Tag Archives: FDA

April 23, 2024

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

By Bethany Moore, David Vaillencourt

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

Keynote Panel

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

ASTM Standards

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

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

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

3-Pillar Vision for the Future

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

Regulatory State of the Union

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

Lawmakers and Regulators Perspective

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

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

FDA Fireside Chat

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

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

September 6, 2023

The CBD Regulatory Environment in Europe: Part 3

By Shelley Stark

No Comments

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

But does CBD harm the liver?

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

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

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

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

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

This position may be about to change.

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

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

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

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

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

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

But is change in the air?

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

So, what does the FDA intend to pursue?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

August 28, 2023

The CBD Regulatory Environment in Europe: Part 2

By Shelley Stark

No Comments

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

EU Regulatory Environment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The UK Regulatory Approach

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

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

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

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

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

The American Market

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

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

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

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

July 10, 2023

FDA, FTC Issue Warnings to Delta 8 Copycat Cannabis Companies

By Cannabis Industry Journal Staff

No Comments

Last week, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) sent out warning letters to six different companies for selling copycat food products that contain Delta-8 THC. In a press release published on July 5, the FDA and FTC said they sent out letters to the following companies:

Delta Munchies
Smoke LLC (also known as Dr. S LLC)
Exclusive Hemp Farms/Oshipt
Nikte’s Wholesale LLC
North Carolina Hemp Exchange LLC
The Haunted Vapor Room

The products in question look exactly like common name brand foods like chips, candy and other snack foods. The FDA says they are concerned they might be mistaken for traditional foods, accidentally ingested by children or taken in higher doses than intended. “The products we are warning against intentionally mimic well-known snack food brands by using similar brand names, logos, or pictures on packaging, that consumers, especially children, may confuse with traditional snack foods,” says Janet Woodcock, M.D., principal deputy commissioner at the FDA. “The FDA remains committed to taking action against any company illegally selling regulated products that could pose a risk to public health.”

The FDA has sent out dozens of other warning letters to cannabis companies over the years for illegal marketing, mostly involving misbranding/mislabeling issues. A more common reason for a warning letter is making unsubstantiated health claims. In 2022, the FDA sent out 33 warning letters to CBD companies, including some that were marketing CBD as a cure for Covid-19. In 2021, they sent out a number of warning letters to companies marketing OTC drugs with CBD in them.

Back in May of last year, the FDA sent out their first warning letters to companies selling Delta-8 THC products, then issued a consumer update and warning about the compound a month later. The FDA and some industry stakeholders are concerned not only about the psychoactive substance itself, but also the way it is produced that could use potentially harmful chemicals.

This is the first time since 2019 that the FTC has gotten involved, when they issued similar joint letters to companies making unsubstantiated health claims. “Marketing edible THC products that can be easily mistaken by children for regular foods is reckless and illegal,” says Samuel Levine, director of the Bureau of Consumer Protection at the FTC. “Companies must ensure that their products are marketed safely and responsibly, especially when it comes to protecting the well-being of children.”

March 29, 2023

Product Liability in the Cannabis Industry: Insights From 2022 & Looking Forward

By Andrew Solow, David Kerschner, Alessandra Lopez

No Comments

In 2022, product liability lawsuits in the cannabis/cannabidiol (CBD) industry continued to focus on levels of THC and the psychoactive ingredient in cannabis, while federal agencies continued issuing warning letters for CBD products (including CBD-infused food and dietary supplements) that made misleading medical claims. Against this backdrop of ongoing litigation and regulatory enforcement, 2022 showed that at the Federal level, there is more recognition that marijuana is becoming increasingly normalized. For example, President Biden pardoned federal offenses of simple marijuana possession and requested a reassessment of marijuana’s classification as a Schedule I drug under federal law. Additionally, Congress passed its first standalone piece of cannabis reform with the Medical Marijuana and Cannabidiol Research Expansion Act (MMCREA) which, among other things, will ease restrictions on cannabis research and allow for more clinical trials. And even though the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) declined to act on CBD products, the agency announced that it will work with Congress to create a new regulatory framework for CBD products (2023 FDA Announcement).

