Tag Archives: Federal

How Cannabis Businesses Can Prepare for Tax Season

By Melissa Diaz
No Comments

A Little About 280E

The 280E statute bans businesses from deducting business expenses for gross income associated with the trafficking of Schedule I or II substances. While other businesses can deduct any number of expenses when filing their taxes — employee salaries, rent, equipment, electricity, etc. — 280E limits cannabis companies to only expensing deductions directly related to earning a profit, or the cost of goods sold (COGs).

For example, a dispensary whose square footage is split between 60% sales floor and 40% lobby may only deduct 60% of rent expenses because that’s the portion dedicated to COGs. Transactions do not occur in the lobby, so that portion of the rent is not deductible.

Image: Flickr

So long as cannabis remains a Schedule I substance, companies that produce, sell and otherwise touch the plant in their operations must comply with 280E.

Tips for Tax Success

While taxes can be complex and stressful for cannabis businesses, it is possible to limit the headaches. With tax season right around the corner, here are a handful of tips to ensure a successful filing.

  • Close Out Your Books. Before tax preparation can even start, cannabis businesses want to make sure to close out their financials for the previous year. It may sound like a no-brainer, but with the extra scrutiny facing companies in the industry and the nuances of 280E, it’s extremely important to have fully reconciled and closed-out books to work from when preparing taxes. Incomplete books can cause delays and add unnecessary extra stressors to the process that could result in penalties or additional liabilities.
  • Consult a Cannabis Tax Professional. Once books are ready to go, it’s time to consult a tax professional who has experience in the cannabis industry. A cannabis-focused tax pro will be familiar with the intricacies of 280E and and will be able to identify relevant business expenses to ensure compliance and limit liabilities. In addition to 280E issues, a competent accountant will also be able to highlight any other tax code changes that may impact a business. Every business is different — even in the cannabis industry — and since the tax code is large, complex and prone to new rules and interpretations, it’s important to have a strong accountant guiding the way.
  • Justify Your Numbers. After consulting with a tax professional and identifying relevant business expenses, it’s time to back up the numbers. This is where strong record-keeping comes into play. Ongoing regulatory hurdles limit cannabis firms’ ability to participate in the financial system where, generally, record creation is inherent with each transaction. But in a cash-heavy industry like cannabis, record creation and retention fall on the businesses themselves. This is because cash transactions don’t come with any built-in records. That inherent lack of documentation is yet another potential pitfall for cannabis businesses and taxes since large amounts of cash often raise eyebrows at the IRS. It is up to businesses to provide adequate proof of their tax numbers. Since the IRS will put zero effort into investigating the accuracy of your numbers, it will likely assume the worst when reviewing your filing.

Preparation is King

Taxes can be stressful. But they don’t have to be. Navigating tax season as a cannabis business is all about preparation. By putting in the work and partnering with an experienced tax professional, cannabis operators will be able to avoid penalties, limit their audit risk and stay on track with their business goals.

The Power of Prevention: Pathogen Monitoring in Cannabis Cultivation and Processing Facilities

By Nathan Libbey
2 Comments

As the cannabis market matures and the value chain becomes modernized, it’s important to address product safety in a comprehensive way. In other areas of manufacturing, Hazard Analysis & Critical Control Points (HACCP) has been the standard for reducing hazards both for employees and for the products themselves. A Critical Control Point (CCP) is any spot from conception to consumption where a loss of control can potentially result in risk (Unnevehr, 1996). In the food realm, HACCP has been used to drive quality enhancements since the 1980s (Cichy, 1982).

In a nutshell, HACCP seeks to help identify where a problem may enter a product or environment and how that problem may be addressed before it escalates. In cannabis, these hazards include many of the same problems that food products have: specifically molds, yeasts, and pathogenic bacteria (Listeria, E. coli, etc.). While the current industry standard is to test products at the end stage for these contaminants, this late-stage pass/fail regimen leads to huge lots of destroyed product and a risk for consumer distrust (Yamashiro, 2019). HACCP, therefore, should be applied at every stage of the production process.

