Tag Archives: derived

July 6, 2022

CBD Safety in Edibles: What Regulators are Thinking

By Steven Gendel, Ph.D.

Despite the popularity of cannabidiol (CBD) infused edibles among consumers there are storm clouds on the horizon for this market. The potential threat stems from continuing uncertainty about the regulatory status of CBD in the United States (US) and the European Union (EU). Recent statements by government agencies in both areas are reminders that regulators could make decisions or take actions that would suddenly end the viability of this market. Any company that sells, or is planning to sell, CBD infused edibles such as bakery items, candy and beverages needs to understand what the regulators are thinking now and what might happen in the future.

in the US, the 2018 Farm Bill created a category of products called hemp that are derived from the Cannabis sativaplant and contain less than 0.3% tetrahydrocannabinol (THC). This law also explicitly confirmed the authority of the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to regulate the safety of hemp-derived infused edibles. This means CBD needs to navigate the New Dietary Ingredient pathway for dietary supplements, and either the food additive petition process or the Generally Recognized as Safe (GRAS) pathway for foods before it can be used as an ingredient in a food. All three of these processes require that someone (an individual, a company or a group) acting as a petitioner or notifier must submit safety data to the agency or arrange for a safety evaluation by independent experts.

In the EU, CBD is regulated as a Novel Food in a process that is triggered by a submission to the European Commission. The submission must include safety data that is evaluated by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). In England and Scotland, CBD products are also novel foods and are evaluated using a process like that in the EU. As in the US, it is the responsibility of an applicant to provide the safety data.

The standard used by the FDA to judge the safety of new food substances in all three pathways is that there should be a “reasonable certainty in the minds of competent scientists that the substance is not harmful under the conditions of its intended use.” The standard used by EFSA for novel foods is, “the food does not, on the basis of the scientific evidence available, pose a safety risk to human health.”

It is important to realize that both in the US and the EU the safety standard for evaluating new food substances only considers the safety of that substance. The laws or regulations that define agency authority do not allow for consideration of any potential benefits. Approval (or rejection) must be based solely on the safety of the substance. Further, safety is evaluated in the context of the intended use of the substance, the planned level of use and the resulting consumer exposure to that substance.

What do we know about FDA’s and EFSA’s current thinking about CBD safety?

Unfortunately, both the FDA and EFSA have made it abundantly clear that they believe the available scientific data does not meet the required safety standards. FDA has issued multiple warning letters to companies that sell CBD products and has rejected two NDI notifications for CBD. Although these actions were primarily based on non-safety issues (illegal health claims and the drug exclusion provision in the FD&C Act, respectively), in each case the FDA also raised safety concerns. This was done by saying that the agency is not aware of any data that would support a GRAS determination or that the products raise “concerns about the adequacy of the safety evidence.” This doubt echoes statements from the agency in public meetings and advisories. These doubts were expressed as recently as June 2022 during a meeting of the FDA Science Advisory Board.

Similarly, EFSA has stated that they feel that there are critical gaps in the existing CBD safety data. In April 2022, they published a statement with a detailed analysis of the relevant scientific literature and explicitly identified critical data gaps. EFSA said that these data gaps prevented them from evaluating CBD as a novel food.

What do the regulators see as data gaps?

Although the details of each of the data gaps are technically complex, for both the FDA and EFSA they fall into few broad categories.

The first is that the agencies feel that they need better information on how CBD behaves in the human body. This is described as understanding the absorption, distribution, metabolism and excretion (ADMA) of CBD. The agencies also would like to see data on whether repeated use of CBD might cause damage to specific organs that does not occur from single exposures.

The second need is for more data related to the negative effects that have been observed in some previous work. This includes effects on the liver and reproductive system. In particular, the agencies would like to know whether it is possible to identify a level of exposure that is low enough to not cause any negative effects. This is termed the No Observed Adverse Effect Level (NOAEL). In an ingredient safety assessment, the NOAEL is used to establish a safe intake level, called the Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI). Comparing the ADI to the expected exposure for the intended use allows the regulators to assess overall safety for a substance. If the expected exposure is below the ADI, the substance is considered safe. Both agencies feel that the existing data do not allow them to identify a NOAEL for CBD.

The third data need relates to the composition of the CBD products used in safety studies. Food safety determinations are based on the total composition of an ingredient that is produced using a fully defined process. Even if the potential ingredient is 95% or 99% pure, a safety evaluation needs to know what is in that other 5% or 1%, and that this is the same from batch to batch. For example, the presence or absence of residual processing chemicals (such as extraction solvents) and the nature and concentration of substances such as other cannabinoids and terpenes will differ between manufacturers and processes. These differences could affect the overall safety profile for each CBD product. Therefore, it is considered important that studies supporting a safety determination for a new substance be carried out with the actual article of commerce.

Unfortunately, many different CBD preparations have been used in past studies, and in most cases these preparations were poorly characterized. This makes it difficult or impossible to combine the safety data obtained using one product with data obtained with a different product. For example, data obtained using CBD isolates from two different sources cannot be combined unless it can be shown that they were made using the same process and have the same overall composition.

What does this mean for the future?

Neither the FDA nor EFSA is likely to take any positive action on CBD until they receive safety data that fill the gaps that they have identified.

Given these data problems, it is likely that there will be little or no movement on regulatory approvals for CBD in edibles (or dietary supplements in the US) for at least several years. In the US, these products will remain in legal limbo, with state regulations playing the leading role in determining what is allowed on the market. Products with health claims will continue to be particularly vulnerable to FDA action. The situation in the EU will be at least as confusing because, in the absence of action from EFSA, the regulatory and market status of CBD edibles will be determined by each member country independently.

In view of this uncertainty and business confusion, that are three ways that companies making CBD and CBD edibles can respond. First, in the short term, they can develop and implement manufacturing processes that ensure that their products are consistent from batch to batch and that they have the intended dose of CBD per serving or per product unit. This includes working with the analytical community and organizations such as AOAC and ASTM to ensure that there are validated testing methods available for the CBD and for the final edible products.

