Tag Archives: committee

ASTM International Launches New Subcommittee

By Cannabis Industry Journal Staff
No Comments

ASTM International, the renowned global standards body, has established a new subcommittee, D37.92, aimed at facilitating the exchange of ideas and information between policymakers, regulatory bodies, scientists, stakeholders and the public.

According to a press release, the new subcommittee, at the request of the U.S. Senate, has provided comments on the proposed Cannabis Administration and Opportunity Act (CAOA). The comments including the sharing of ASTM’s work in the cannabis industry, their organization, membership information, defining cannabis terms and their published standards related to facilities, consumer safety and other areas.

David Vaillencourt, frequent contributor to CIJ and chair of the new subcommittee

The subcommittee is headed up by David Vaillencourt, founder & CEO of The GMP Collective and frequent contributor to Cannabis Industry Journal. “With a patchwork of regulations across state, federal, and international levels, this subcommittee will be valuable to industry and government stakeholders as a means to collaborate,” says Vaillencourt, current chair of the new government liaison subcommittee. “It’s really going to facilitate dialogue that will be key as we look ahead to a global marketplace in the coming years.”

ASTM has been working with the cannabis industry through their D37 committee since March of 2017. Soon after the D37 committee launched, they began crafting cannabis standards and have grown their membership and subcommittees considerably over the past few years. In August of this year, they announced the development a new voluntary, consensus-based standard, the Change Control Process Management standard. The new committee, D37.92, is currently seeking public participation in their work to develop the new standard. To learn more about cannabis committee participation and membership, click here.

How Effective is Your Internal Auditing Program?

By David Vaillencourt
No Comments

The word “audit” evokes various emotions depending on your role in an organization and the context of the audit. While most are familiar with and loathe the IRS’s potential for a tax audit, the audits we are going to discuss today are (or should be) welcomed – proactive internal quality audits. A softer term that is also acceptable is “self-assessment.” These are independent assessments conducted to determine how effective an organization’s risk management, processes and general governance is. 

“How do you know where you’re going if you don’t know where you’ve been” – Maya Angelou

Internal quality audits are critical to ensuring the safety of products, workers, consumers and the environment. When planned and performed periodically, these audits provide credible, consistent and objective evidence to inform the organization of its risks, weaknesses and opportunities for improvement. Ask yourself the question: do your clients/vendors rely on you to produce reliable, consistent and safe products? Assuming the answer is yes, what confidence do you have, and where is the documented evidence to support it?

Compliance units within cannabis businesses are typically responsible for ensuring a business stays legally compliant with state and federal regulations. This level of minimum compliance is critical to prevent fines and ensure licenses are not revoked. However, compliance audits rarely include fundamental components that leave cannabis operators exposed to many unnecessary risks.

Internal quality audits are critical to ensuring the safety of products, workers, consumers and the environment.

As a producer of medical and adult-use products that are ingested, inhaled or consumed in other forms by our friends, family and neighbors, how can you be sure that these products are produced safely and consistently? Are you confident that the legal requirements mandated by your state cannabis control board are sufficient? Judging by the number of recalls and frustrations voiced by the industry regarding the myriad of regulations, I would bet the answer is no.

What questions do internal audits address? Some examples include:

  • Are you operating as management intends?
  • How effective is your system in meeting specified objectives? These objectives could include quality metrics of your products, on-time delivery rates and other client/customer satisfaction metrics.
  • Are there opportunities to improve?
  • Are you doing what you say you do (in your SOPs), and do you have the recorded evidence (records) to prove it?
  • Are you meeting the requirements of all applicable government regulations?

There are potential drawbacks to internal audits. For one, as impartiality is essential in internal audits, it may be challenging to identify an impartial internal auditor in a small operation. If your team always feels like it is in firefighting mode, it may feel like a luxury to take the time to pull members out of their day-to-day duties and disrupt ongoing operations for an audit. Some fear that as internal assessments are meant to be more thorough than external assessments, a laundry list of to-do items may be uncovered due to the audit. But, these self-assessments often uncover issues that have resulted in operational efficiencies in the first place. This resulting “laundry list” then affords a proactive tool to implement corrective actions in an organized manner that can prevent the recurrence of major issues, as well as prevent new issues. The benefits of internal audits outweigh the drawbacks; not to mention, conducting internal audits is required by nearly every globally-recognized program, both voluntary (e.g. ISO 9001 or ASTM Internationals’s Cannabis Certification Program) and government required programs such as 21 CFR 211 for Pharmaceuticals.

Internal Auditing is a catalyst for improving an organization’s effectiveness and efficiency by providing insight and recommendations based on analyses and assessments of data and business processes. Additional benefits of internal audits include giving your organization the means to:

  • Ensure compliance to the requirements of internal, international and industry standards as well as regulations and customer requirements
  • Determine the effectiveness of the implemented system in meeting specified objectives (quality, environmental, financial)
  • Explore opportunities for improvement
  • Meet statutory and regulatory requirements
  • Provide feedback to Top Management
  • Lower the cost of poor quality

Findings from all audits must be addressed. This is typically done in accordance with a CAPA (Corrective Action Preventive Action) program. To many unfamiliar with Quality Management Systems, this may be a new term. As of Jan 1, 2021, this is now a requirement for all cannabis licensed operators in Colorado. Many other states require a CAPA program or similar. Continuing education units (CEUs) are available through ASTM International’s CAPA training program, which was developed specifically for the cannabis industry.