Pathogen Environmental Monitoring (PEM) is a tool that can be used to identify CCPs in a cannabis cultivation or processing facility. The main goal of a PEM program is to find a contaminant before it reaches a surface that touches the product or the product itself. PEM is conducted using a pre-moistened swab or a sponge to collect a sample from the cannabis environment. The swab can then be sent to a lab for microbial testing. Keys to an effective PEM are:

1. Start with a broad stroke – When the FDA comes to a facility suspected of producing pathogen-laced food products, they conduct what is known as a Swab-a-thon. A Swab-a-thon is a top to bottom collection of samples, usually totaling 100 or more. Similarly, preemptively swabbing should be the first step in any PEM—swab everything to see what exists as a baseline.

2. Map your scene – identify on a map of your facility the following:

  • Cannabis contact surfaces (CCS) (belts, clippers, tables, etc)
  • Non-cannabis contact surfaces (Non-CCS) (floors, lighting, drains, etc)
  • Flow of air and people (where do air and people enter and where do they go?

Identifying the above zones will help deepen your understanding of where contaminants may come into contact with cannabis and how they may migrate from a Non-CCS to a CCS. 

3. Plan and execute:

  • Based on the results of mapping, and Swab-a-thon, identify where and when you will be collecting samples on a consistent and repeatable basis. Emphasis should be placed on areas that are deemed a risk based on 1) and 2). Samples should be collected at random in all zones to ensure comprehensive screening.

4. Remediate and modify:

  • If you get a positive result during PEM, don’t panic—pathogens are ubiquitous.
  • Remediate any trouble spots with deep cleaning, remediation devices or other protocols.
  • Re-test areas that were positive for pathogens to ensure remediation is successful.
  • Revisit and modify the plan at least once a year and each time a new piece of equipment is added or production flow is otherwise changed.

The steps above are a good starting point for a grower or processor to begin a PEM. Remember that this is not a one-size-fits-all approach to safety; each facility has its own unique set of hazards and control points.

Comprehensive guides for PEM can be found at the links below, many of the concepts can be applied to cannabis production.


https://affifoodsafety.org/lcp/advanced-search/

http://www.centerforproducesafety.org/amass/documents/document/263/Listeria%20Guidance%20UFPA%202013.pdf

Cichy, R. (1982). HACCP as a quality assurance tool in a commissary food-service system. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 1(2), 103-106.

Unnevehr, L., & Jensen, H. (1996). HACCP as a Regulatory Innovation to Improve Food Safety in the Meat Industry. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 78(3), 764-769.

Yamashiro, C, & Baca, Y. (2019).  Prevent high-value cannabis crop loss with innovative environmental monitoring tool.

The Ultimate Guide to Intellectual Property Protection for Cannabis Businesses

By Roger Bora
2 Comments

As of this writing, one cannot register trademarks with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) for cannabis products and services that “touch” the cannabis plant (i.e., cultivate, manufacture or dispense cannabis products), with the recent exception for certain hemp-based products and services, because use of trademarks must be lawful under federal law for federal trademark registration eligibility. Brand owners may, however, secure federal trademark registration protection for their brand names for certain cannabis-related products and services that are currently legal under federal law in advance of what could be the full legalization of cannabis at the state and federal levels.

Federal trademark registration provides brand owners with valuable benefits beyond common law (unregistered) and state registered trademark rights, including the preservation of national expansion rights and presumption of trademark ownership and validity. For those reasons, securing federal trademark registration protection for trademarks is a prudent business strategy.

This article summarizes certain laws and regulations for securing federal trademark registration protection for cannabis products (including cannabidiol (CBD) products) and services. It also identifies other forms of intellectual property protection for  cannabis businesses.

What Are Cannabis, Marijuana, Hemp and CBD?