These events of the past year provide a glimpse into what the future may hold for cannabis and CBD companies when it comes to product liability risks. This article looks at the types of product liability actions that the cannabis and CBD industry faced in 2022 and may encounter in the future, and provides some basic guidance on how to best mitigate, and if necessary, defend these potentially costly litigations.

Focus on Cannabis and CBD Risks

A central part of any product liability lawsuit—regardless of whether brought under a design defect and/or adequate warning theory—is that a product caused or was a substantial contributing factor to a Plaintiff’s injury or illness. Thus, any potential safety concerns over cannabis/CBD could end up as the subject of litigation in the future. In the 2023 FDA Announcement, the FDA recognized that “the use of CBD raises various safety concerns, especially with long-term use,” including potential harm to the liver and negative interactions with certain medications. The agency also noted that questions still exist on how much CBD can be consumed, and for how long, before causing harm. Furthermore, on December 2, 2022, President Biden signed the MMCREA into law, which is intended to advance research on the potential risks and medical benefits of cannabis and cannabis products.¹ This additional funding will not only help researchers learn more about possible safety risks that may lead to future product liability claims, but will also allow for better exploration of the benefits of these products to possibly expand product indications and help reach new customers.

Given the FDA’s statements and the increased funding for new research, CBD and cannabis companies should ensure that they are properly monitoring both regulatory communications and new research regarding risks that may be associated with their products. As new information is released, companies should evaluate how their product labels and marketing messages should be altered. Announcements like this one by the FDA can be seen as providing industry participants with knowledge about certain risks, and how companies react could be analyzed, post hoc, in any litigation down the road.

2022 Product Liability Actions

Over the last year, misbranding/mislabeling issues presented some of the most prevalent litigation risks for industry participants.

An example of a warning letter the FDA sent to a CBD products company making health claims

For example, at the Federal level in 2022, the FDA issued thirty-three warning letters to CBD companies, a nearly 400% increase from 2021. These letters generally focused on CBD products that made medical claims. Some of these warning letters addressed misbranding, where the product labels provided inadequate directions for consumer use. In one letter, the FDA noted that because the CBD products were “offered for conditions that are not amendable to self-diagnosis and treatment by individuals who are not medical practitioners,” ranging from cancer to diabetes, labeling compliance was only possible if the product was an FDA-approved prescription drug with FDA-approved labeling. Other companies received warning letters in March of 2022 for making misleading representations that their CBD products were safe and/or effective to prevent or treat COVID-19. Many of these representations were made via companies’ websites and social media platforms. The warning letters—often triggers for product liability actions, as well as consumer protection/fraud actions—serve as a reminder that companies cannot make medical claims on non-FDA approved drug products and must otherwise present accurate information to consumers not only on product packaging, but any form of marketing or advertising, including company websites and social media platforms.

Turning to state-level regulatory actions, Oregon’s Liquor and Cannabis Commission fined a cannabis company $130,000 and suspended the company’s license for 23 days over an alleged label mix-up between its CBD and THC products. According to the state’s investigative report, a company employee allegedly confused two product buckets with similar identification numbers, one that contained THC and the other CBD, and accidentally switched the labels of the two products. In addition to the fine and license-suspension, the state agency also issued a mandatory recall on the CBD drops based on the alleged undisclosed levels of THC.

This same incident also spurred a string of civil lawsuits, resulting in several settlements by the company in 2022.² Numerous customers reported experiencing “paranoia,” “mind fog,” and feeling “extremely high,” with at least five people going to the emergency room with serious health issues due to use of the CBD drops. One lawsuit, which was publicly settled for $50,000 in January of 2022, alleged that the company failed to warn the plaintiff that the CBD drops contained THC or that the product may have been contaminated with foreign substances like THC, and that the company failed to exercise quality control standards that would have detected the THC.³ Nine other lawsuits made similar failure to warn allegations based on the same batch of CBD drops and were settled by January of 2022, although those settlements were not disclosed.⁴ In October of 2022, the company agreed to pay a settlement of $100,000 in a class action suit, which alleged that the company failed to disclose that the CBD product contained substantial amounts of THC.⁵ The class action focused on unlawful trade practices claims, including that the company falsely represented that the product had the characteristics, uses, and benefits of a CBD product that did not contain THC.⁶ Also in October 2022, the company settled a wrongful death lawsuit—alleging that the company failed to warn the plaintiff that the drops contained THC and had negligent quality control standards—stemming from the same CBD drops,⁷ where the plaintiff suffered stroke-like-symptoms, allegedly due to the tainted CBD product, and ultimately died.⁸