Examples of common audit findings that require CAPAs include:

  • Calibration – Production and test equipment must be calibrated to ensure they provide accurate and repeatable results.
  • Document and record control – Documents and records need to be readily accessible but protected from unintended use.
  • Supplier management – Most standards have various requirements for supplier management that may include auditing suppliers, monitoring supplier performance, only using suppliers certified to specific standards, etc.
  • Internal audits – Believe it or not, since internal audits are required by many programs, it’s not uncommon to have a finding related to internal audits! Findings from an internal audit can include not conducting audits on schedule, not addressing audit findings or not having a properly qualified internal auditor. Are you looking for more guidance? Last year, members of ASTM International’s D37 Committee on Cannabis approved a Standard Guide for Cannabis and Hemp Operation Compliance Audits, ASTM D8308-21.

If you are still on the fence about the value of an internal audit, given the option of an inspector uncovering a non-conformance or your own team discovering and then correcting it, which would you prefer? With fines easily exceeding $100,000 by many cannabis enforcement units, the answer should be clear. Internal audits are a valuable tool that should not be feared.

Defining Hemp: Classifications, Policies & Markets, Part 2

By Darwin Millard
2 Comments

In Part 1 of this series we answered the question: What is “hemp”; and addressed some of the consequences of defining “hemp” as a thing. In Part 2, I will explore this topic in more detail and provide some commonsense definitions for several traditional hemp products based on a classification approach rather than separating “cannabis” from “hemp”.

Classifications, Specifications, and Test Methods – Establishing Market Protections for Hemp Products Through Standardization

Does making a distinction between “hemp” and “cannabis” make it easier to protect the interests of the seed and fiber markets?

On the face of it, this question seems obvious. Yes, it does.

Up to this point in history, the bifurcation of the cannabis plant into resin types and non-resin types has served to provide protections for the seed and fiber markets by making it easier for producers to operate, since the resins (the scary cannabinoids, namely d9-THC) were not involved. Today, however, the line in the sand, has been washed away, and “hemp” no longer only refers to non-resin producing varieties of the cannabis plant.

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

As more and more hemp marketplaces come online with varying limits for d9-THC the need for standardization becomes even more pressing. Without standardization, each marketplace will have its own requirements, forcing businesses looking to sell their products in multiple jurisdictions to comply with each region’s mandates and adds a significant level of burden to their operations.

Providing an internationally harmonized definition for hemp is an important first step but allowing the d9-THC limit to vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction has some unintended (or intended) consequences (#NewReeferMadness). These discrepancies between legal marketplaces will inevitably lead to the establishment of global trade regions; where, if your product cannot meet the definition of “hemp” in that region, then you could effectively be barred from participating in it.

A process which has already started. Harmonizing around 0.3% is great for the US, Canada, and European Union, but what about other stakeholders outside of these markets?

And, at what point does the conflict of hemp from one region with a d9-THC content of 0.3% and hemp from another region with a d9-THC content of 1% being sold into the same market become a problem?

Perhaps a better long-term solution for protecting the market interests of “hemp product” stakeholders would be to establish specifications, such as identity metrics, total cannabinoid content, especially d9-THC, and other quality attributes which have to be verified using test methods for a product to be classified as “hemp”. This system of standards (classifications, specifications, and test methods) would allow for more innovation and make it significantly easier for cannabis raw materials that meet these specifications to find a use rather than being sent to the landfill. Bolstering advancements and opening the door for more market acceptance of the cannabis plant, its parts, and products.

An Alternative Approach to Defining Hemp

Below are some proposed definitions related to common terminology used in the hemp marketplace based on the concept that there are no hemp plants, there are only cannabis plants that can be classified as hemp, and hemp products are simply cannabis products that meet certain specifications to allow them to be classified and represented as hemp.

  • Hemp, n—commercial name given to a cannabis plant, its parts, and products derived therefrom with a total d9-THC content no more than the maximum allowable limit for the item in question. (Maybe not the best definition, but it makes it clear that not only does the limit for d9-THC vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction it varies from product type to product type as well.)
  • Hemp flower, n—commercial name for the inflorescence of a cannabis plant that can be classified as hemp.
  • Hemp seed, n—commercial name for the seeds of a cannabis plant which are intended to be used to grow another cannabis plant that can be classified as hemp.
  • Hempseed, n—commercial name for the seeds of a cannabis plant which are intended to be used as food or as an ingredient in food.
  • Hemp seed oil, n—commercial name for the oils expressed from the seeds of a cannabis plant.
  • Hemp seed cake, n—commercial name for the solid material byproduct generated during the expression of the oil from the seeds of a cannabis plant.
  • Hemp flour/meal/dietary-fiber, n—commercial name for the powdered seed cake of a cannabis plant intended to be used as a food or as an ingredient in food with a protein content no more than 35% by weight.
  • Hemp protein powder, n—commercial name for the powdered seed cake of a cannabis plant intended to be used as a food or as an ingredient in food with a protein content between 35% and 80% by weight.
  • Hemp protein isolate, n—commercial name for the powdered seed cake of a cannabis plant intended to be used as a food or as an ingredient in food with a protein content above 80% by weight.
  • Hemp fiber, n—commercial name for the cellulosic-based natural fibers of a cannabis plant.
  • Hemp shives, n—commercial name for the hurd of a cannabis plant which have been processed to defined specifications.
  • Hempcrete, n—commercial name for a solid amalgamation of various aggregates and binders, typically comprised of the hurd (shives) of a cannabis plant and lime.