  • Cannabis is a plant of the Cannabaceae family and contains many biologically active chemical compounds, including the well-known delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol (CBD) compounds.
  • Parts of the Cannabis sativa plant are controlled under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) under the drug class “marijuana.” The CSA is a federal law that regulates drug policy for the manufacture, importation, possession, use and distribution of certain substances. Marijuana is currently listed as an illegal Schedule I drug under the CSA, along with cocaine and heroin, due to its high potential for abuse, which is attributable mainly to the psychoactive effects of THC and the absence of a currently accepted medical use in the United States.
  • Marijuana, a term the CSA uses, is the dried leaves of the cannabis plant. It is derived from the cannabis sativa and cannabis indica species and is used primarily as a psychoactive drug.
  • Hemp is derived only from the cannabis sativa species and has historically been grown primarily for its strong fibers used for industrial purposes, including for making fabrics, clothing and rope.
  • There is a significant difference between marijuana and hemp with respect to their concentration of THC, which gives the plant its psychoactive effect. While marijuana can reach THC levels of 30%, THC levels in hemp are typically 0.3% or less.
  • The low level of THC in hemp is a reason why federal authorities recently removed it from the legal definition of marijuana, which means that cannabis plants and derivatives such as CBD derived from hemp that contain 0.3% or less of THC on a dry-weight basis are no longer considered controlled substances under the CSA.
  • Cannabidiol (CBD) is an active ingredient in the cannabis plant and is derived primarily from the hemp plant. CBD has been touted for its many health benefits, including for the treatment of insomnia, pain and anxiety, and it has become a widely used ingredient in many types of products, including foods, cosmetics, building materials, industrial oils, plastics and textiles.

Relevant Laws and Regulations

Controlled Substances Act (CSA)

Under the CSA, the drug class marijuana is defined as “all parts of the plant Cannabis sativa L., whether growing or not; the seeds thereof; the resin extracted from any part of such plant; and every compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of such plant, its seeds or resin” (subject to certain exceptions). 21 U.S.C. §802(16).

The CSA prohibits, among other things, manufacturing, distributing, dispensing or possessing cannabis that meets the definition of marijuana, including CBD derived from marijuana.

2018 Farm Bill Removes Hemp from the Definition of Marijuana

The 2018 Farm Bill signed into law on December 20, 2018, amended the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 and changed certain federal laws and regulations concerning the production and marketing of “hemp,” defined as “the plant Cannabis sativa L. and any part of that plant, including the seeds thereof and all derivatives, extracts, cannabinoids, isomers, acids, salts, and salts of isomers, whether growing or not, with a delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol [THC] concentration of not more than 0.3 percent on a dry weight basis.”

  • Those changes included removing hemp from the CSA’s definition of marijuana, which means that hemp and its derivatives, such as CBD derived from hemp, that contain no more than 0.3% THC on a dry-weight basis, are no longer controlled substances under the CSA.
  • The recent change in the classification of hemp allows brand owners that legally manufacture and sell certain hemp-based products, including certain hemp-derived CBD products, to federally register their associated trademarks.
  • However, the 2018 Farm Bill explicitly preserved FDA’s authority to regulate certain products containing cannabis or cannabis-derived compounds, even if derived from hemp, including CBD derived from hemp. Thus, federal laws, including FDA regulations, must still be considered for product legality before introducing products into commerce.

Food and Drug Administration (FDA)

Even with the removal of hemp from the CSA’s definition of marijuana, not all hemp-derived products are lawful following passage of the 2018 Farm Bill because certain products may still violate the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. For example, certain hemp-derived CBD products, including human foods, beverages, dietary supplements and animal foods, still violate FDA laws absent FDA approval.

The FDA monitors and investigates the sale of products that violate FDA laws, including CBD products promoted for therapeutic uses and treating diseases. When the FDA detects such violations, it may send warning letters to the violating parties as a first step in the enforcement process.

On December 20, 2018, the then FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb, M.D. made the following statement on that point:

“We’ll take enforcement action needed to protect public health against companies illegally selling cannabis and cannabis-derived products that can put consumers at risk and are being marketed in violation of the FDA’s authorities. The FDA has sent warning letters in the past to companies illegally selling CBD products that claimed to prevent, diagnose, treat, or cure serious diseases, such as cancer. Some of these products were in further violation of the FD&C Act because they were marketed as dietary supplements or because they involved the addition of CBD to food.”