Other recent lawsuits have also focused on mislabeled cannabis products, alleging that companies failed to inform customers that products contained THC. For example, in Kentucky, a man who drove into a bus after using a CBD vape sued both the CBD manufacturer and retailer on December 14, 2022, claiming that he was not warned that the vape contained a substance that would make him intoxicated.⁹ According to the complaint, the store employees told the man that the vape was “all natural” but made no mention that the product contained THC.¹⁰ The man alleged that the vape actually contained Delta-8 THC and brought negligence, failure to warn, and state consumer protection law claims.¹¹

As noted above, in addition to traditional product liability actions, companies are likely to face increased consumer fraud and false advertising actions in the absence of personal injuries. Two class actions brought in December of 2020 against a hemp tea maker alleged that the company’s website and the product’s packaging fraudulently stated that a tea contained zero THC.¹² Plaintiffs claimed that they tested positive for THC after drinking the tea and that product testing similarly revealed that the tea contained some THC.¹³

Potency inflation marketing communications from a laboratory

Last year also saw a rise in cases focused on potency inflation, alleging that cannabis companies knowingly overstated the amount of THC in their products to charge higher prices.¹⁴ Again, while these actions focused on consumer fraud allegations rather than product liability claims, these cases underscore the importance of accurate labeling. Due to potency inflation concerns, states have started investigating licensed cannabis testing labs within their respective jurisdictions, resulting in product recalls and fines. Some states have also updated their regulations, requiring cannabis companies to test their products through two separate labs.

Finally, contamination and the existence of impurities and other byproducts has been a recent focus of several product liability lawsuits across the life sciences space, and this trend is something that cannabis and CBD companies should be aware of and take steps to mitigate.

For example, a Canadian cannabis producer reached a $2.31 million settlement over a class action brought in March of 2017 regarding pesticide-contaminated medical marijuana. The marijuana was recalled due to the presence of myclobutanil and bifenazate pesticides, neither of which were authorized for use on cannabis plants in Canada. The lead plaintiff experienced nausea and vomiting, allegedly from consuming the medical cannabis, and brought numerous claims on behalf of the class, including negligent design, development, testing, manufacturing, distribution, marketing, and sales.¹⁵ In the United States, California’s Department of Cannabis Control issued a mandatory recall on January 26, 2022 for a batch of cannabis flower that was contaminated with mold. On March 25, 2022, the New Mexico Cannabis Control Division recalled cannabis products sold by a local medical cannabis company because the product contained impermissibly high levels of mold. New Mexico’s Cannabis Control Division also required the company to immediately cease and desist operations at its production and manufacturing site.

A Look at the Future and What Companies Can do to Mitigate Product Liability Risks

The FDA’s 2023 announcement means that the industry will have to wait for Congressional action for the development of a regulatory scheme that can help standardize requirements and provide industry players additional defenses when facing product liability actions. Many of the proposed risk management tools in the FDA Announcement could help companies mitigate future litigation risks if implemented. These risk management tools may include “clear labels, prevention of contaminants, CBD content limits, and measures, such as minimum purchase age, to mitigate the risk of ingestion by children.” Although the FDA has had regulatory oversight over CBD and other hemp-derived products for nearly four years, the agency has not developed a regulatory framework for these products aside from issuing warning letters, leaving manufacturers and distributors without much guidance. The FDA has also left the states to fill the void, resulting in a patchwork of differing—and sometimes conflicting—state laws. Additional guidance and regulation on labeling at the federal level for cannabis and cannabis-derived products will make compliance a more straightforward proposition and may provide avenues for industry participants to explore preemption defenses in the face of future mislabeling claims.

In addition to following the changing regulatory landscape and understanding how regulatory changes can impact litigation defenses, cannabis and CBD companies can continue to take various steps to help mitigate future litigation risks.