In the medium term, business risk management plans for companies that make CBD and CBD infused edibles should consider the possibility that new scientific data will push food safety authorities to actively conclude the CBD does not meet the current regulatory safety standards. In that case, the regulators might start to act against all CBD-containing products.

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

Businesses should also be aware that the agencies could make a positive safety determination but that they would use the available data to establish a low maximum allowed dose per serving or set very low limits on the presence of specific contaminants such as other cannabinoids.

In the longer term, the CBD industry as a whole might consider advocating for legislative changes. The best statutory fix is likely to be one that that regulates all cannabis-derived products in a system or agency that is separate from the food safety system. This approach is being used in Canada under the Cannabis Act. It is also similar to the way that alcoholic beverages are regulated in the US. This approach, if appropriately designed, could avoid the need for safety determinations but might also limit market access. While this approach could bring clarity and certainty to the market, it is important to remember that it will take time and effort to create a functionally system under this scenario.

There are many market reports that forecast on-going high rates of growth for the CBD market. However, the regulatory and scientific developments that are likely to occur of the next couple of years will determine whether those projections can become reality.

Companies making these products need to monitor changes and prepare to respond to either positive or negative events.

These companies should also remember that edible products are mostly made from food ingredients using standard food product processes. It is critical that these products be made under a system that prevents food-borne hazards.

September 15, 2021

FDA Issues Warnings on Delta-8 THC Products

By Cannabis Industry Journal Staff

No Comments

On September 14, the FDA published a consumer update on their website, seeking to educate the public and offer a public health warning on delta-8 tetrahydrocannabinol, otherwise known as delta-8 THC.

For the uninitiated, delta-8 THC is a cannabinoid that can be synthesized from cannabidiol (CBD) derived from hemp. It is an isomer of delta-9 THC, the more commonly known psychoactive cannabinoid found in cannabis. Delta-8 THC does produce psychoactive effects, though not quite as much as its better-known cousin, delta-9 THC.

Due to loopholes in federal and state laws, namely the 2018 Farm Bill specifying that hemp must contain less than 0.3% Delta-9 THC, delta-8 THC is technically legal across the country. It grew in popularity across the United States very quickly over the past year, largely due to online sales.

Following the surge in sales, a number of states including Colorado, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Delaware, Idaho, Iowa, Mississippi, Montana, Rhode Island, Utah and Washington have implemented some form of regulation or outright ban on products containing delta-8 THC. Christopher Hudalla, president and chief scientific officer of ProVerde Laboratories, told Chemical & Engineering News that he has a lot of safety concerns about the whole delta-8 THC craze. Hudalla says he’s more concerned about the processing involved to produce it in large quantities. “These are pretty aggressive synthetic conditions that use strong acids,” Hudalla says. “They might be using strong bases to neutralize. They can use metal catalysts. I hear different people doing it different ways.”

The FDA’s consumer update included this picture at the top of the page

The FDA shares similar concerns. Their fourth point in the consumer update mentions that delta-8 THC products “often involve use of potentially harmful chemicals” in its production. They even claim that some manufacturers might be using unsafe household chemicals to synthesize delta-8 THC. “The final delta-8 THC product may have potentially harmful by-products (contaminants) due to the chemicals used in the process, and there is uncertainty with respect to other potential contaminants that may be present or produced depending on the composition of the starting raw material,” reads the FDA report.

In their consumer update, they note that between December 2020 and July 2021, they received 22 adverse event reports. Of the 22 reports, 14 were hospitalized following ingesting a delta-8 THC product. Notably, those reports included reactions consistent with symptoms from overconsumption of delta-9 THC, such as vomiting, hallucinations, trouble standing, and loss of consciousness.

The FDA says that national poison control centers received 661 cases of delta-8 THC products, with 41% being unintentional exposure, 39% involved pediatric patients and 18% required hospitalization.

In the consumer update, they tell the public that delta-8 THC products have not been evaluated by the FDA and that they “may be marketed in ways that put the public health at risk.” This includes marketing it as a hemp product, which it is. Still though, many consumers associate hemp products with somewhat innocuous things, like CBD oil, which is mostly harmless.

The FDA also mentions in the update that delta-8 THC does have psychoactive and intoxicating effects. The FDA says they are notifying the public about the delta-8 THC due to an uptick in adverse event reports, marketing that is appealing to children and concerns regarding manufacturing with unsafe chemicals and contaminants.

May 17, 2021

The New Delta 8 THC Market: A Q&A with the Founders of DeltaVera

By Cannabis Industry Journal Staff

No Comments

Delta 8 THC (delta-8-tetrahydrocannabinol) sprung onto the scene late last year in a big way. While similar to the much more widely-known delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol that produces a lot of the psychoactive effects associated with ingesting cannabis, delta 8 THC can be derived from hemp with less than 0.3% delta 9 THC. Given the legality of hemp-derived products following the 2018 Farm Bill, delta 8 THC can be produced in some states where delta 9 THC still remains illegal.

While delta 8 is considerably different in its psychoactive effects from its cousin, it does overlap in some ways. It can still produce some more manageable, less “heady” versions of delta 9’s effects like euphoria and relief found in the many medical applications of cannabis. DeltaVera, a company that launched less than six months ago, aims to share that more manageable THC experience with the masses.

The sharp rise of the delta 8 market means that DeltaVera is poised for growth. With distribution contracts inked, exciting partnerships in the works and a large surge in consumer demand, the founders of DeltaVera are at the ready to capitalize on this lesser-known molecule and bring it to the forefront of the nascent hemp industry. Starting out as a small family business, Sam and Craig Andrus launched DeltaVera with their third founder, PK Isacs.

We sat down with Sam Andrus and PK Isacs, two of the founders of DeltaVera, an award-winning brand, to ask them about their plans for expanding, how they became entrepreneurs and why they think delta 8 is the next big thing in cannabis.

Cannabis Industry Journal: Tell me about your company. How did you get started in the cannabis space?

Sam Andrus: I had an early start in the Delta 8 THC industry on the sales side. We knew we wanted to get into the market, but observed a number of aspects in the space that needed to be addressed: the most important being quality control, transparency and brand trust. With this as a backdrop we launched DeltaVera. Highly curated, approachable, transparent and value-oriented with a strong focus on reliability and trust. The DeltaVera family is made up of three operating managers and the sales team. We are three founders with complementary skill sets: Craig, who has domain expertise in finance, governance and startups, PK who has experience in business and marketing and my sales experience round out the management team.