Furthermore, in a recent letter to a company selling CBD products, the FTC sent a joint letter with the FDA, and that letter included the following statements and warnings:

  • “The FTC strongly urges you to review all claims for your products and ensure that those claims are supported by competent and reliable scientific evidence.  Violations of the FTC Act may result in legal action seeking a Federal District Court injunction or Administrative Cease and Desist Order.  An order also may require that you pay back money to consumers.

  • You should take prompt action to correct the violations cited in this letter. Failure to promptly correct violations may result in legal action without further notice, including, without limitation, seizure and/or injunction.”

What about using hulled hemp seed, hemp seed protein powder and hemp seed oil in human food?

  • In December 2018, the FDA generally recognized as safe (GRAS) hulled hemp seed, hemp seed protein powder and hemp seed oil. Accordingly, the FDA’s current position suggests that those products may legally be marketed in human foods for the uses described in the notices, provided they comply with all other requirements. To date, the FDA has not received any GRAS notices for the use of hemp-derived ingredients in animal food.
  • Hemp seeds are the seeds of the Cannabis sativa plant. They do not naturally contain THC or CBD. The hemp seed-derived ingredients that are the subjects of the GRAS notices contain only trace amounts of CBD and THC. The FDA has reported that “[c]onsumption of these hemp seed-derived ingredients is not capable of making consumers ‘high.’”
  • Those GRAS conclusions do not affect the FDA’s position on the addition of CBD and THC to food.

U.S. Trademark Registration Eligibility

Trademarks Must Be Used for Lawful Activities

A trademark’s use must be lawful under federal law for federal trademark registration eligibility. Whether activities associated with cannabis and/or cannabis-related goods or services are lawful under federal law requires review of various federal laws, including the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.

Federal law controls federal trademark registration eligibility, period.

If a trademark application is filed for goods or services that violate federal laws, including for marijuana products and/or services or certain products that feature CBD, such as foods and nutritional supplements, the USPTO Examiner should refuse the application. Furthermore, filing an “intent-to-use” trademark application cannot obviate that refusal.

What does that mean? It means that filing a trademark application based on an “intent to use” the trademark “in the future” in anticipation of federal law legalizing cannabis still violates current law (the law as of the application filing date), and thus the application should be rejected because the applicant does not and cannot have a “bona fide intent” to use the applied-for mark for a legal purpose.

The USPTO Examination Guide 1-19 for examining cannabis marks states that:

“[r]egistration of marks for foods, beverages, dietary supplements, or pet treats containing CBD will still be refused as unlawful under the FDCA, even if derived from hemp, as such goods may not be introduced lawfully into interstate commerce.”

The following is an excerpt from an issued Trademark Office action refusing registration of a mark on the basis the listed cannabis goods are unlawful:

“Registration is refused because applicant does not have a bona fide intent to lawfully use the applied-for mark in commerce.

To qualify for federal trademark/service mark registration, the use of a mark in commerce must be lawful. Gray v. Daffy Dan’s Bargaintown, 823 F.2d 522, 526, 3 USPQ2d 1306, 1308 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (stating that “[a] valid application cannot be filed at all for registration of a mark without ‘lawful use in commerce’”); TMEP §907; see In re Stellar Int’l, Inc., 159 USPQ 48, 50-51 (TTAB 1968); Coahoma Chemical Co., Inc. v. Smith, 113 USPQ 413 (Com’r Pat. & Trademarks 1957) (concluding that “use of a mark in connection with unlawful shipments in interstate commerce is not use of a mark in commerce which the [Office] may recognize.”). Thus, the goods and/or services to which the mark is applied must comply with all applicable federal laws. See In re Brown, 119 USPQ2d 1350, 1351 (TTAB 2016) (citing In re Midwest Tennis & Track Co., 29 USPQ2d 1386, 1386 n.2 (TTAB 1993) (noting that “[i]t is settled that the Trademark Act’s requirement of ‘use in commerce,’ means a ‘lawful use in commerce’”)); In re Pepcom Indus., Inc., 192 USPQ 400, 401 (TTAB 1976); TMEP §907.