The d9-THC limits for each product were purposefully omitted because these specifications still need to be defined for each product type. Leaving the d9-THC limit up to each authority having jurisdiction, however, is not the answer. It is fine if you comply with a lower d9-THC limit and want to sell into a market with a higher d9-THC limit, but what do you do if you are above the limit for the market you want to sell into? For now, you lose out on potential revenue.

Hemp-derived CBD extract

I am not advocating that everyone starts selling “hemp” as “cannabis,” or vice versa, far from it. I am advocating for a more commonsense and inclusive approach to the marketplace though. One that would allow for the commercialization of materials that would normally be going to waste.

To me it is simply logical. There are no hemp plants, there are only cannabis plants that can be classified as hemp. There are no hemp products, there are only cannabis products that can be classified as hemp. In order for a cannabis product to be marketed, labeled, and sold as a hemp product, i.e. to be classified as a hemp, it would need to meet a set of specifications and be verified using a set of test methods first. But fundamentally the product would be a cannabis product being certified as “hemp”. And that is the shift in thinking that I am trying to get across.

Exclusionary Actions – Disenfranchising Stakeholders

The cannabis plant is an amazing plant and to fully capitalize on the potential of this crop we have to start allowing for the commercialization of cannabis raw materials that are not controlled by the UN Single Conventions, i.e. the seeds, stalks, roots, and leaves when not accompanied by the fruiting tops or the resin glands. Not to do so disenfranchises a significant number of stakeholders from participating in established legal avenues of trade for these goods. A concept proposed and endorsed the ASTM D37 in the published standard D8245-19: Guide for Disposal of Resin-Containing Cannabis Raw Materials and Downstream Products.

If you are stakeholder in the hemp marketplace, you may feel threatened by the idea of the market getting flooded with material, but how are the demands of the so called “green economy” going to be met without access to more supply? Organic hemp seed for food production is scarce but there is plenty of conventional hemp seed for the current demand, but what happens when hempmilk is positioned to displace soymilk in every major grocery store? To feed the growth of the human population and allow for a transition to a truly “green economy,” we need to ensure that the policies that we are putting in place are not excluding those looking to participate in the industry and disenfranchising stakeholders from burgeoning marketplaces, nor alienating a segment of the marketplace simply because their plant cannot be classified as “hemp”.

Until next time…

Live long and process.

Defining Hemp: Classifications, Policies & Markets, Part 1

By Darwin Millard
2 Comments

What is “hemp”?

The word “hemp” has many meanings. Historically the term has been used as the common name for the Cannabis sativa L. plant. Just like other plants, the cannabis plant has two names, a common name, hemp, and a scientific name, Cannabis sativa L. After the ratification of the UN Single Conventions on Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, in 1961 and 1972 respectively, the term started to be used to distinguish between resin producing varieties of the cannabis plant and non-resin producing varieties of the cannabis plant. Nowadays the term is generally used to refer to cannabis plants with a delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (d9-THC), a controlled substance, content equal to or less than the maximum allowable limit defined by each marketplace.

Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), just one of hundreds of cannabinoids found in cannabis.

In the United States and Canada, the limit is defined as 0.3% on a dry weight bases, and until November 2020, in the European Union, the limit was defined as 0.2%. After years of effort the “hemp” industry in Europe was successfully able to get the limit raised to 0.3% to be in line with the United States and Canada – creating the largest global trade region for hemp products. But there exist several marketplaces around the world where, either through the consequences of geographic location or more progressive regulations, the d9-THC content in the plant can be substantially higher than 0.3% and still considered “hemp” by the local authority.

To address these variances, ASTM International’s Technical Committee D37 on Cannabis has been working on a harmonized definition of hemp, or industrial hemp, depending on the authority having jurisdiction, through the efforts of its Subcommittee D37.07 on Industrial Hemp. The following is a proposed working definition:

hemp, n—a Cannabis sativa L. plant, or any part of that plant, in which the concentration of total delta-9 THC in the fruiting tops is equal to or less than the regulated maximum level as established by an authority having jurisdiction.

Discussion: The term “Industrial Hemp” is synonymous with “Hemp”.

Note: Total delta-9 THC is calculated as Δ⁹-tetrahydrocannabinol (delta-9 THC) + (0.877 x Δ⁹-tetrahydrocannabinolic acid).

This definition goes a long way to harmonize the various definitions of hemp from around the world, but it also defines “hemp” as a thing rather than as a classification for a type of cannabis plant or cannabis product. This is a concept rooted in the regulatory consequences of the UN Single Conventions, and one I strongly disagree with.

The definition also leaves the total d9-THC limit open-ended rather than establishing a specified limit. An issue I will address further in this series.

Can “hemp products” only come from “hemp plants”?

If you are an invested stakeholder in the traditional “hemp” marketplace, you would say, yes.

But are there such things as “hemp plants” or are there only cannabis plants that can be classified as “hemp”? (The definition for hemp clearly states that it is a cannabis plant…)

A field of hemp plants, (Cannabis sativa L.)

There is no distinction between the cannabinoids, seeds, and fibers derived from a cannabis plant that can be classified as “hemp” and those derived from a cannabis plant that cannot. The only difference is the word: “cannabis,” and the slew of negative connotations that come along with it. (Negative connotations that continue to be propagated subconsciously, or consciously, whenever someone says the “hemp plant” has 50,000+ uses, and counting, and will save the world because it’s so green and awesome, but not the “cannabis plant”, no that’s evil and bad, stay away! #NewReeferMadness)

The declaration that “hemp products” only come from “hemp plants” has some major implications. “Hemp seeds” can only come from “hemp plants”. “Hemp seed oils” can only come from “hemp seeds”. “Hemp fibers” can only come from “hemp plants”. Etc.