We have yet to solicit outside capital and have funded ourselves internally as we create our brand and refine our product offering. That said, we are seeing numerous opportunities in strategic partnerships and expansion, which will require additional capital. And we are excited to start this expansion process.

CIJ: What makes the Delta 8 space so remarkable? Why are your SKUs primarily formulated with Delta 8?

Sam Andrus & PK Isacs: Delta 8 THC is an alternative/complement to delta 9 THC, CBD and other cannabinoids. Its status as non-federally scheduled and its less potent psychoactive effects make it appealing in its own right. Delta 8 THC can help with healthier sleep patterns and with pain management in a way that CBD can’t, without a strong “head high” that many of our customers like to avoid. Additionally, it’s shorter lived and doesn’t give you any negative residual effects, which makes it beneficial for people on tighter schedules. These factors make it easier for us to approach markets that are inaccessible to both delta 9 THC and CBD, such as older demographics. In a world where delta 9 is legal, there will still be a place for delta 8.

While we are very proud of our suite of smokable products, we are currently focusing our efforts on edibles: our Delta Discs are our mainstay, though we are expanding our product line to include nano-emulsion products such as liquid shots and nano gummies. They strongly appeal to our target demographics; additionally, the edible market is growing very quickly in states that allow the sale of hemp-derived consumables.

CIJ: Continuing on the delta 8 front – right now it is considered a cannabinoid legal for interstate commerce, much like CBD, correct? Do you think that will change?

Sam & PK: That is currently the case. Delta 8 THC is newer, and as such, it has even more ambiguity in regards to its legal future. But what’s most exciting (and our most challenging task right now), is informing consumers about the benefits of delta 8. We are one of a few companies solely focused on the consumption of delta 8, because of its similar benefits to delta 9 and CBD – our products are the perfect happy medium: a high with less psychoactive effects and all the health benefits of both, making it a desirable alternative to all consumers.

In addition, we are looking at some combinations of delta 8/CBDA, delta 8/CBN, delta 8/THCV and are very excited to begin test marketing these combinations. These proprietary blends of minor/major cannabinoids can cater to a niche target demographic as they can be curated to have very specific and unique effects when combined in the right quantities with the right delivery system. They will also be able to serve a larger customer base as these cannabinoids can all be derived from hemp.

CIJ: How do you think the FDA would regulate your product? Do you welcome federal oversight?

Sam & PK: Regardless of whether or not we are regulated we are committed to a high level of transparency and trust. As noted in unregulated markets, like the supplement market, you don’t always know what you are getting in terms of purity and potency. We are changing that paradigm by adding unique QR codes to our sustainable containers which reference COAs [certificates of analyses] specific to the contents of the case. A lot of the space is naturally trying to avoid that kind of regulatory interference, but we are currently doing our best to self-regulate and make sure that our consumers are fully informed about what they’re receiving.

We will be the first to say that there aren’t as many laws governing delta 8 THC as there could be, and that’s why we’ve spent so much time and money on self-regulation. All of our products have very clear nutritional information in addition to test results down to one hundredth of one percent. As for what category these products should fall under: we have a wide range of products, and each one has its place under a different umbrella of regulation. We hope that the federal government will take advantage of the vast array of studies that have been conducted on delta 8 THC since it was first extracted in 1942 to step up to this product that is, in our experience, helping so many people.

CIJ: Tell me about how your business has grown so far.

Sam & PK: When we sell to a retailer, we try to provide them with as much material as possible on what delta 8 THC is and what differentiates DeltaVera’s products. Still, we’ve had some difficulty in places with limited delta 8 THC exposure. That being said, when someone tries our product, there is a high likelihood that they become a repeat customer (and they tell their friends). Given our newness to the market (Our brand launched in January 2021) initial indications are – we have a good rate of repeat orders, and we’ve heard the same from our brick-and-mortar partners.

Our distribution network has grown tremendously; we’ve taken a three-pronged approach to distribution: partnerships with like-minded companies in compatible spaces, an e-commerce market on our website, and a commission-based sales structure to reach brick-and-mortar establishments. To date, most of our distribution takes place in the latter two spaces, due to the added time and commitment involved in forming partnerships. As a company we are taking a more creative approach on how we present our product and alternative ways to consume it. We have some exciting collaborations in the works; follow us on social media to stay up to date with everything on the horizon. We are very enthusiastic about our partnerships however, with our first collaboration with WaxNax, a Denver-based company revolutionizing the cannabis dabbing experience, hitting the shelves this week.

CIJ: What is your marketing plan?

Sam & PK: We are working on building a social media presence. Natalie, who is leading the charge on social media, recommended we take an organic approach to build our base. We want to avoid falling into the “paid ad”, “spam” vibe as long as we can. We are currently focused on building a community through delta 8. Our mission is making DeltaVera a brand for all lifestyles, athletes, creatives, travelers or business professionals. We’re confident in our product, and have faith that it can speak for itself.

CIJ: How do you ensure quality in your products?

Sam & PK: Our products are of guaranteed quality with our licensed growers and manufacturers. We provide COAs, informing the retailer & consumer about each product, displaying full panel tests on cannabinoids and heavy metals. These preliminary and secondary lab tests ensure our product is below 0.3% delta 9 THC in all our products. Through third-party labs, we run full panel tests which pick up a variety of cannabinoids; for most of our products we focus on the level/purity of delta 8. Our products are screened for both contaminants and heavy metals.

All this information is housed conveniently on our website that can be reached through our QR codes.

CIJ: What are your plans to grow the business in the future?

Sam & PK: We feel very confident in our three methods of distribution: partnerships, e-commerce and a commission-based sales structure. We’ve made tremendous ground on partnerships, and are very excited about numerous partnerships we have in the pipeline. We’ve reached out to some incredible groups in the CBD space, the THC space and a few groups that you wouldn’t normally associate with cannabinoids, but with whom we’ve workshopped some really creative ideas that we’re really looking forward to bringing to market.