Here, the items or activities to which the proposed mark will be applied are unlawful under the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA), 21 U.S.C. §§801-971.”

USPTO Guidelines for Marijuana and Hemp Products: Key Takeaways

  • Trademark registrations for marijuana and marijuana by-products, including CBD derived from marijuana, are still unavailable.
  • Trademark registrations for certain hemp products are available. If an applicant’s goods are derived from hemp, as defined in the 2018 Farm Bill, the identification of goods must specify that they are derived from hemp and that the products contain less than 0.3% THC. Thus, the scope of the resulting registration will be limited to goods compliant with federal law.
  • Trademark applications covering certain CBD infused products, including foods, beverages, dietary supplements and pet foods, are still refused, even if derived from hemp, because such goods may not be introduced lawfully into commerce without FDA approval.
  • The USPTO is currently approving trademarks for skin care preparations and cosmetics that feature hemp ingredients, including CBD derived from hemp, as long as the application complies with the 2018 Farm Bill and USPTO filing requirements.
  • If a pending application’s filing date is prior to December 20, 2018 (the effective date of the 2018 Farm Bill), the applicant must amend the filing date to a date later than December 20, 2018 before the application may proceed. Once the date has been amended, a new search is conducted for any prior pending confusingly similar marks.
  • Trademark applications for hemp cultivation and production, if allowed, will require proof of authorization and licensure in accordance with a plan approved by the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Federal Trademark Registration Considerations and Options

Although marijuana products and services (i.e., products and services that “touch the plant”) and certain hemp-based products are currently illegal under federal law, making their associated marks ineligible for federal trademark registration protection, there are still certain cannabis-related activities that are legal and thus eligible for federal trademark registration.

Examples of legal activities include:

  • Providing informational services related to cannabis or marijuana-related goods and services.
  • Clothing, including t-shirts and hats, featuring a cannabis-related trademark.
  • Educational programs in the fields of cannabis and CBD, including for health benefits and therapeutic uses of medical cannabis and CBD.
  • Providing an internet news portal featuring links to current events, information, commentary, non-downloadable publications in the nature of brochures, articles, and non-downloadable multimedia files containing video, audio or text in the fields of cannabis or cannabis news.
  • Online journals, namely blogs featuring information about cannabis.
  • Entertainment services, namely, providing podcasts featuring medical and industry experts in the field of cannabis and medical marijuana.

If a brand owner secures federal trademark registration protection for marks for legal activities, including those listed above, those trademark registrations and rights may arguably preserve future product and service expansion under the same registered mark for “related” goods and/or services that are unlawful as of the trademark application filing date, but later become lawful, including CBD infused foods and nutritional supplements and marijuana itself.

Why? Because trademark law protects consumers from “source confusion.”

  • For example, if a brand owner adopts the trademark N-DuraRun for running shoes, another party may not adopt the same or confusingly similar mark for running pants because consumers would likely be confused as to the source of running shoes and running pants if offered under the same trademark by different parties.
    • It is not confusion as to what a consumer is buying (“I thought I was buying running shoes… instead I mistakenly purchased running pants…”). Rather, it is confusion as to the source of the products (“I purchased EnDuraRun brand running pants because I thought they were made by the same company that makes N-DuraRun brand running shoes!”).
    • A question to ask is “Would the average consumer reasonably believe that the parties’ respective goods are of the type that would originate from the same source?”
      • If the answer is “yes” and if the parties’ respective marks are confusingly similar, there may be a likelihood of consumer confusion as to the source of the parties’ respective goods.

For example, if a company provides informational services in the field of cannabis and cannabis derivatives, including CBD infused foods, and/or provides foods and nutritional supplements featuring hemp seed protein powder and hemp seed oil, and it secures federal trademark registration protection for its trademark for those goods and/or services, that existing federal trademark registration and rights may arguably preserve the brand owner’s right to use and register the same mark for “related” goods and services, which could include CBD-infused foods and nutritional supplements if/when those goods become legal. That is so because the average consumer would arguably believe that informational services about CBD infused foods and CBD infused foods themselves would originate from the same source and also believe that foods and nutritional supplements featuring hemp seed protein powder and hemp seed oil and foods and nutritional supplements featuring hemp-derived CBD would originate from the same source.