What does that really mean? What are the real-world impacts of this line of thinking?

Flat out it means that if you are growing a cannabis plant with a d9-THC content above the limit for that plant or its parts to be classified as “hemp”, then the entire crop is subjected to the same rules as d9-THC itself and considered a controlled substance. This means that literal tons of usable material with no resin content whatsoever are destroyed annually rather than being utilized in a commercial application simply because a part or parts of the plant they came from did not meet the d9-THC limit.

Some of the many products on the market today derived from hemp

It is well known that d9-THC content is concentrated in the glandular trichomes (resin glands) which are themselves concentrated to the fruiting tops of the plant. Once the leaves, seeds, stalks, stems, roots, etc. have been separated from the fruiting tops and/or the resin glands, then as long as these materials meet the authority having jurisdiction’s specifications for “hemp” there should be no reason why these materials could not be marketed and sold as “hemp”.

There are several reasons why a classification approach to “hemp plants” and “hemp products” makes more long-term sense than a bifurcation of the “cannabis” and “hemp” marketplaces, namely from a sustainability aspect, but also to aid in eliminating the frankly unwarranted stigma associated with the cannabis plant. #NewReeferMadness

That said, say you are a producer making shives from the stalks of cannabis plants that can be classified as “hemp” and then all of a sudden, the market opens up and tons of material from cannabis plants that cannot be classified as “hemp,” that was being sent to the landfill, become available for making shives. Would you be happy about this development? Or would you fight tooth and nail to prevent it from happening?

In this segment, we looked at the history of the term “hemp” and some of the consequences from drawing a line in the sand between “cannabis” and “hemp”. I dive deeper into this topic and provide some commonsense definitions for several traditional hemp products in Part 2 of Defining Hemp: Classifications, Policies & Markets.

A Survey of State CBD & Hemp Regulation Since The 2018 Farm Bill

By Brett Schuman, Jennifer Fisher, Brendan Radke, Gina Faldetta
1 Comment

Since the December 20, 2018 enactment of the Agricultural Improvement Act of 2018, better known as the Farm Bill, we have seen a number of new state laws addressing both the legality of hemp and products derived therefrom, most noticeably cannabidiol, better known as CBD. This piece provides a brief overview of some of the more interesting state laws concerning hemp and CBD, as well as recent developments.

Legality of Hemp

Since the passage of the Farm Bill, the vast majority of states have legalized the cultivation and sale of hemp and hemp products. However, certain states maintain laws barring some or even most forms of hemp.

The most stringent of those states is Idaho, where hemp remains illegal. In March 2020, Senate Bill 1345 – legislation that would have allowed for the production and processing of industrial hemp – died in the House State Affairs Committee, due to concerns that legalizing hemp would be the first step toward legalizing “marijuana”; that the bill contained too much regulation and that it was otherwise unworkable. As a result, Idaho is currently the only state without a legal hemp industry. Hemp with any THC, even at or below the 0.3 percent threshold under the Farm Bill, is considered equivalent to “marijuana” in Idaho and is illegal (see below for a discussion of CBD in Idaho).

Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, and Texas have enacted bans on smokable hemp. Indiana law prohibits hemp products “in a form that allows THC to be introduced into the human body by inhalation of smoke.” Iowa has amended its Hemp Act to ban products introduced to the body “by any method of inhalation.” Louisiana prohibits “any part of hemp for inhalation” except hemp rolling papers, and Texas law prohibits “consumable hemp products for smoking.”

Some of these bans have been challenged in court. In Indiana, a group of hemp sellers requested an injunction against the smokable hemp ban in federal court, on the grounds that the federal Farm Bill likely preempted the Indiana law. In September of 2019, the district court issued the requested injunction, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit overturned that decision in July 2020, stating that the order “swept too broadly.” The Seventh Circuit noted that the 2018 Farm Bill “expressly provides that the states retain the authority to regulate the production of hemp” and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Similarly, in Texas, hemp producers have sued in state court over the smokable hemp ban, questioning its constitutionality and arguing that it would result in a loss of jobs and tax revenue for the state. According to those producers, smokable hemp comprises up to 50 percent of revenue from hemp products. On September 17, 2020, Travis County Judge Lora Livingston issued a temporary injunction blocking enforcement of the law until trial, which currently is set to commence on February 1, 2021. Judge Livingston had previously issued a temporary restraining order to that same effect.

State Laws Regulating CBD

State laws and regulation on hemp-derived CBD are varied, and the legality of a CBD product often comes down to its form and marketing.

FDAlogoAs an initial matter, it must be noted that notwithstanding the Farm Bill the FDA currently prohibits hemp-derived CBD from being be sold as dietary supplements, and food (including animal food or feed) to which CBD has been added cannot be introduced into interstate commerce. As discussed below, a substantial minority of states, including California, follow the FDA’s current position on the permissibility of putting hemp-derived CBD in food or dietary supplements.

Certain states include strict limitations on CBD, none more so than (once again) Idaho. Lacking any legal hemp industry, Idaho restricts CBD products to those having no THC whatsoever, rejecting the generally accepted threshold of not more than 0.3 percent THC. Idaho law also requires that hemp CBD be derived only from “(a) mature stalks of the plant, (b) fiber produced from the stalks, (c) oil or cake made from the seeds or the achene of such plant, (d) any other compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of the mature stalks, or (e) the sterilized seed of such plant which is incapable of germination.”