Quality Control: Adequate testing procedures and effective quality control procedures can help avoid contamination issues and situations where products are mixed up during the manufacturing process. For example, the company whose license was suspended in Oregon due to the alleged mix up between CBD and THC subsequently implemented new ingredient tracking protocols, adopted a policy to retain samples from each batch of product, and now sends additional samples to an independent lab to ensure product compliance before anything is sold.

Proper documentation of testing and quality control procedures, as well as maintaining records of compliance checks, can also help companies put together a defense to state regulatory actions or lawsuits relating to contamination or manufacturing defects. Indeed, in February of 2022, an Arizona marijuana testing lab was fined $500,000 for various incomplete records and documentation as well as improperly calibrated machines for contamination testing, with an inspector also noting that one of the employees was trained to use a technique that produced inflated potency results.

Ongoing Safety & Regulatory Review: Keeping up to date with regulations and science will play a key role in making sure labels are accurate and defendable. Working directly with regulators and seeking guidance from regulators on labeling can help potential defendants present a clear and compelling labeling defense. Moreover, the 2023 FDA Announcement made clear that the agency will not pursue rulemaking on CBD’s potential use in foods and dietary substances. Thus, industry players should monitor agency announcements and engage with the FDA’s Cannabis Product Committee (CPC) and Congress to better understand the potential structure of this new regulatory pathway.

Stay on Top of the Science: A boost in cannabis research is on the horizon, as the Medical Marijuana and Cannabidiol Research Expansion Act (MMCREA) will advance research on the potential risks and benefits of cannabis products and promote the development of FDA-approved drugs derived from marijuana and CBD. On the litigation front, causation is an essential element in most causes of action, and plaintiffs will have to prove that the cannabis caused their injury. Thus, industry players should be aware of the current science, including potential side effects.

Litigation Monitoring: Finally, companies will also be well served by following court decisions involving CBD and cannabis products. For example, courts in 2022 were split over the legality of Delta-8 THC, a substance typically manufactured from hemp-derived CBD. The Ninth Circuit held in AK Futures v. Boyd Street Distro that Delta-8 THC found in e-cigarettes and vape products is legal under the 2018 Farm Act, at least in the intellectual property context.¹⁶ But in Kansas, a federal judge ruled that the 2018 Farm Act does not make selling hemp-derived products such as Delta-8 THC legal.¹⁷ In Texas, litigation initiated in 2021 is ongoing over the legality of Delta-8 THC.¹⁸ There, a hemp company sued the Texas Department of State Health Services for its classification of Delta-8 THC as a Schedule I drug, making the sale of this substance a felony offense. A temporary injunction was granted on November 8, 2021—temporarily lifting the ban on sales of Delta-8 THC products—but the plaintiff’s request for a permanent injunction remains pending.¹⁹ As these lawsuits show, the legality of different products may vary by jurisdiction, whether by regulation or a judicial decision.