Source confusion is the crux of trademark law.

Therefore, securing federal trademark registration protection now for goods and services that are lawful can preserve future trademark rights for cannabis-related products and services that are currently unlawful and may avoid losing valuable trademark rights to third parties.

As companies prepare for the potential federal legalization of all forms of cannabis, securing federal trademark registration now for brand names for goods and services that are currently legal is vital for protecting valuable company assets, current and future business opportunities, and future growth, and it is possible as long as brand owners understand the current status of the regulatory landscape and the intricacies of trademark law.

Other Forms of Intellectual Property Protection

In addition to trademark and federal trademark registration protection, there are other intellectual property protections available for marijuana, hemp and cannabis businesses, including:

  • State trademark filings. In states that have legalized cannabis, state trademark registrations may be available.
  • Common law trademark rights. In states that have legalized cannabis, common law trademark rights may be available.
  • Patent protection. Patent protection may be secured for various inventions, including plants, such as new strains of the cannabis plant, and methods of cannabis hydration and lighting.
  • Trade secrets. Trade secrets can protect certain aspects of a business, including formulas, processes or methods, that are not generally known or reasonably ascertainable by others and that can help a business obtain an economic advantage over competitors or customers. To be eligible as trade secrets, however, a business owner must take the necessary steps to legally protect them or they will be lost.
  • Copyrights. Copyright protection may be secured for certain company creative works, including trademark logos (artwork), written materials, photographs and software.

As the laws governing the cannabis industry continue to evolve, including trademark, FDA and banking laws and regulations, all interested parties, including cannabis business owners, law firms and investors, must stay abreast of the rapidly changing legal landscape to maximize business growth opportunities, ensure proper legal and regulatory compliance, and avoid having their businesses go up in smoke.


Notice: This article is for educational purposes only, is not legal advice and should not be substituted for retaining an attorney.

The Launch of Cannabis-Related ETFs In Europe

By Marguerite Arnold
No Comments

Here is the headliner: As of the second week in January, there will be a cannabis related exchange-traded fund (ETF), trading on the Frankfurt Stock Exchange (or Deutsche Börse), the third largest stock exchange in the world and the meeting point between equities and the vast majority of institutional investment globally.

The Medical Cannabis and Wellness UCITS ETF (CBSX G) will trade on Deutsche Börse’s Xetra.

London-based ETF provider HANetf is the creator of the fund.

The idea is to create a fund with targeted exposure to the European market. And as a result, it is bound to be interesting. Especially as the companies included must go through a due diligence process that will only include equities traded on stock exchanges like the NYSE, Nasdaq and TSX.

This of course is no guarantee, particularly given the scandals of the major Canadians last year (who are listed on all or an assortment of the above).

Indeed, in the eyes of German authorities, this is not necessarily all that significant. And that in and of itself is a watchword of caution here. Namely the Deutsche Börse put the entire North American cannabis equity market under special watch two years ago and that has not changed since then. That said, with legalization now clearly in Europe, things in general look a lot different on the ground.

What will be really intriguing is when the fund (or the ones inevitably to follow) that look at the discussion from a European market perspective.

Purpose Investments, the Canadian partner involved, has over CA $8 billion in assets under management as of last month and across a range of ETFs.

Solactive, the German company which independently calculates the index, may also be unknown to North Americans in particular. In Germany, particularly Frankfurt, they have developed, since their founding in 2007, a reputation for being not only quirky, but not risk averse. In other words, decidedly “non-German,” at least by stereotype. And cannabis right now, particularly with this approach, is an inevitable development. This could, in fact, do very well. The problem, however, that is still in the room is the vastly different levels of compliance – but that too is a risk calculation that is to the people at the table, no different than certain kinds of commodities.

That alone makes this ETF intriguing simply because it will indeed be evaluated by German eyes – if not processes.