Kansas similarly prohibits CBD with any amount of THC, though the law is murkier than Idaho’s. While Senate Bill 282 allowed possession and retail sale of CBD effective May 24, 2018 by removing CBD oil from the definition of “marijuana,” this was broadly interpreted to apply to THC-free CBD only. Later legislation, Senate Substitute for HC 2167, effective July 2019, allowed the farming of hemp with THC levels aligned with the Farm Bill definition (i.e., 0.3 percent THC or lower), but expressly prohibited the use of industrial hemp in: cigars, cigarettes, chew, dip, or other smokeless forms of consumption; teas; liquids for use in vaporizing devices; or “[a] ny other hemp product intended for human or animal consumption containing any ingredient derived from industrial hemp that is prohibited pursuant to the Kansas Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act or the Kansas Commercial Feeding Stuffs Act,” though this final section provides that “[t] his does not otherwise prohibit the use of any such ingredient, including cannabidiol oil, in hemp products,” the law’s only reference to CBD. The Kansas Bureau of Investigation has reportedly made statements indicating that CBD with any level of THC remains illegal.

Just some of the many hemp-derived CBD products on the market today.

Mississippi only recently legalized the cultivation of hemp via Senate Bill 2725, the Mississippi Help Cultivation Act, which was signed into law on June 29, 2020. House Bill 1547, passed on April 16, 2019, imposed content requirements upon CBD products within Mississippi: to be legal in Mississippi, a CBD product must contain “a minimum ratio of twenty-to-one cannabidiol to tetrahydrocannabinol (20:1 cannabidiol:tetrahydrocannabinol), and diluted so as to contain at least fifty (50) milligrams of cannabidiol per milliliter, with not more than two and one-half (2.5) milligrams of tetrahydrocannabinol per milliliter.” Moreover, CBD products produced in Mississippi must be tested at the University of Mississippi’s lab. However, subject to these restrictions, Mississippi allows the sale of CBD products, including edibles, contrary to the restrictions of many of states considered friendlier to hemp.

Perhaps more surprising is Hawaii, which restricts the sale and distribution of CBD, aligning with the FDA’s guidance. In Hawaii it is illegal to add CBD to food, beverages, as well as to sell it as a dietary supplement or market it by asserting health claims. It is also illegal to add CBD to cosmetics, an uncommon restriction across the many states with CBD-specific laws and regulations. Unlike Idaho and Mississippi, which have no medical marijuana programs, Hawaii has long legalized marijuana for medical purposes and in January 2020 decriminalized recreational possession. Hawaii very recently enacted legislation allowing the production and sale of cannabis-infused consumable and topical products by medical cannabis licensees effective January 1, 2021, but this legislation did not address CBD. Given the foregoing, Hawaii’s restrictions on CBD stand out.

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

Beyond broad CBD restrictions, many more states prohibit the use of CBD within food, beverages, or as dietary supplements. For instance, twenty states – including California, Georgia, Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, and Washington – prohibit the sale of CBD in food or beverage. In California, a bill to overhaul California’s hemp laws, Assembly Bill 2028, failed when the legislative session concluded on August 31, 2020 without a vote. AB 2028 would have allowed CBD in food, beverages, and dietary supplements (though, interestingly, it would have banned smokable hemp). As a result, California remains a relatively restrictive state when it comes to hemp-derived CBD, notwithstanding the legality of recreational marijuana.

New York allows the manufacture and sale of CBD, but requires CBD products to be labeled as “dietary supplements.” This mandate conflicts directly with the FDA’s position that CBD products are excluded from the definition of a dietary supplement. Further, despite the state’s categorization of CBD products as dietary supplements, New York prohibits the addition of CBD to food and beverages. These regulations have resulted in a confusing landscape for retailers and manufacturers in the Empire State.

Several states also have labeling requirements specific to CBD products. Batch numbers and ingredients are ubiquitous, but an increasingly common requirement is the inclusion of a scannable code that links to specific information about the product. States imposing this requirement include Florida, Indiana, Texas, and Utah. Indiana is viewed as having one of the more comprehensive labeling requirements for CBD products – or, depending upon your perspective, the most onerous.

Priorities During the Pandemic: How to Run a Lab Under COVID-19

By Dr. Peter Krause, Udo Lampe
No Comments

During the COVID-19 pandemic, most testing laboratories have been classified as relevant for the system or as carrying out essential activities for national governments. Therefore, it is crucial to maintain activities and optimally assess the changes that are occurring, framed within the spread of the SARS-CoV-2 virus. Analytica Alimentaria GmbH, a testing laboratory with its headquarters in Berlin, Germany and a branch office in Almeria, Spain, decided to focus its management on the analysis of events and the options available, at the legal and employment level, to ensure continuity of activities and reducing, as much as possible, the damage for the parties involved: employees and company. Accredited by the International Accreditation Service (IAS) to ISO/IEC 17025:2017, Analytica Alimentaria GmbH is required to implement risk-based thinking to identify, assess and treat risks and opportunities for the laboratory. Since March 12, 2020 a crisis committee was established, formed by the six members of the company’s management, covering general management, human resources, direction of production, finance and IT. The committee meets every day and it intends to:

  • Minimize the risks of contagion
  • Be able to continue providing the service required by our clients
  • ensure that the company as a whole will survive the economic impact of the crisis
  • Take measures that are within the legality of both countries where the laboratory operates (Spain and Germany),
  • Manage internal and external communication related to the crisis

To achieve correct decision making, daily meetings of the committee were established, to review the situations that were presented day after day and the actions that should be carried out. Each decision was analysed in a prioritized, objective, collaborative and global way.