Readers can use promo code “CIJ” to get 15% off their first order here.

April 22, 2021

Charlotte’s Web Poised for Canadian Expansion

By Cannabis Industry Journal Staff

No Comments

Charlotte’s Web Holdings, the company that just about launched the entire CBD industry, announced this week that they have just been approved for registration on Health Canada’s list of approved cultivars (LOAC) for 2021. Three of their proprietary hemp cultivars have made the cut, gaining the company access to the Canadian market.

Jared Stanley, co-founder and chief cultivation officer at Charlotte’s Web, says they plan to lead the market in Canadian hemp-derived CBD products. “The majority of approved cultivars on the LOAC to date have been for industrial hemp grown to produce food, fiber, and animal feed,” says Stanley. “Now our approved cultivars are paving the way for full-spectrum hemp CBD demand in Canada and most importantly, will provide access to Charlotte’s Web products in Canada.”

Largely due to the difference in regulatory approaches between Canada and the U.S., the CBD product market in Canada is somewhat small. Health Canada currently regulates CBD products the same as products containing more than 0.3% THC. In the U.S., a checkerboard of state laws, the 2018 Farm Bill and the subsequent state hemp programs led to massive growth for the CBD product marketplace.

Charlotte’s Web is one of the leading hemp-derived CBD companies operating in the United States. With the soon-to-be expansion into Canada, the company hopes to develop a global footprint, says Deanie Elsner, president and CEO of Charlotte’s Web. “Today, Charlotte’s Web is the leading hemp wellness company in the U.S. with the most recognized and trusted hemp CBD extract,” says Elsner. “We aspire to be the world’s leading botanicals wellness company, entering countries with an asset light model where federal laws permit hemp extracts for health and wellness. Israel and Canada are included in the first steps of our international expansion.”

January 27, 2021

Molson Coors Joint Venture Selects Quicksilver Scientific as Technology Partner

By Cannabis Industry Journal Staff

No Comments

According to a press release published this week, Quicksilver Scientific, a nanoemulsion delivery technology company, announced a partnership with Truss CBD USA, which is the joint venture between Molson Coors and HEXO Cannabis.

Quicksilver is a manufacturer of nutritional supplements that uses a patent-pending nanoemulsion delivery technology. Their technology is what enables companies to produce cannabinoid-infused beverages.

Because cannabinoids like CBD are hydrophobic, meaning they are not water-soluble, companies have to use nanoemulsion technology to infuse beverages. Without this technology, beverages with cannabinoids would have inconsistent levels of compounds and they wouldn’t work well to actually deliver the cannabinoids to the body. Nanoemulsion essentially cannabinoids water soluble, thus allowing the delivery of cannabinoids to the bloodstream, increasing bioavailability.

Dr. Christopher Shade, Ph.D., founder & CEO of Quicksilver Scientific says they have perfected their nanoemulsion technology over the past decade. “CBD is not water-soluble, which creates challenges for manufacturers when attempting to mix it into beverages,” says Dr. Shade. “Our innovative nanoemulsion technology overcomes these challenges by encapsulating nano-sized CBD particles in water-soluble spheres that can be directly added to beverages. The result is a clear, great-tasting product with greater bioavailability, a measure of a compound’s concentration that is absorbed into the body’s bloodstream.”

Quicksilver is providing their technology to be used with Veryvell, the joint venture’s new line of non-alcoholic, hemp-derived CBD beverages. The beverage line is already available in the Colorado market. According to the press release, the three product offerings include: “Focus” (grapefruit and tarragon with ginseng and guarana), “Mind & Body” (strawberry and hibiscus with ashwagandha and elderberry) and “Unwind” (blueberry and lavender flavors with ashwagandha and L-Theanine).

October 27, 2020

How GW Pharma Won CBD

By Cathleen Rocco

No Comments

As of this writing, the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved GW Pharma’s CBD drug Epidiolex for treating profound refractory pediatric epilepsy syndromes (Dravet syndrome and Lennox Gastaut syndrome) as well as for treating seizures associated with tuberous sclerosis complex (TSC) in patients one year of age or older. The product is a very simple, orally-administered formulation comprised of 100mg/ml cannabidiol (CBD), dehydrated alcohol, sesame seed oil, strawberry flavor and sucralose – basically, an alcohol-based solution with sesame seed oil to help solubilize the CBD oil, flavoring and sweetener.

On April 6^th, 2020 GW Pharma performed a regulatory miracle when they succeeded in convincing the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to deschedule Epidiolex (i.e., remove it from the Schedule 1 and Schedule 5 lists of substances that the agency regulates due to concerns regarding safety, potential for abuse or both) for all indications – including indications for which it has not yet been approved by the FDA.¹ The benefit to GW of having their product descheduled is incalculable. This status change removed potential barriers to insurance reimbursement and made the need to set up and administer an expensive REMS² drug safety program less likely. In part because of this regulatory coup d’état, the drug recently posted yearly earnings of nearly $300 million.

It is important to note that the DEA descheduled the Epidiolex formulation and not cannabis-derived CBD itself. Thus, GW Pharma is now in the enviable position of being the only company that can legally sell cannabis-derived CBD. More importantly, because the DEA descheduled the formulation and not the active ingredient, other companies who wish to market cannabis-derived CBD pharmaceutical formulations will have to repeat whatever it is that GW did to get Epidiolex descheduled.³ The DEA effectively gave the company a huge head start with respect to competitors who are developing other cannabis-derived CBD formulations that would compete with Epidiolex. That advantage will remain in place unless and until cannabis-derived CBD itself is descheduled or cannabis is legalized at the federal level.