Significance

Things are clearly normalizing on both the accounting and reform front. The growth of the regulated Canadian market and the increasing focus on regulation of all kinds is only going to make things less risky for investors.

Bottom line: Good development, but won’t be the last. By far.Further, there are not many public European companies, yet. That may also change. However, for the moment, they are still a trickle (and all over the map).

What is intriguing is the timing of the fund. If not what it potentially spells for the public markets. And further the obvious research the Auslander team have done in finding the right European-based partner. Look for interesting things indeed.

This is the first real foray into Europe by anything outside a single stock offering on a European equity market.

For Germans, in particular, who are extremely risk averse, and tend to invest in other kinds of securities if not insurance to build up their pensions, the equity markets sniff a bit too much for most of “North American scam.” Far from cannabis. Yet some Germans do invest in the markets. As do other Europeans.

Bottom line: Good development, but won’t be the last. By far.

Canadian Cannabis 2.0: Going Beyond GPP

By Lindsay Glass
No Comments

One year after Canadian recreational cannabis’s historic date of October 17th, 2018, in comes Cannabis 2.0, which will see edibles containing cannabis and cannabis concentrates enter the legal recreational market. As of October 17th, 2019, there are seven classes of legal cannabis products in the marketplace, making Canada an innovative leader in this evolving industry.

The launch of cannabis edibles and concentrates into the legal market has also led to changes in the regulatory framework and the introduction of new best practices in terms of Good Production Practices (GPP). This should not come as a surprise, as these products are introducing the inclusion of cannabis and food products.

Since Oct 17th, 2019, we have seen a significant amendment to the Cannabis Regulations through the addition of sections 88.93 and 88.94, stating that holders of a license to process cannabis edibles or extracts must identify and analyze all potential hazards and have control measures in place to prevent, eliminate or reduce these hazards from occurring. Any license holder that conducts activities related to cannabis edibles, extracts or produces an ingredient used in an edible or extract must also prepare, retain, maintain and implement a preventive control plan (PCP). To indicate that cannabis edibles and extracts regulations resemble other regulated food commodities, would not be an understatement.

By having license holders establish food safety practices similar to the ones being used by federally regulated food commodities, it is allowing cannabis producers to implement a preventive approach by focusing on safety and reducing hazards in their operation.

According to the Cannabis Regulations a license holder’s PCP must include the following:

  • Identify all of the biological, chemical and physical hazards that could contaminate or could be at risk of contaminating any cannabis product or anything that could be used as an ingredient in producing a cannabis product. Once all of the hazards have been identified, you need to determine the likelihood of that hazard occurring
  • The measures to be taken to control each identified hazard. Each control measure must then describe the task involved, how the monitoring task is carried out, who will be performing the monitoring task and how often the monitoring task is carried out
  • A description of the critical control points, which are the steps in the process where a control measure is applied and is essential to eliminating a hazard. Next are the measures to be taken to monitor a critical control point
  • A description of each cannabis product produced or ingredient that will be used in a cannabis product, including extract contents, permitted & prohibited ingredients, exceptions, naturally occurring substances and uniform distribution
  • A description of corrective action procedures for every critical control point
  • A description of verification procedures

What else comes with the collaboration of these two commodities in a regulatory environment? The need for industry to adapt and move beyond the basic GPP and pharmaceutical requirements and start thinking in terms of preventative controls and food safety. By encompassing the GPP requirements, traceability, employee training and now a complete hazard analysis and preventive control plan, you have the makings of a full food safety plan. However, food safety plans can be comprehensive and difficult to manage by utilizing a manual system.

HACCPCompanies that are serious about the integration of cannabis edibles and extracts into their operations, will need to implement compliance and traceability technology that will facilitate an automated system. In return, you will streamline all monitoring processes throughout the production, packaging and storage stages of the system. This is crucial to a preventive control plan. An automated solution will also help with record keeping, document management and corrective actions, as license holders deal with failures in real time to avoid negative impacts on their products.