The basis of the lab’s action plan was a well-developed risk assessment. In addition to the risk of getting a droplet or smear/contact infection with the coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 (risk I) by contact with other people, psychological stress caused by changing working conditions (home office), contact options and information channels were also identified (risk II).

As a result of the risk assessment, the conclusion was that a mix of various measures is the best form of prevention:

  • Keep distance
  • Avoid “super spreader” events
  • Personal hygiene
  • Regular communication between managers and personnel about the current situation and possible scenarios

The risk assessment took both areas into account. The following assessment was developed together with an external specialist and focused on risk I:

Risk I Assessment Protective measures / hygiene plan
Organisation
Working hours and break arrangements High Limit the gathering of people and ensure a minimum distance:

  • Relocated work, break and mealtimes
  • Create fixed groups of shift-working staff
  • Time gap of 20 min. between the shifts
  • Enable home office wherever it is possible
Third party access Moderate Few but “well-known” visitors:

  • Reduce the number of visits and keep internal contacts to a minimum
  • Ensure the contact chain
  • Inform visitors about the internal rules and obtain written consent
Dealing with

suspected cases

High Isolation and immediate leave of the company:

  • Contactless fever measurement (in case of typical symptoms)
  • Leave the company or stay at home
  • If the infection is confirmed, find contact persons (including customers or visitors) and inform them about a possible risk of infection
Contact with other persons
Traffic route from home to work Moderate Avoid public transportation:

  • Take a car, bicycle or go by foot
  • Enable mobile work and teleworking
At work High Always keep a sufficient distance of 2.0 m from people:

  • If minimum distances cannot be maintained, wear protective masks or install physical barriers (acrylic glass)
  • Organize traffic routes so that minimum distances can be maintained (one-way routes, floor markings indicating a distance of 2 m)
  • Use digital meetings instead of physical ones
Sanitary facilities Moderate Remove virus-loaded droplet as often as possible:

  • Provide skin-friendly liquid soaps and towel dispensers
  • Shorten or intensify cleaning intervals
  • Hang out instructions for washing hands at the sink
  • Include instructions for proper hand-disinfection
Canteens, tea kitchens and break rooms High One person per 10 m² = minimum:

  • Reduce the number of chairs per table
  • Informative signs in every room, indicating the maximum number of permitted persons
Ventilation High Diluting or removing bioaerosols (1 µm virus-droplets):

  • Leave as many doors open as possible
  • Regular and documented shock ventilation every 30 minutes or more frequently, depending on the size of window
  • Operate ventilation and air-conditioning systems, since the transmission risk is classified as low here
Use of work equipment Moderate Use tools and work equipment for personal use:

  • Regular cleaning with changing use (PC, hand tools, coffee machine, …)
  • If possible, use gloves when using equipment for a larger number of users
Protective masks Moderate
  • Use of protective masks as an additional measure, indicating that this does not replace keeping distance
  • Recommend wearing masks in commonly used areas and explain that they do not protect yourself, but help to protect others
  • Give clear instructions (written and oral) on how to use a mask correctly and explain the use and purpose of different mask-types
  • Distribute masks freely

A number of guidelines and concrete measures addressing the risks related to health issues are already in place. Those health issues in risk group II are more closely related to the psychological effects of the crisis, however, are also more complex to mitigate. The key strategy is communication and, in particular, actively listening to all employees of the company.

Analytica’s robust company culture, based on values established in coordination with the whole staff, has been of significant help during the crisis. The some 150 staff members are organized by over 22 team coordinators. During the crisis, active communication has been intensified significantly. The crisis management team set up regular alignment meetings with all the coordinators and with individual persons with particular situations. This way, not only was it possible to explain the development of the crisis and the subsequent measures, the conversations with coordinators were also the most important source of information enabling the appropriate decisions. The coordinators, closely aligned and in sync with management, were then able to communicate with their team members with a high degree of confidence. One outcome of the communication was a measure that proved very effective in fortifying trust within the company: all measures and evaluations, as well as a chronological review, are published in a dynamic internal report and are made available, with full transparency, to all staff members. Besides the many individual and group alignment meetings (usually held by video conference), this has been a key measure to establish confidence and security within the company.

On the other hand, the company made a great effort to balance the effect of the general closure of kindergartens and schools in Spain and Germany. Each case where staff members were required to care for children at home was studied individually and agreements were established, adapting shifts and making use of time accounts, to allow childcare at home without significant loss of income.

The success of the measures is shown by the continuous work of both laboratories during the crisis. Besides the personal tragedy of a possible infection, the identified risk to the company has the consequence of a (partial) quarantine due to an infected person in contact with the staff and the consequent loss of work-power which might lead, in extreme cases, to a closure of the laboratory. According to the governmental regulation in Germany, if an infection occurs (confirmed by the health department), contact persons cat. 1 (more than 15 min. contact face to face) are identified and sent to quarantine. Other contact persons, e.g. contact persons cat. 2 (same room without face to face) must be identified quickly with the collaboration of the infected person and notified and, if necessary, sent in quarantine. In this case, there is a confirmed emergency plan that maintains the laboratory’s ability to work, defining replacements and alternative work-flow strategies.

It has been part of our strategy to validate all our measures with the relevant guidance documents made available by the official competent institutions. The German Federal Office for Public Safety and Civil Protection (Bundesamt für Bevölkerungsschutz und Katastrophenhilfe) has published a guide, “Crisis Management in Companies, 9-point Checklist” especially for critical infrastructure companies in the CoVid-19 crisis.