GW Pharma’s attorneys demonstrated considerable virtuosity in devising this approach. However, there is another aspect of the GW Pharma story – one that could have profound implications for the exploding CBD consumer packaged goods (CPG) industry. The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetics Act⁴ (FFDCA) prohibits the introduction into interstate commerce of any food to which has been added an approved drug or a drug for which substantial clinical investigations have been instituted and made public.⁵ Because CBD was and is still the subject of clinical trials run by GW Pharma and others, even hemp-derived CBD is currently illegal to use as a food additive or dietary supplement under the FDCA

The FDA has recently re-started the public commentary stage of a long process that will hopefully result in the creation of a regulatory pathway for CBD to be used as a food additive – something that would seemingly be a straightforward matter given the copious amounts of safety data being generated from all of GW Pharma’s clinical trials. However, as long as the FDA continues to drag its feet in providing a regulatory pathway for CBD CPG products, CBD, regardless of its source, will remain illegal to use as a food additive or supplement under either the CSA or the FFDCA despite the existence of safety data obtained through the Epidiolex clinical trials. If, as many people in the industry anticipate, the agency decides to begin enforcement action, this could have a hugely negative impact on the industry.

In addition to the potentially disastrous effect that federal law could have on an important new industry, the federal regulatory scheme introduces unnecessary regulatory complexity and cost by imposing two different regulatory schemes depending on the source of the CBD. CBD derived from hemp is chemically identical to CBD derived from cannabis. Despite that identity, the 2018 Farm Bill nonsensically exempts only hemp-derived CBD from the Controlled Substances Act. If a regulatory pathway is created for hemp-derived CBD, but the DEA insists on maintaining cannabis-derived CBD as a schedule 1 substance, then the same molecule will be subject to two different regulatory schemes. This scenario would require tracking and certifying CBD sources and thereby impose regulatory and economic burdens that are entirely unnecessary from a public health point of view.

An alternative, economically disastrous scenario: given the pharmaceutical industry’s formidable lobbying power, it is entirely possible that the FDA could decide to limit the use of CBD exclusively in prescription drug formulations. This could kill the entire US hemp CBD CPG industry, currently estimated to reach $22 billion by 2022.⁶

Overall, the current state of affairs is unfair, expensive, uncertain and entirely unworkable over the long term. The CSA must be amended, ideally to deschedule both hemp and cannabis entirely, but at least in the short term, to deschedule CBD and preferably all non-THC cannabinoids regardless of their source. Further, the FDA must provide a regulatory pathway to allow the use of low doses of cannabinoids shown to be safe, either by existing clinical trial data or future testing pursuant to the NDIN submission process.

A 2019 Gallup poll found that 14% of Americans – 1 in 7 – use CBD products.⁷ The demand is there, the industry is thriving, and adequate safety data exists to justify a regulatory system that allows low-dose over the counter CBD products provided those products are produced using Current Good Manufacturing Practices (CGMPs) for food and dietary supplement manufacturing prescribed by the FDA and that such products undergo regular testing that demonstrates they are safe, unadulterated and accurately labeled. It is time for the industry to collectively fund a New Dietary Ingredient Notification (NDIN) submission that would provide safety data sufficiently compelling to force the FDA to either recognize CBD and other non-THC cannabinoids as being GRAS substances regardless of their source, or in the alternative create a regulatory path for CPG products containing low-doses of CBD and other non-THC cannabinoids.

Editor’s Note: The opinions expressed in this publication are those of its author. They do not purport to reflect the opinions or views of the Cannabis Industry Journal, its editorial staff or its employees.

References

Clincialtrials.gov lists 256 different clinical trials in which Epidiolex has been, is being or will be tested for a wide variety of other indications, including but not limited to opioid use disorder, several types of prostate cancer, alcohol use disorder, musculoskeletal pain, and a host of others.
REMS – risk evaluation and mitigation strategy – are drug safety programs that the FDA requires in cases where mediations pose serious safety concerns with respect to potential abuse and other adverse effects.
Exactly what they did isn’t clear, and won’t be for a long while given the snail’s pace at which FOIA requests are filled.
Title 21 United States Code Chapter 9
Title 21 United States Cod Chapter 9, Sections 331(ll), 342(a)(1) and Section 342(d)(f)(1)
“Exclusive: New Report Predicts CBD Market Will Hit $22 Billion by 2022” Rolling Stone Magazine, September 11, 2018, citing cannabis industry analysis from the Brightfield Group.
Gallup poll on American CBD product usage

October 26, 2020

Overcoming Challenges in the Private Label CBD Industry

By Josh Epstein

1 Comment

Private labelling, or white labelling, is a popular option for brands looking to enter the CBD space. This practice is where a product is manufactured by one company but branded, marketed and sold by another.

There are several companies that specialize in manufacturing end-to-end finished CBD products. They commonly provide third-party test results, certificates and data to verify the purity and potency of products created. Technically, all new brands need to do is place their label on the package and start selling! However with any new venture, establishing a successful private label CBD brand will inevitably mean various challenges need to be overcome.

Securing Quality Sources of CBD

Finding the right partners to work with is a must. The best way to source credible and trustworthy suppliers and manufacturers is to look for certifications and audits from third-party agencies. These include the Global Food Safety Initiative (GFSI), the Safe Quality Food (SQF), the United States Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) organic certification program and others.

The USDA organic certification program is a rigorous multi-step audit process to increase supply chain sustainability. Organic certification is a form of elective, self-regulation for manufacturers which consumers have eagerly welcomed into the marketplace. Look for the USDA organic seal to help identify which manufacturers are trustworthy and can produce a range of organic products.

From a consumer perspective, certifying your products as organic is an additional way to provide both supply chain transparency and increase confidence when trying new CBD products. It also provides a form of quality assurance to skeptical consumers, especially those who avidly read product labels prior to making a purchasing decision. Members of this “label reader” demographic will consistently choose organic products for the quality and transparency they provide with pure and natural ingredients.

Creating a Unique Product

Innovation and creativity will continue to be important differentiators due to the highly competitive nature of the CBD marketplace. New ingredient innovations such as water dispersible materials are big game-changers. From chewing gum to energy drinks, the opportunities for new and unique CBD products under your own private label are limitless.

There are only a handful of CBD brands who are willing, or even able, to be certified organic today. USDA certification is an opportunity for brands looking to adapt to changing consumer preferences, diversify their product offerings and invest in supply chain transparency.

In the past, product differentiators involved third-party lab testing or providing COAs — today that’s just industry standard. The USDA organic seal is becoming one of the hemp industry’s most coveted certifications because it is a product differentiator.

