Tag Archives: cosmetic

The Great European Cannabis Cosmetics Confusion

By Marguerite Arnold
3 Comments

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

Namely cosmetics.

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

The Problem

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

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

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

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

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

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

The EIHA Proposal

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

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

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

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

Where Does This Cross With Novel Food?

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

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

What Is The Outlook?

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

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

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

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

NCIA Releases Guidelines for Federal Cannabis Regulation

By Aaron G. Biros
No Comments

On Tuesday, October 1, the National Cannabis Industry Association (NCIA) announced the release of their whitepaper, which provides guidance to the federal government on how cannabis could be regulated at the federal level. “The paper highlights the need to have a clearly defined regulatory approach and structure prepared as the nation moves closer to making cannabis legal for adults, and identifies the existing agencies best suited to regulate the wide variety of cannabis products available in state-regulated legal cannabis markets,” according to a press release.

To view the full white paper and see how the NCIA Policy Council envisions a federal regulatory framework, click here.

The whitepaper was released on October 1. On October 2, Andrew Kline, director of public policy at NCIA, delivered the keynote presentation at the Cannabis Quality Conference in Illinois. His keynote delved into a number of issues related to the progress that cannabis legalization has made on Capitol Hill.

Andrew Kline, at the Cannabis Quality Conference, discussing the NCIA white paper.

Importantly, Kline also discussed the white paper and its four-lane approach to regulating cannabis at the federal level. “We believe rescheduling is bad public policy,” Kline mentioned during his keynote. Their stance is that cannabis should be rescheduled and regulated in a couple of different approaches. “We believe cannabis should be a public health issue and the FDA and the Department of Treasury should regulate cannabis much like they do alcohol.” Kline went into great depth later in the talk, discussing the four-lane plan for regulation, a state of affairs for cannabis bills in Congress and how members of the cannabis industry can get involved. “Right now, there is an unsustainable federalism clash, with cannabis as an illegal schedule I narcotic, while 33 states have legalized it, which leaves a lot of confusion in the marketplace and little protections for consumers; and we need to fix it.”

Lane 1 refers to pharmaceutical drugs, such as Epidiolex, where cannabis drugs can go through the new drug approval process, giving the FDA ultimate regulatory authority in this area. Lane 2 applies to ingested, inhaled or topically applied products with THC. This generally applies to all products containing THC. This lane gives regulatory authority to the Alcohol, Tobacco, Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB), essentially regulating cannabis like alcohol or cigarettes. Lane 3 is for ingested and inhaled products with less than 0.3% THC. These would be regulated like dietary supplements and food ingredients, giving the FDA regulatory oversight here as well. Lane 4 applies only to topical products with less than 0.3% THC, regulating them much like the FDA does with cosmetic products.

The above summary is not thorough or detailed. We highly encourage our readers to read the full whitepaper to understand how cannabis could be regulated at the federal level and how the NCIA thinks the government should do so.

“As a country, we are starting to move past whether we should end cannabis prohibition, and need to put serious consideration into how we do that and what a post-legalization world looks like in terms of federal regulatory policy,” says Aaron Smith, executive director at NCIA, in a press release. “The recommendations outlined in this report build on successful methodologies by assigning regulatory duties to existing agencies, while avoiding restrictions that would not be appropriate for cannabis as well as some of the missteps that have occurred with other products. We look forward to working with Congress to overturn our outdated federal marijuana laws and begin implementing this structure to help ensure public safety and displace the illicit cannabis market.”