Having been classified as a core business enterprise (Spain) and “relevant to the system” (Germany), we consider it important to use them as a reference to confirm our level of alignment with your proposal for crisis management.

An important effect, relevant to any leader in times of crisis, is that the confirmation of all points of such a checklist provides certain peace of mind regarding the question: Have we done everything we could?

SAFE Banking Act Included in COVID-19 Legislation

By Aaron G. Biros
2 Comments

UPDATE: Late in the evening on May 15, the House of Representatives passed the HEROES package, voting 208-199 (with 23 abstentions). The bill now now heads to the Senate where its fate is more uncertain. 


Earlier today, Speaker Nancy Pelosi debuted the latest piece of legislation to help Americans impacted by the coronavirus pandemic. The Health and Economic Recovery Omnibus Emergency Solutions Act (HEROES Act) is a large bill containing emergency supplemental appropriations more than 1,800 pages long.

On page 1,066, those in the cannabis industry will find a very exciting addition: the Secure and Fair Enforcement (SAFE) Banking Act. For the uninitiated, the SAFE Banking Act would ensure access to financial services for cannabis-related businesses and service providers.

Currently, federally regulated financial institutions face penalties for dealing with cannabis companies due to the Controlled Substances Act. The bill, if passed, would eliminate the possibility of any repercussions for doing business with cannabis companies.

The impact of this bill becoming law would be widespread and immediate for both the cannabis market and banks looking to invest in the cannabis industry. With banks given the green light to conduct business with the cannabis industry, there is no doubt that many financial institutions will rush to the opportunity. Cannabis businesses will benefit greatly, no longer having to deal with massive quantities of cash and gain access to things like loans, bank accounts and credit lines. Furthermore, cannabis companies will benefit from the rush of banks getting in the game, leading to a competitive and affordable banking market.

It is no secret that cannabis businesses have had a cash problem for decades now. Given the coronavirus pandemic, CDC guidelines dictate minimizing the handling of cash and encourage payment options like credit cards. Cannabis businesses dealing with large quantities of cash puts them, their employees, their customers and even regulators at risk.

Aaron Smith, executive director of NCIA

According to Aaron Smith, executive director of the National Cannabis Industry Association (NCIA), the cash problem is a serious, unnecessary health risk. “On behalf of the legal cannabis industry, we commend the congressional leadership for prioritizing public health and safety by including sensible cannabis banking policy in this legislation,” says Smith. “Our industry employs hundreds of thousands of Americans and has been deemed ‘essential’ in most states. It’s critically important that essential cannabis workers are not exposed to unnecessary health risks due to outdated federal banking regulations.”

In fact, it was the NCIA and a handful of other industry organizations that lobbied Congress last week to include language from the SAFE Banking Act in the HEROES Act, citing the known fact that cash can harbor coronavirus and other pathogens, along with the “personal proximity required by cash transactions as reasons for urgency in addition to the other safety and transparency concerns addressed by the legislation.”

The SAFE Banking Act was already approved by the House of Representatives. In September of 2019, the bill made a lot of progress through Congress, but stalled once it made it to the Senate Banking Committee.

The HEROES Act will be debated by the House of Representatives prior to a floor vote. If it passes the House, it moves to the Senate, which is about as far as it made it the last go around. However, because the banking reform is included in coronavirus relief legislation, there is a newborn sense of hope that the bill could be signed into law.

MORE Act Passes House Judiciary Committee

By Aaron G. Biros
1 Comment

According to a press release published by the National Cannabis Industry Association (NCIA), the House Judiciary Committee approved the Marijuana Opportunity Reinvestment and Expungement (MORE) Act by a 24-10 vote. House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) introduced The MORE Act (HR 2884), which now has 55 cosponsors. This marks the first time in history that a congressional committee approved a bill to legalize cannabis.

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler (Image credit: Ralph Alswang)

“Today’s vote marks a turning point for federal cannabis policy, and is truly a sign that prohibition’s days are numbered,” says Aaron Smith, executive director of NCIA. “Thanks to the diligent efforts of advocates and lawmakers from across the political spectrum, we’ve seen more progress in this Congress than ever before.”

A little bit of background on the bill: The MORE Act, if passed, would decriminalize cannabis completely on a federal level. It would remove it from the Controlled Substances Act, not reschedule it. If the bill were to pass, it would expunge all prior federal cannabis convictions. The bill provides for the establishment of the “Cannabis Justice Office,” which would develop a. program for reinvesting resources in those communities most affected by the war on drugs. That program would be funded by a 5% tax on cannabis commerce in states that have legal regulatory frameworks.

The bill also would allow the Small Business Administration to provide loans, grants and other support to cannabis-related businesses, as well as support state equity licensing programs. Through the bill, physicians in the Veteran Affairs system would be given permission to recommend medical cannabis to patients as well.

Aaron Smith, executive director of NCIA

“Supermajority public support for legalization, increasing recognition of the devastating impacts of prohibition on marginalized communities and people of color, and the undeniable success of state cannabis programs throughout the country are all helping to build momentum for comprehensive change in the foreseeable future,” says Smith.

According to NCIA, there was a recent amendment to the MORE Act that includes language from the Realizing Equitable & Sustainable Participation in Emerging Cannabis Trades (RESPECT) Resolution introduced by Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA). That resolution is based on the white paper that NCIA’s Policy Council published back in March of 2019.

“There is still much work to be done, including the establishment of sound federal regulations for cannabis products,” says Smith. “This vote brings us one step closer to ending the disaster that is prohibition and repairing the harms it has caused while we continue the discussion in Congress about how to best regulate cannabis at the federal level. We urge lawmakers to move forward with this necessary bill without delay.”