Building Credibility

Trustworthiness, transparency and traceability are important factors for consumers to consider when shopping for products. These factors should also be considered when producing products and while vetting vendors, partners, stakeholders and supply chain suppliers.

Credible certifications allow consumers to make informed decisions while feeling confident that they are purchasing products from reputable sources. Research has shown that today’s CBD market lacks credibility while consumers are desperately seeking comfort and are eager to purchase from trustworthy brands.

October 22, 2020

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.

As 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.

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.

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.

September 23, 2020

The DEA’s Interim Final Rule and its Impact on the Industrial Hemp Industry

By Seth Mailhot, Steve Levine, Emily Lyons, Megan Herr

1 Comment

On August 20, 2020, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) published an Interim Final Rule on industrial hemp and hemp derivatives (the interim rule), which immediately went into effect, to conform DEA regulations with the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 (the 2018 Farm Bill).

The 2018 Farm Bill effectively removed industrial hemp from the definition of “marijuana” in the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). Additionally, tetrahydrocannabinols contained in industrial hemp, such as cannabidiol (commonly known as CBD), were also removed from the purview of the CSA.

The 2018 Farm Bill defines 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 concentration of not more than 0.3 percent on a dry weight basis.

Accordingly, because cannabis and its “derivatives, extracts, [and] cannabinoids” are not considered “marihuana,” so long as their delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) concentration is at or below 0.3% on a dry weight basis, the regulation of hemp fell outside the authority of the DEA. However, the DEA’s interim rule attempts to draw a hard line in the sand as to when the plant, and any products derived therefrom, are considered “marihuana,” thereby still subject to the DEA’s purview.

Specifically, the interim rule promulgates the DEA’s position that hemp processors can convert otherwise legal hemp into illegal “marihuana,” thereby bringing it back under the DEA’s authority, if such processing and extraction increases the THC content above the 0.3% THC threshold, even momentarily. Specifically, the interim rule states:

[T]he definition of hemp does not automatically exempt any product derived from a hemp plant, regardless of the Δ9-THC content of the derivative. In order to meet the definition of ‘hemp,’ and thus qualify for the exemption from [S]chedule I, the derivative must not exceed the 0.3% Δ9-THC limit. The definition of ‘marihuana’ continues to state that ‘all parts of the plant Cannabis sativa L.,’ and ‘‘every compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of such plant,’ are [S]chedule I controlled substances unless they meet the definition of ‘hemp’ (by falling below the 0.3% Δ9-THC limit on a dry weight basis) or are from exempt parts of the plant (such as mature stalks or non-germinating seeds) . . . As a result, a cannabis derivative, extract, or product that exceeds the 0.3% Δ9-THC limit is a [S]chedule I controlled substance, even if the plant from which it was derived contained 0.3% or less Δ9-THC on a dry weight basis.

Accordingly, the DEA’s stance creates a substantial risk for processors who will be considered to be in possession of a Schedule I controlled substance during the extraction process if the THC content exceeds the 0.3% THC threshold at any point during processing, an almost inevitable result of the extraction process. Nevertheless, the interim rule states:

the definition of hemp does not automatically exempt any product derived from a hemp plant, regardless of the Δ9-THC content of the derivative. In order to meet the definition of ‘hemp,’ and thus qualify for the exemption from [S]chedule I, the derivative must not exceed the 0.3% Δ9-THC limit.

Although the DEA impliedly recognizes the fact that hemp processing can result in a temporary increase in THC content, it still took the position that, should the THC content exceed 0.3% THC at any point during the extraction process, processors will be considered to be in possession of a Schedule I controlled substance, regardless of whether the finished product complies with federal law.

Consequently, the interim rule creates significant criminal risk for anyone processing industrial hemp, as the DEA has asserted that the processing of hemp into extracts, derivatives and isolated cannabinoids (which are arguably legal under the 2018 Farm Bill) can result in unintentional violation of federal law, thereby subjecting processors to the risk of significant criminal liability. That said, the interim final rule does not appear to be a shift in DEA policy since the passage of the 2018 Farm Bill in December 2018, nor has DEA issued any warnings to industrial hemp manufacturers or otherwise signaled a change in enforcement policy by issuing the Interim Final Rule.

In addition, the DEA took several other steps in the interim final rule towards the deregulation of hemp products:

Adding language stating that the definition of “tetrahydrocannabinols” does not include “any material, compound, mixture, or preparation that falls within the definition of hemp set forth in 7 U.S.C. § 1639o”.
Removing from Schedule V a “drug product” in an FDA-approved finished dosage formulation that contains cannabidiol (CBD) and no more than 0.1 percent (w/w) residual tetrahydrocannabinols (e.g. Epidiolex).
Removing DEA import and export controls for hemp extract that does not exceed the statutory 0.3% THC limit.

September 9, 2020

CBD Industry Caught Between Regulators & Law Enforcement

By Gregory S. Kaufman

No Comments

The consumer-facing CBD industry operates in a regulatory gray zone even as it grows in prominence. Illegal to market as an unapproved drug, dietary supplement or food additive under the Food, Drug & Cosmetic Act, nevertheless, the CBD industry has flourished with ingestible products widely available. With the increased consumer interest in CBD, headwinds in the form of mislabeled or contaminated products and unsubstantiated therapeutic claims, combined with regulatory uncertainty, continue to be a drag on legitimate market participants and consumer perception of CBD products. The regulation of hemp-derived CBD falls under the purview of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and its charge to protect the public health. Despite having jurisdiction to regulate CBD products, the FDA has done little to bring regulatory certainty to the CBD marketplace. However, the FDA, with the assistance of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), recently took important steps that can be described as “getting their ducks in a row” for the eventual regulation of hemp-derived CBD in consumer products. Always looming is the threat of criminal enforcement of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) by the Department of Justice’s Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) for plants and products not meeting the definition of hemp.