FDAlogo
Soapbox

Hemp Products & Confusion Over FDA Remains

By Charlotte Peyton
3 Comments
FDAlogo

Hemp

The hemp industry is the marijuana industry’s half-sister. Both are variations of the plant Cannabis sativa and both were made illegal in 1937 with the passing of The Marijuana Tax Act. Despite this federal status, in recent years 33 individual states have legalized some type of medicinal marijuana use and 11 states now allow legal recreational marijuana within their borders. This prompted congress to modify the legality of hemp which was addressed in The Agricultural Act of 2014, but it only allowed hemp to be used for research purposes. The Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 (known as the 2018 Farm Bill) that was signed into law on December 20, 2018 was a huge step forward for public access to hemp and hemp products. The 2018 Farm Bill legalized the growing of hemp in states with a state-mandated hemp program and removed hemp and its derivatives from Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) Schedule I status. Schedule I drugs, substances, or chemicals are defined as drugs with no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse. Some examples of Schedule I drugs are heroin, lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD), 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (ecstasy), methaqualone, and peyote. Consumers and the cannabis industry alike were very excited about this legalization of hemp…. but that was when the confusion began.

FDA & Hemp

FDAlogoWithin two hours of the 2018 Farm Bill being signed, the Commissioner of the FDA, Dr. Scott Gottlieb, issued a statement reiterating the FDA stance on cannabis products and cannabidiol (CBD) in products for human and animal consumption: “Congress explicitly preserved the agency’s current authority to regulate products containing cannabis or cannabis-derived compounds under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) and section 351 of the Public Health Service Act.” Currently the FDA only permits CBD products submitted as an Investigational New Drug (IND) Application as a pharmaceutical. There is only one such accepted CBD product, Epidiolex, manufactured by G.W. Pharma. All other CBD products are illegal for interstate shipment.

Every product for sale in the US which is either ingested or applied to a human or animal body has a regulatory category in the FDA. Hemp-derived CBD products will have to fit into one of those categories or it will not be legal. Many hemp manufacturing companies will argue with the illegality of CBD products, but it will get them nowhere. If you manufacture and sell hemp products inside of a state with a state mandated hemp program, you are legal and protected under state laws, but the minute you sell across state lines, it becomes the jurisdiction of the federal government and, more specifically, the FDA. Section 10113 of the 2018 Farm Bill states that (c) Nothing in this subtitle shall affect or modify:

  • (1) the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 301 et seq.);
  • (2) section 351 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 262); or
  • (3) the authority of the Commissioner of Food and Drugs and the Secretary of Health and Human Services- ‘‘(A) under- ‘‘(i) the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 301 et seq.); or ‘‘(ii) section 351 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 262); or ‘‘(B) to promulgate Federal regulations and guidelines that relate to the production of hemp under the Act described in subparagraph (A)(i) or the section described in subparagraph (A)(ii).”

There is nothing unclear about this issue. The same 2018 Farm Bill that hemp manufacturing companies use to justify the legality of hemp and CBD products is the same bill that spells out the authority of the FDA in this matter.

The mission of the FDA is “to ensure the safety, effectiveness, and security of human and veterinary drugs, vaccines and other biological products for human use, and medical devices.” The agency also is responsible for “the safety and security of our nation’s food supply, cosmetics, dietary supplements, products that give off electronic radiation, and for regulating tobacco products.” Health or medical claims not supported by clinical proof will not be tolerated. An unsafe, unclean or untested product will also not be tolerated in the marketplace.

CBD Oil vs. Isolate

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

Then there is the matter of CBD as either a full spectrum oil vs. an isolate…Unlike marijuana flower which is a very popular product, hemp flower is very rarely sold at the retail level. Full spectrum oil is extracted from the plant, and depending on the solvent used, produces an oil with the same, or close to the same, naturally occurring chemicals from the plant. The oil therefore, includes all the cannabinoids present along with any terpenes, lipids or other compounds present in the plant. Full spectrum oil is a botanical extract and is a dark thick oil. Isolate is produced by separating the constituents of the full spectrum oil by molecular weights or boiling points to have very pure chemicals in the 95%+ purity range. CBD isolate is a white crystalline substance and bears the greatest resemblance to a synthetic raw material and at its purest form cannot be distinguished as coming from a plant in the dirt or a synthesized chemical. Epidiolex is produced from hemp isolate and was approved by the FDA as a pharmaceutical. Full spectrum hemp oil is a botanical extract, often as an ethanol extraction. Full spectrum oil bears the greatest resemblance to a botanical dietary supplement. It remains to be seen what the FDA will allow in the future.