References

Medical Marijuana and Cannabidiol Research Expansion Act, Pub. L. 117–215, 136 Stat. 2257 (2022).
Agbonkhese v. Curaleaf Inc., No. 3:21-cv-01675, (D. Or. Jan. 5, 2022).
Agbonkhese v. Curaleaf Inc., No. 3:21-cv-01675, ECF 1, 6 (D. Or.).
See Crawforth v. Curaleaf, Inc., No. 3:21-cv-1432 (D. Or. Sept. 29, 2021); Lopez v. Curaleaf, Inc., No. 3:21-cv-1465 (D. Or. Oct. 6, 2021);
Williamson v. Curaleaf, Inc., No. 3:22-cv-782, ECF 1, 8 (D. Or.).
Williamson v. Curaleaf, Inc., No. 3:22-cv-782 (D. Or. May 30, 2022).
Estate of Earl Jacobe v. Curaleaf, Inc., No. 3:22-cv-00001, 19 (D. Or. Oct. 18, 2022).
Estate of Earl Jacobe v. Curaleaf, Inc., No. 3:22-cv-00001 1 (D. Or. Jan. 1, 2022).
Howard v. GCHNC3 LLC et al., No. 5:22-cv-00326 (E.D. Ky. Dec. 14, 2022).
Complaint at ¶ 11, Howard v. GCHNC3 LLC et al., No. 5:22-cv-00326 (E.D. Ky. Dec. 14, 2022).
Complaint at ¶¶ 15-33, Howard v. GCHNC3 LLC et al., No. 5:22-cv-00326 (E.D. Ky. Dec. 14, 2022).
Williams v. Total Life Changes, LLC, No. 0:20-cv-02463 (D. Minn. Dec. 3, 2020); Santiago v. Total Life Changes LLC, No. 2:20-cv-18581 (D.N.J. Dec. 9, 2020).
Complaint at ¶¶ 54-59, Williams v. Total Life Changes, LLC, No. 0:20-cv-02463 (D. Minn. Dec. 3, 2020); Complaint at ¶¶ 21-25, Santiago v. Total Life Changes LLC, No. 2:20-cv-18581 (D.N.J. Dec. 9, 2020).
See Centeno v. Dreamfields Brands Inc., No. 22STCV33980 (Cal. Superior Ct. L.A. Cnty. Oct. 20, 2022); Shanti Gallard v. Ironworks Collective Inc., No. 22STCV38021 (Cal. Superior Ct. L.A. Cnty. Dec. 6, 2022).
Downton v. Organigram Holdings Inc., Hfx No. 460984 (Sup. Ct. Nova Scotia Mar. 3, 2017).
AK Futures LLC v. Boyd St. Distro, LLC, 35 F.4th 682 (9th Cir. 2022).
Dines v. Kelly, No. 2:22-cv-02248, 2022 WL 16762903 (D. Kan. Nov. 8, 2022).
Hometown Hero v. Tex. Dep’t of State Health Services, No. D-1-GN-21-006174 (Travis Cnty., Tex. Oct. 20, 2021).
Hometown Hero v. Tex. Dep’t of State Health Services, No. D-1-GN-21-006174 (Travis Cnty., Tex. Nov. 8, 2021).

February 2, 2023

FDA Punts on CBD Rules

By Cannabis Industry Journal Staff

No Comments

On December 20, 2018, Former President Trump signed the Farm Bill into law, which removed hemp-derived cannabidiol (CBD) from the Controlled Substances Act, stripped the DEA’s authority from hemp and gave states the ability to regulate hemp markets of their own, with approval from the USDA.

When that Farm Bill became law, it paved the way for state-sanctioned hemp and CBD product markets and it seemed as if the floodgates were opening for legal CBD, but some caveats and gray areas remained. The same day the Farm Bill became law, the FDA released a statement asserting their authority, threatening enforcement actions for things like unsubstantiated drug marketing claims.

Over the past four years, the FDA has dealt with dozens of enforcement actions involving CBD products. The agency said they were “working quickly to further clarify our regulatory approach,” but that seems categorically false given how long it took them to tell the public they don’t know what to do. Finally, after four years and change of comment periods, industry frustration, warning letters and state-sanctioned gray markets, the FDA announced they need help from Congress.

Janet Woodcock, M.D., principal deputy commissioner at the FDA

Last week, the FDA published a statement from Janet Woodcock, M.D., principal deputy commissioner, that says, to paraphrase, they’ve given up. Industry stakeholders have long agreed that the food and dietary supplements regulatory framework is adequate for CBD products, citing minimal public health risk and a pre-existing framework that CBD could fit into easily. “The FDA’s existing foods and dietary supplement authorities provide only limited tools for managing many of the risks associated with CBD products,” says Dr. Woodcock. “Under the law, any substance, including CBD, must meet specific safety standards to be lawfully marketed as a dietary supplement or food additive.”

The reasoning behind the agency’s unwillingness to regulate it as a dietary supplement is because of safety concerns, like potential liver damage, possible drug interactions and reproductive harm. Scientific data available to the FDA shows that they cannot say that CBD is generally recognized as safe (GRAS). “Today we are announcing that after careful review, the FDA has concluded that a new regulatory pathway for CBD is needed that balances individuals’ desire for access to CBD products with the regulatory oversight needed to manage risks,” says Dr. Woodcock. “The agency is prepared to work with Congress on this matter.”