Prior to July 2020, the FDA’s regulation of the CBD industry was limited to a public hearing, data collection, an update report to Congress on evaluating the use of CBD in consumer products, and issuing warning letters to those marketing products for treatment of serious diseases and conditions. The FDA recognizes that regulatory uncertainty does not benefit the Agency, the industry or consumers and, therefore, is evaluating a potential lawful pathway for the marketing of CBD products. In furtherance of this effort, the FDA took several recent actions, including:

Producing a CBD Testing Report to Congress¹
Providing draft guidance on Quality Considerations for Clinical Research²
Sending a CBD Enforcement Policy to the Office of Management and Budget for pre-release review and guidance³

Not to be overlooked, the NIST announced a program to help testing laboratories accurately measure compounds, including delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and CBD, in marijuana, hemp and cannabis products, the goal being to increase accuracy in product labeling and to assist labs in identifying THC concentrations in order to differentiate between legal hemp and federally illegal marijuana. These actions appear to be important and necessary steps towards a still be to determined federal regulatory framework for CBD products. Unfortunately, a seemingly innocent interim final rule issued by the DEA on August 21, 2020 (Interim Final Rule), may prove to be devastating to hemp processors and the CBD industry as a whole.⁴ While the DEA describes its actions as merely conforming DEA regulations with changes to the CSA resulting from the 2018 Farm Bill, those actions may make it exceedingly difficult for hemp to be processed for cannabinoid extraction without violating the CSA in the process.

FDA Report to Congress “Sampling Study of the Current Cannabidiol Marketplace to Determine the Extent That Products are Mislabeled or Adulterated”

On July 8, 2020, the FDA produced a report to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations detailing the results of a sampling study to determine the extent to which CBD products in the marketplace are mislabeled or adulterated. The study confirmed what the FDA, Congress and the marketplace already knew – that in this regulatory vacuum, there are legitimate concerns about the characteristics of consumer CBD products. These concerns include whether products contain the CBD content as described in the label, whether products contain other cannabinoids (including THC) and whether products were contaminated with heavy metals or pesticides. With these concerns in mind, the FDA tested 147 CBD and hemp products purchased online for the presence of eleven cannabinoids, including determinations of total CBD and total THC, and certain heavy metals. The key tests results included the following:

94% contained CBD
2 products that listed CBD on the label did not contain CBD
18% contained less than 80% of the amount of CBD indicated
45% contained within 20% of the amount listed
37% contained more than 20% of the amount of CBD indicated
49% contained THC or THCA at levels above the lowest concentration that can be detected
Heavy metals were virtually nonexistent in the samples

Due to the limited sample size, the FDA indicated its intention to conduct a long-term study of randomly selected products across brands, product categories and distribution channels with an emphasis on more commercially popular products. In furtherance of this effort, on August 13, 2020, the FDA published a notice soliciting submissions for a contract to help study CBD by “collecting samples and assessing the quantities of CBD and related cannabinoids, as well as potential associated contaminants such as toxic elements, pesticides, industrial chemicals, processing solvents and microbial contaminants, in foods and cosmetics through surveys of these commodities.”⁵

Even though this report was not voluntarily produced by the FDA, rather it was required by Congress’ Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2020, it importantly solidified a basis for the need for regulation. With less than half of the products tested falling within the 20% labeling margin of error, this suggests rampant and intentionally inaccurate labeling and/or significant variability in the laboratory testing for cannabinoids.

NIST Program to Help Laboratories Accurately Measure Compounds in Hemp, Marijuana and Cannabis Products

Proper labeling of cannabinoid content requires reliable and accurate measurement of the compounds found in hemp, marijuana and cannabis products. As part of NIST’s Cannabis Quality Assurance Program, NIST intends to help labs produce consistent measurement results for product testing and to allow forensic labs to distinguish between hemp and marijuana.⁶ As succinctly stated by a NIST research chemist, “When you walk into a store or dispensary and see a label that says 10% CBD, you want to know that you can trust that number.” Recognizing the lack of standards due to cannabis being a Schedule I drug for decades, NIST intends to produce standardized methods and reference materials the help labs achieve high-quality measurements.

NIST’s efforts to provide labs with the tools needed to accurately measure cannabis compounds will serve as an important building block for future regulation of CBD by the FDA. Achieving nationwide consistency in measurements will make future FDA regulations addressing CBD content in products achievable and meaningful.

FDA Industry Guidance on Quality Considerations for Clinical Research on Cannabis and Cannabis-Derived Compounds

On July 21, the FDA released draft guidance to the industry addressing quality considerations for clinical research of cannabis and cannabis-derived compounds related to the development of drugs. These recommendations are limited to the development of human drugs and do not apply to other FDA-regulated products, including food additives and dietary supplements. However, by indicating that cannabis with .3% or less of THC can be used for clinical research and discussing testing methodologies for cannabis botanical raw material, intermediaries and finished drug products, the FDA is potentially signaling to the consumer-facing CBD industry how the industry should be calculating percentage THC throughout the product formulation process.

While testing of botanical raw material is guided by the USDA Interim Final Rule on Hemp Production,⁷ the FDA warns that manufacturing processes may generate intermediaries or accumulated by-products that exceed the .3% THC threshold and may be considered by the DEA to be Schedule I controlled substances. This could be the case even if the raw material and finished product do not exceed .3% THC. The FDA’s guidance may eventually become the standard applied to regulated CBD products in a form other than as a drug. However, through its guidance, the FDA is warning the CBD industry that the DEA may also have a significant and potentially destructive role to play in the manufacturing process for CBD products.

FDA Submits CBD Enforcement Policy Guidance to the White House

On July 22, 2020, the FDA submitted to the White House Office of Management and Budget a “Cannabidiol Enforcement Policy – Draft Guidance for Industry” for its review. The contents of the document are not known outside of the Executive Branch and there is no guarantee as to when, or even if, it will be released. Nevertheless, given the FDA’s interest in a legal pathway forward for CBD products, the submission is looked upon as a positive step forward. With this guidance, it is important to remember that the FDA’s primary concern is the safety of the consuming public and it continues to collect data on the effects of ingestible CBD on the human body.