Product Labeling

The FDA has made it abundantly clear in numerous warning letters issued to the cannabis industry that drug claims (articles intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment or prevention of disease) regarding CBD, oil or isolate, cannot be made without pharmaceutical approval of the Drug Facts (Epidiolex) lest there be enforcement consequence.

An excerpt of an FDA warning letter sent to a CBD company in November of 2017

The labeling of other types of products are less clear. Dietary supplements are a category of foods with the FDA and as such both the labeling of dietary supplements and foods are dictated in 21 CFR 111, Food Labeling. Botanical dietary supplements frequently call out a chemical constituent within a particular botanical material or extract on the Supplement Facts Panel: Milk thistle seed extract containing standardized and labeled silymarin is such an example. Is this strategy acceptable for CBD with the FDA? What about “naturally occurring” CBD? Food claims are indicated in the Nutrition Facts, what can these be for CBD? Cosmetic product claims can only address articles intended to be applied to the human body for cleansing, beautifying, promoting attractiveness, or altering the appearance without affecting the body’s structure or functions. What is the purpose of CBD in a cosmetic?

FDA guidance would be very beneficial in all of these labeling areas, and there is hope. The FDA is promising public hearings this spring to discuss a path forward for having hemp food and dietary supplements. The FDA will ask for public comment and hopefully, there will be a lot of public comments provided to them. The public’s huge demand for CBD products will bear pressure on the FDA to at least listen and consider.

cGMPsRegulatory compliance will be difficult, and it will be expensive.

Those currently in the hemp manufacturing industry should pay attention and take the FDA seriously. If the FDA allows hemp products with CBD to be sold in the future, it will be the FDA who makes those regulations and those products will have to fit into an already existing FDA category: human food, animal food, dietary supplement, pharmaceutical or cosmetic. If you are a hemp product manufacturer, you must learn the applicable requirements for Current Good Manufacturing Practices (cGMPs) by hiring experienced FDA compliance personnel, and/or seeking out FDA regulatory consultants, to develop and implement a quality system accordingly:

  • 21 CFR 117, Current Good Manufacturing Practice, Hazard Analysis, and Rick-Based Preventative Controls for Human Food
  • 21 CFR 507, Current Good Manufacturing Practice, Hazard Analysis, and Rick-Based Preventative Controls for Food for Animals
  • 21 CFR 111, Current Good Manufacturing Practice in Manufacturing, Packaging, Labeling, or Holding Operations for Dietary Supplements
  • 21 CFR 210, Current Good Manufacturing Practice in Manufacturing, Processing, Packing, or Holding of Drugs; General
  • 21 CFR 211, Current Good Manufacturing Practice for Finished Pharmaceuticals
  • FDA Draft Guidance for Industry, Cosmetic Good Manufacturing Practice, June 2013

I believe in this industry and I am rooting for the pioneers who have taken all the risk thus far, but the level of denial of the FDA’s authority that I am hearing in the hemp industry community is disturbing to me because those companies will not manage the transition to a regulated future. Most don’t understand it and they don’t think it applies to them or their products. Regulatory compliance will be difficult, and it will be expensive. The hemp pioneers deserve to benefit from their labor and the risk they have taken. For those hemp product companies that do not think compliance is worth the effort or cost, there are many FDA-compliant human food, animal food, dietary supplement, pharmaceutical, or cosmetic companies that are waiting to take your business…


Editor’s Note: While Cannabis Industry Journal typically does not use the term ‘marijuana,’ the author here is speaking from a regulatory point of view and creates an important distinction. Peyton chose the word “marijuana” instead of “cannabis” because the FDA has chosen “cannabis” to refer to both marijuana and hemp.