Legalization & Regulation Recap: This Week’s News

By Aaron G. Biros
No Comments

Across the country, a handful of states are expected to move forward with a number of bills making their way each state’s legislature. Here is a quick recap on some of the more newsworthy bills from this week.

Arizona

When Arizona legalized medical cannabis use, there was no provision in the legislation that required laboratory testing to insure the safety of cannabis products. To this day, Arizona is one of the few states left that has legalized medical cannabis, but does not require lab testing. A bill, SB 1494, that just passed through the state’s Senate could very well change that. According to azmarijuana.com, the bill passed unanimously through the Arizona Senate and would require the Arizona Department of Health Services (ADHS) to implement regulations for laboratories to test for contaminates like pesticides.

They need at least 75% of the House to vote in favor in order for it to pass. If that happens, testing could be required as soon as June 1, 2020.

New Hampshire

In the Northeast, New Hampshire and Vermont have bills related to cannabis making their way through the state legislatures. A committee in the New Hampshire House of Representatives just backed a bill to legalize recreational cannabis.

The House Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee voted 10-9 to recommend HB 481, which would legalize recreational cannabis, including growing up to 12 plants, imposing a tax of $30 per ounce on cannabis sold through retail. It would also set up a regulatory agency in charge of licensing and regulating the industry.

New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy
New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy

New Jersey

Governor Phil Murphy met with lawmakers earlier this week to discuss the legalization of recreational cannabis. According to CBS New York, the Governor reached a deal with Senate President Steve Sweeney, Assembly Speaker Craig Coughlin, Sen. Nicholas Scutari and Assemblywoman Annette Quijano to introduce a bill that he would sign into law.

The deal would legalize and regulate recreational cannabis, expunge previous cannabis-related convictions, levy a $42 tax per ounce of cannabis sold, along with setting up a commission to issue licenses and regulate the market. When Governor Murphy ran for office, his campaign included a pledge to legalize recreational cannabis, A previous attempt to get a bill through the legislature failed to get enough votes last year.

Vermont

Back in February, the Vermont Senate passed a bill to regulate and tax recreational cannabis with a veto-proof majority. SB 54 is now in committee review in the House, where it is expected to see more hurdles, according to Burlington Free Press.

Another bill was introduced in the Vermont Senate, SB 117,which would reportedly open up more access to the medical cannabis program, including increasing possession limits, allowing patients to grow more plants at a time and set up a lab testing program as well.

Wyoming

Last week, Governor Mark Gordon signed a bill into law that legalizes and regulates the cultivation and sales of hemp-derived CBD. The state is now working with the WY Department of Agriculture to submit plans to the federal government for regulating the industry.

World Health Organization November Meeting To Review Cannabis

By Marguerite Arnold
No Comments

In a sign that cannabis reform is now on the march at the highest level of international discussion, the World Health Organization (WHO) will be meeting in November to formally review its policies on cannabis. This will be the second time in a year that the organization has met to review its policies on the plant, with a direct knock-on effect at the UN level.

According to documents obtained by Cannabis Industry Journal, including a personal cover letter over the committee’s findings submitted to the Secretary-General Antonio Guterres by Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, Director-General of the WHO, the November review will “undertake a critical review of the…cannabis plant and resin; extracts and tinctures of cannabis.”

What Exactly Will The WHO Review?

The November meeting will follow up on the work done this summer in June – namely to review CBD. According to these recommendations, the fortieth meeting of the Expert Committee on Drug Dependence (ECDD) in Geneva will include the following:

  1. Pure CBD should not be scheduled within International Drug Control Conventions.
  2. Cannabis plant and resin, extracts and tinctures of cannabis, Delta-9-THC and isomers of THC will all be reviewed in November.
  3. Finally, and most cheeringly, the committee concluded that “there is sufficient information to progress Delta-9-THC to a critical review…to address the appropriateness of its placement within the Conventions.” In other words, rescheduling.

Industry and Patient Impact

Translation beyond the diplomatic niceties?

The drug war may, finally, and at a level not seen for more than a century, come to a close internationally, on cannabis.

Here is why: The WHO is effectively examining both the addictive impact and “harm” of the entire plant, by cannabinoid, while admitting, already that current scheduling is inappropriate. And further should not apply to CBD.

This also means that come November, the committee, which has vast sway on the actions of the UN when it comes to drug policy, is already in the CBD camp. And will finally, it is suspected, place other cannabinoids within a global rescheduling scheme. AKA removing any justification for sovereign laws, as in the U.S., claiming that any part of cannabis is a “Schedule I” drug.

What this means, in other words, in effect, is that as of November, the UN will have evidence that its current drug scheduling of cannabis, at the international level, is not only outdated, but needs a 21stcentury reboot.

International Implications

From a calendar perspective, in what will be Canada’s first recreational month, Britain’s first medical one and presumably the one in that the German government will finally accept its second round of cultivation bids, the world’s top regulatory body will agree with them.

This also means that as of November, globally, the current American federal justifications and laws for keeping cannabis a Schedule I drug, and based on the same, will have no international legal or scientific legitimacy or grounding.

Not that this has stopped destructive U.S. policies before. See global climate change. However, and this is the good news, it is far easier to lobby on cannabis reform locally than CO2 emissions far from home. See the other potentially earth-shaking event in November – namely the U.S. midterm elections.

The global industry, in other words, is about to get a shot in the arm, and in a way that has never happened before in the history of the plant.

And that is only good news for not only the industry, but consumers and patients alike.