It is doubtful that this guidance will place CBD products in the dietary supplement category given the legal constraints on the FDA and the lack of safety data available to the FDA. The guidance likely does not draw distinctions among products using CBD isolate (as found in Epidiolex), full or broad spectrum hemp extract, despite the FDA’s expressed interest in the differences between these compositions.⁸ Instead, the FDA is more likely to establish guardrails for CBD ingestible products without authorizing their marketing. These could include encouragement of Good Manufacturing Practices, accuracy in labeling, elimination of heavy metal and pesticide contamination, and more vigorous enforcement against marketing involving the making of disease claims. The FDA is not expected to prescribe dosage standards, but may suggest a maximum daily intake of CBD for individuals along the lines of the U.K.’s Food Standards Agency guideline of a maximum of 70 mg of CBD per day.⁹

Identifying concerns in the current marketplace; promoting accuracy in testing; highlighting the line between FDA regulation and DEA enforcement; and proposing guidance to the industry all appear to be signs of substantial progress on forging a regulatory path for ingestible CBD products.

The DEA’s Interim Final Rule Addressing Derivatives and Extracts Could Have a Devastating Impact on the Cannabinoid Industry

The seemingly benign Interim Final Rule published by the DEA in August with the stated intent of aligning DEA regulations with the changes to the CSA caused by the 2018 Farm Bill’s definition of hemp could cut the legs out from under the hemp-derived CBD industry.¹⁰ Claiming it has “no discretion with respect to these amendments,” the DEA rule states that “a cannabis derivative, extract, or product that exceeds the 0.3% delta-9 THC limit is a schedule I controlled substance, even if the plant from which it was derived contained 0.3% or less delta-9 THC on a dry weight basis.”¹¹ Under this interpretation of the 2018 Farm Bill language and the CSA, it is unclear whether processors of hemp for cannabinoid extraction would be in possession of a controlled substance if, at any time, a derivative or extract contains more than 0.3% delta-9 THC even though the derivative or extract may be in that state temporarily and/or eventually falls below the 0.3% threshold when included in the final product. It would not be unusual for extracts created in the extraction process to exceed 0.3% delta-9 THC in the course of processing cannabinoids from hemp.

The implications of the rule may have a chilling effect on those involved in, or providing services to, hemp processors. It is known, as revealed by the Secretary of the USDA to Congress, that the DEA does not look favorably on the legalization of hemp and development of the hemp industry. The DEA’s position is that the rule merely incorporates amendments to the CSA caused by the 2018 Farm Bill’s definition of hemp into DEA’s regulations. In doing so, the DEA made explicit its interpretation of the Farm Bill’s hemp provisions that it presumably has held since the language became operative. What is not known is whether this changes the DEA’s appetite for enforcing the law under its stated interpretation, which to date it has refrained from doing. Nevertheless, the industry is likely to respond in two ways. First, by submitting comments to the Interim Final Rule, which will be accepted for a 60-day period, beginning on August 21, 2020. Anyone concerned about the implications of this rule should submit comments by the deadline. Second, by the filing of a legal challenge to the rulemaking on grounds that the rule does not correctly reflect Congressional intent in legalizing hemp and, consequently, the rulemaking process violated the Administrative Procedure Act. If both fail to mitigate harm caused to the CBD industry, the industry will have to look to Congress for relief. In the meantime, if the hemp processing industry is disrupted by this rule, cannabis processors holding licenses in legal states may be looked upon to meet the supply needs of the CBD product manufacturers.

The Interim Final Rule also addresses synthetically derived tetrahydrocannabinols, finding them to be Schedule I controlled substances regardless of the delta-9 THC content. This part of the rule could impact the growing market for products containing delta-8 THC. While naturally occurring in hemp in small quantities, delta-8 THC is typically produced by chemically converting CBD, thereby likely making the resulting delta-8 THC to be considered synthetically derived.

The hemp-derived cannabinoid industry continues to suffer from a “one step forward, two steps back” syndrome. The USDA’s highly anticipated Interim Final Rule on hemp production (released Oct. 31, 2019) immediately caused consternation in the CBD industry, and continues to, due to certain restrictive provisions in the rule. Disapproval in the rule is evident by the number of states deciding to operate under their pilot programs for the 2020 growing season, rather than under the conditions of the Interim Final Rule.¹² With signs of real progress by the FDA on regulating the CBD products industry, yet another interim final rule could undercut the all-important processing portion of the cannabinoid supply chain by injecting the threat of criminality where there is no intent by processors to violate the law. It is not a stretch to suggest that both the USDA and FDA are being significantly influenced by the DEA. The DEA’s Interim Final Rule is just another troubling example of the legal-illegal dichotomy of cannabis that continues to plague the CBD industry.

References

U.S. Food & Drug Admin., Report to the U.S. House Committee on Appropriations and the U.S. Senate Committee on Appropriations, Sampling Study of the Current Cannabidiol Marketplace to Determine the Extent That Products are Mislabeled or Adulterated (July 2020).
U.S. Food & Drug Admin., Cannabis and Cannabis-Derived Compounds Quality Considerations for Clinical Research: Guidance for Industry(July 2020).
U.S. Food & Drug Admin., Cannabidiol Enforcement Policy: Draft Guidance for Industry (July 2020).
Implementation of the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018, 85 FR 51639 (Aug. 21, 2020) (to be codified at 21 C.F.R. §§ 1308, 1312).
U.S. Food & Drug Admin., Collection and Analysis of Products Containing CBD and Cannabinoids, Notice ID RFQ_75F40120R00020 (Aug. 13, 2020).
Nat’l Inst. of Standards and Tech., NIST to Help Labs Achieve Accurate THC, CBD Measurements (July 21, 2020).
Agricultural Improvement Act of 2018, Pub. L. 115-334, title X, 10113 (codified at 7 U.S.C. §§ 1639o-1639s).
U.S. Food & Drug Admin., Report to the U.S. House Committee on Appropriations and the U.S. Senate Committee on Appropriations, Cannabidiol (CBD), p. 14 (March 2020).
U.K. Food Standards Agency, Food Standards Agency Sets Deadline for the CBD Industry and Provides Safety Advice to Consumers (Feb. 2020) at https://www.food.gov.uk/news-alerts/news/food-standards-agency-sets-deadline-for-the-cbd-industry-and-provides-safety-advice-to-consumers.
See supra n. 4.
Id.
U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Status of State and Tribal Hemp Production Plans for USDA Approval (as of Aug. 26, 2020).