September 29, 2022

Bad Actors in CBD: How to Distinguish Quality Products From the Rest

By Joseph Dowling

No Comments

The success of reputable cannabis and CBD brands has inspired an influx of inexperienced and disreputable competitors in the market. These so-called “bad actors” in CBD advertise products that are not manufactured under current Good Manufacturing Practices (cGMP), which help to ensure that all products are consistently produced and controlled according to specified quality standards. cGMP helps guard against risks of adulteration, cross-contamination and mislabeling to guarantee product quality, safety and efficacy.

Joseph Dowling, Author & CEO of CV Sciences

CBD products without cGMP regulations are often inaccurately labeled and deceiving to consumers. In fact, in a test of over 100 CBD products available online and at retail locations, Johns Hopkins Medicine found significant evidence of inaccurate, misleading labeling of CBD content. The prevalence of such brands not only reduces consumer confidence in CBD but also limits the growth of the sector as a whole. Fortunately, CBD consumers and retailers can easily discriminate between a well-tested, reputable brand and inferior bad actors with a few straightforward, minimum requirements to look out for when selecting a product.

Why are “bad actors” a problem for consumers and the industry?

Bad actors in CBD sell products that are not produced under cGMP conditions and are typically not tested by third-party laboratories to ensure identity, purity, quality, strength and composition. This means they are not verified for contaminants, impurities, label claims and product specifications. This frequently results in misleading advertising with inaccurate levels of cannabinoids or traces of compounds not found on the label, like THC. To combat this, the FDA issues warning letters to actors that market products allegedly containing CBD—many of which are found not to contain the claimed levels of CBD and are not approved for the treatment of any medical condition. Still, bad actors manage to slip through the cracks and deceive consumers.

Bad actors that put anything in a bottle and make unsubstantiated medical claims hurt the reputable operators that strive to create safe and high-quality products. It is easy for consumers to be drawn to CBD products with big medical claims and lower prices, only to be disappointed when the product does not produce the advertised results. Inaccurately labeled products may contain unexpected levels of cannabinoids, including ingredients that consumers may not intend to ingest, like Delta-9 or Delta-8 THC. Along with unexpected levels of THC, many CBD products available now are not as pure as advertised, with one in four products going untested for contaminants like microbial content, pesticides, or heavy metals.

Further, inaccurate labeling of products and their compounds also prevents consumers from establishing a baseline impact of CBD on their bodies, leaving them vulnerable to inconsistent future experiences. Such a poor experience can turn consumers off to the category as a whole, drawing their trust away from not only the bad actors but also the reliable, reputable brands on the market. The saturation of the market with these disreputable brands delegitimizes a category that has only just begun to break down the stigmas, creating stagnation rather than growth as consumers remain wary of low-quality products.

How can consumers identify bad actors in CBD?

There are several simple ways to identify a bad actor among CBD products and make certain that both consumers and retailers purchase quality, reliable and safe brands in legitimate sales channels. To start, consumers should avoid all CBD products that are marketed with unsubstantiated medical claims. This is a significant area of abuse, as brands that relate any form of CBD product to a disease state, like cancer, should not be trusted. The science to support such medical claims has not been completed, yet, product marketing is years ahead of the evidence to support such claims. Unsupported medical claims could also mislead consumers that may need more serious medical intervention.

Additionally, consumers must review the packaging, which should include nutrition information in the form of a supplement fact label. The label should include the serving size, number of servings per container, a list of all dietary ingredients in the product and the amount per serving of each ingredient. All labels should include a net quantity of contents, lot number or batch ID, the name and address of the manufacturer, and an expiration or manufacturing date. These signs of a reputable brand are easy to look for and can save consumers from the trouble of selecting the wrong CBD product.

What to look for when selecting a CBD product

With this in mind, products from reputable, tested brands can be identified by a few key factors. Reputable CBD companies are already compliant with the FDA regulations on nutritional supplements, including a nutritional or supplement fact panel on the packaging—just like vitamins. The information in this panel should include all the active cannabinoids in the product, both per serving and package. Clear potency labeling allows consumers to confidently select products that suit their needs and understand the baseline impact of CBD concentration on their bodies, thus helping them to tailor their experience with thoughtful product selection.

