer!

The application for Full Spectrum distillate should be readied by the end of 2023, whereby the EFSA should be finished with the risk assessment near the end 2024. As Full Spectrum takes into account minor cannabinoid as well as limited THC, it is more complex. It should be noted, that testing full spectrum distillate with a 0.2% THC limit, tests the limit for how much THC can be ingested by humans without side effects. This study is unprecedented and might well have an enormous impact on the issue of THC and its possible future legalization. It is also costing a further one million euros to bring to fruition.

The UK Regulatory Approach

The UK Novel Food approach differs greatly from the EU’s, which has both strengths and weaknesses. What makes the UK CBD market so robust is that the FSA allows products to be sold as long as they were on the market prior to February 13, 2020 and are linked to applications submitted before March 31, 2021. As a result, the FSA was flooded with applications – many later denied on technical grounds, in great part because they didn’t meet these terms. Currently, some 11,000 products worth a projected 1 billion GBP in revenue remain on the FSA list, having passed pre-validation while the FSA awaits the final toxicology report. Only 400 CBD products have been culled from the list, but to date, not a single application has yet been approved. Pre-validation status is incumbent upon a toxicology report, and it remains to be seen how many companies are able to produce such a report.

Important to note is that due to Brexit, a UK validation when it does come, will not be valid in the EU, but products with an EU application accepted on the Union list will be valid in the UK.

UKflagStill with a projected 1 billion GBP at stake, it is easy to why UK CBD manufacturers work to appease the FSA despite the regulatory hurdles. By keeping the door open, the UK has managed to keep investors interested in the CBD market and the public safe from unmonitored products.

This is certainly not the case in the EU, where despite a smattering of products still ducking the authorities, the EU market remains thin by comparison. Their approach has stymied growth compared to the UK where robust Novel Food regulation is in place, but approached differently.

At present, a market comparison of the EU to the UK or North America seems bleak, at least for now, but following approval, future EU-wide distribution could be highly profitable. As we inch closer to a Novel Food listing, the European market may yet prove to be one of the largest markets for the safest CBD products in the world.

The American Market

Still, it is the American market that makes our mouth water; where oils, tinctures, candies, cakes, and drinks with every cannabinoid from CBD to Delta 9, Delta 8, and HHC are available and producers are on their way to becoming millionaires. With a market currently estimated at $6 billion, forecasts reach upwards of $16 billion by 2026.

FDAlogoAnd the health-related concerns, the testing requirements? Are these limited to the UK and the EU? Let’s take a closer look! A mood of caution is emerging in the American cannabis market, that includes producers and lawmakers alike, who are pushing for stricter laws and enforcement.

In America, the FDA (Food and Drug Administration) has alerted the public to CBD’s potential harmful side effects on their website and hope to force congress to deal with the issue.

Many of their concerns validate those of the FSA and the EFSA. For example: on their website the FDA makes a reference to only one CBD product that has been approved: a medicine called Epidiolex. The FDA cites the review of the Epidiolex’s application in 2018 when they identified certain safety risks, including potential for liver damage. The EFSA requires testing on the same issue.

The CBD Regulatory Environment in Europe: Part 1

By Shelley Stark
No Comments

This is Part One of a four-part series discussing European cannabis regulations. Part One serves as an introduction. Part Two, coming next week, will analyze the differences between the UK, the EU and the US. Stay tuned for more.

As I walk through any European cannabis expo – events like Cultiva Hanfexpo, Cannafest Prague or Spannabis – it is easy to be struck by the differences to those in the U.S. First, there are no THC products, nor are there any CBD food products such as drinks or confectionaries. This is because of the EU Novel Food regulations: “which applies to any food stuffs not commonly used for human consumption before 15 May, 1997.”

As a result, American CBD manufacturers – with virtually no regulation of cannabinoid infused products – have an enormous advantage. In the EU, any “novel food” must be tested and proven to be safe for human consumption.

Still, hemp was not always considered “novel.” In 1997, hemp plant products were considered outside the scope of the regulations EC 258/97.” And more specifically, “that hemp flowers … are considered to be food ingredients” (e. g. used for the production of beer-like beverages). Hence, not ‘novel.’

european union statesSo, right until the end of 2018, nature more or less aligned with the legal establishment, and many products made it safely to market because extracts of cannabidiol (CBD) were considered ‘novel’ only if the levels of CBD were “higher than the CBD levels in the source of the plant itself: Cannabis sativa L.”

However, in January 2019, the catalogue entries for “Cannabis sativa L.” were updated, such that even a naturally occurring level of cannabinoids are now excluded. For the industry, this was a frustrating turn of events, affecting any and all food products to which CBD might be added – confectioneries such as gummies, brownies or cakes, but also includes oils and tinctures containing CBD extracts and other cannabinoids.

Technically, all products on the EU market containing natural CBD or an isolate or distillate are illegal. So, the industry has been playing a cat and mouse game, where consumer labels display vague information or simply state ‘not for human consumption’. The result is a well-developed gray market, that hinges on benign authorities in your jurisdiction.

Sometimes, a producer is able to convince authorities that their product is allowed under Article 4 submission, whereby the producer claims that any CBD content in the food is naturally occurring and a traditional food.

Article 4 is a provision of the Novel Food Regulation (EU) 2015/2283 that allows an operator to check with the national authority on the status of a particular food before bringing the product to market. In the framework of this EU regulation, the operator checks whether the food is traditional or novel. If the food is considered traditional, then the food can be placed on the market immediately. But, if it is novel, it requires a Novel Food authorization.

Good news emerged on June 2, 2023, where in the EU, it has been agreed that once again, hemp leaves are considered a traditional food and are no longer considered Novel. Hemp leaves and tea can be marketed in the EU without further hurdles, but this does not include extracts.

In the case of extracts, CBD isolate and distillate are Novel, not traditional, and a firm must provide toxicology reporting. Both EU and UK law provides that any product containing a CBD extract placed on the market falls under the Novel Food regulations. Ultimately, tests must verify with a high degree of certainty whether CBD is safe to ingest in any amount. And how much is safe before changes occur to internal organs such as the liver or reproductive systems. The FSA will verify results in the UK, while the EFSA is responsible for the EU. 

In the EU, the EFSA will send their final recommendation to the EU commission for approval, where after a 27-member vote, the item will be added to the Novel Food Catalogue. Approval at the individual state level, is next to impossible to acquire, for example, Austrian law states: “Oils/extracts containing cannabinoids placed on the market as such or in foods are considered novel foods and must be authorized in the EU.” No such approval is currently available. Placing it on the market is therefore not permitted.

No ambiguity there!

Some EU countries, such as Greece for example, appear more lenient and others not, but it is retail that is first in line for fines if an investigative authority walks in the door. The situation is certainly nerve-wracking, and having suffered through several of these AGES investigations, I closed my store as a result. Others have had similar experiences. One large retail chain owner reported that he fears the check by the authorities, as each one leads to a fine of some sort, or the demand to remove products. Without notice, he says, the health authorities could decide on even harsher punishments such as larger fines or even removing his business license. Then what, he wonders?