Reputable brands also include a convenient QR code on the packaging, linking the product to a certificate of analysis that details the testing results to demonstrate compliance with product standards and label claims. In terms of specific ingredients, consumers should be skeptical of high concentration levels of “flavor of the month” minor cannabinoids, which are often associated with unsubstantiated medical claims. Current scientific research has set its focus on major cannabinoids like CBD and Delta-9 THC, leaving additional research necessary for understanding minor cannabinoids. Minor cannabinoids are typically included in full spectrum products at concentrations found naturally in the cannabis plant, which is a safer approach to consuming CBD until more research is completed.

Consumers should not let the existence of unreliable, untrustworthy brands curtail their confidence in the CBD sector—there are many high-quality, safe and trusted brands on the market. With a knowledgeable and discerning eye, consumers and retailers can easily select top-quality CBD products that millions of consumers have found to improve many aspects of their health and well-being. Looking ahead, clear federal regulations for CBD products that require mandatory product registration, compliance with product labeling, packaging and cGMP will be crucial in weeding out bad actors and will allow compliant companies to gain consumer trust and responsibly grow the CBD category.

July 6, 2022

CBD Safety in Edibles: What Regulators are Thinking

By Steven Gendel, Ph.D.

No Comments

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.

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.

May 17, 2022

FDA Issues Warning Over Copycat Cannabis Consumables

By Cannabis Industry Journal Staff

1 Comment

Last week, the U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) published a consumer warning regarding food products containing THC and the risk of children accidentally eating them. Between January of last year through April 24, 2022, the FDA says they have received more than 100 adverse event reports involving people (both adults and children) accidentally consuming THC-containing products.

According to the published advisory, the main concern seems to be copycat products that are packaged and labeled to resemble popular junk foods. The copycat, THC-containing products are mimicking Cap’n Crunch, Cocoa Pebbles, Cocoa Puffs, Froot Loops, Fruity Pebbles, Nerds Ropes, Starbursts, Sour Patch Kids, Trix and others.

Examples of the THC products the FDA included in its warning.

In years past, usually around Halloween, local police, municipalities and state officials would often issue similar warnings over the same issue. Folks in the cannabis industry are usually quick to dismiss those warnings as dramatized and misleading, citing extremely low numbers of actual instances where edibles were given to children during Halloween. However, these warnings might be more warranted now, given the number of copycat products on the market today and the increased number of adverse events the FDA has reported.

Historically, most of the companies producing these copycat products that contain THC, like Sour Patch Kids or Nerds Rope candies, come from the illicit market. Most licensed edibles producers know not to steal branding and packaging from a large food company. Still though, it is worth taking a good, hard look at cannabis edibles packaging and making sure they wouldn’t be mistaken for a food product that doesn’t contain THC.

May 4, 2022

FDA Issues First Warning Letters for Delta-8 THC

By Cannabis Industry Journal Staff

No Comments

In an unprecedented move, the U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) has issued warning letters today to companies selling products containing delta-8 THC. In total, the FDA sent out five warning letters to companies for violating the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act).

Image from the FDA’s consumer update on Delta-8 THC

The violations include illegal marketing of unapproved delta-8 THC products as treatment for medical conditions, misbranding and adding delta-8 THC to food products. Back in September of last year, 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.

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. Many regulators and industry stakeholders are increasingly concerned about the rise in popularity of delta-8 products, namely because of the processing involved to produce it. Delta-8 THC is often synthesized using potentially harmful chemicals.

The FDA has a history of sending a lot of warning letters to companies marketing CBD products inaccurately and making drug claims. Earlier this year, they sent a number of letters to companies claiming that CBD can cure or prevent Covid-19.

According to Janet Woodcock, M.D., principal deputy commissioner at the FDA, they are getting more and more concerned about the popularity of delta-8 THC products sold online. “These products often include claims that they treat or alleviate the side effects related to a wide variety of diseases or medical disorders, such as cancer, multiple sclerosis, chronic pain, nausea and anxiety,” says Woodcock. “It is extremely troubling that some of the food products are packaged and labeled in ways that may appeal to children. We will continue to safeguard Americans’ health and safety by monitoring the marketplace and taking action when companies illegally sell products that pose a risk to public health.”

The FDA sent warning letters to the following companies selling delta-8 THC products:

ATLRx Inc.
BioMD Plus LLC
Delta 8 Hemp
Kingdom Harvest LLC
M Six Labs Inc.