There are many compliance software platforms available in the industry and choosing the right one for your operation is a task in itself, as not all software platforms for the cannabis industry are created equally. Although many seed-to-sale platforms handle regulatory requirements and some document management, these platforms do not see cannabis as food products, and therefore, are leaving companies with a void in this aspect of their operation. When looking for a software platform that will encompass all of your regulatory needs, pay particular attention to systems that are designed for the food industry but have adapted to cannabis. These systems will be the most dynamic when it comes to implementing preventive control plans, handling in-depth traceability with recall plans and the ability to become completely digital.

For more information on how to automate your food safety plan for cannabis edibles and extracts, please contact Iron Apple QMS to learn about our online Cannabis QMS.

Italy Sets New Pace For Recreational Cannabis & Domestic Cultivation

By Marguerite Arnold
No Comments

The Italian Supreme Court seemed to take a page from both Israel and Thailand last year (who announced exports and reform legislation on Christmas Day 2018). In the dying days of 2019, on December 19, the court ruled in what is basically a landmark decision for not only the country but the continent, that small-scale domestic cultivation of cannabis (both of the CBD and THC kind) is legal.

Even more intriguingly, the ruling was ignored for several days in Italy before being picked up by news agencies. This in turn has apparently set off a much wider and predictable debate about the use of the plant in the country – either for medical and or recreational purposes. Many are doubtful that any legislation will pass formalizing the inevitable in the near future (one attempt has already been killed), but one can never know these days. This is an issue that perennially takes countries and politicians by surprise as populations warm quickly to the concept of medical reform.

That said, so far efforts to formalize the ruling into law have been slapped down by the center right Forza Italia Party. Further, if a right or center right coalition comes to power in Italy as widely expected, it is likely to try to overturn the court ruling legislatively which has been described at least in such circles as an “absurd verdict.”

It is important also to understand this distinction if not label and how it translates both internationally and domestically.

In Canada, reform was championed by economic liberals (who are basically centrist, globalists if not free traders) and libertarians more than any other label. However initially, reform was driven not by political campaigns but rather a national challenge to prevailing cultivation law at the supreme court. This then became the legal basis for reform legislation of both the medical and recreational kind.

In the U.S., cannabis reform is frequently championed by states’ rights advocates, who are from a European perspective, extreme right wing. Right down to opposing the federal imposition of not only civil rights but other kinds of regulatory law. Including in this space. This also includes absolute hostility to anything resembling “national” if not “single payer” federal healthcare.

The two issues obviously overlap, intersect and create many strange juxtapositions if not outright contradictions and paradoxes. And many strange bedfellows.

This disconnect of course is also what has held back a united front on passing federal reform no matter how much this has allowed recreational to now spread to 11 American states as of January 1 this year. As a result, for now and certainly for several years after the next presidential election, barring a surprise realignment of politics in the U.S., there is unlikely to be any progress on federal reform. But in the U.S., cannabis legalization is a “purple” issue. Trump, for example, still opposes any national change – although if the election is tight, look for a lot of promises from both sides.

Across the Atlantic however, what Italy’s new judicial stance on the subject means for the first time, is that there is potential for a real fight on the ground from a political grass-roots front in a socially conservative European state. This is also intriguing for another reason. Italy’s health ministry also just cancelled one of Aurora’s cultivation licenses. For all the naysayers on the significance of this development, this should not be discounted.

Kind of like a Canada or Mexico moment for the continent indeed.

Not to mention what this discussion does for the CBD discussion. Both in Italy and elsewhere.

Look Homeward Deutsch Angel

Advocates across the continent if not the UK, are of course, also watching closely. Germany in particular, tried to avoid this exact discussion three years ago, but it is unlikely that advocates at least, will let this continental victory rest. Starting with the fact that this is a debate that was firmly shut off in 2017 with the passage of the medical cannabis insurance coverage law to widespread patient frustration and huge patient issues with access ever since. Even though, in fact, Guenther Weiglein, the German patient who brought the suit, took it as far as he could legally. His right to domestic cultivation, along with the few patients who managed to avail themselves of the same right before the law changed, are no longer allowed to do so.

european union statesSo of course, beyond charging the debate in Italy, this development will also increase pressure in Germany (for starters) as well as other European countries to reconsider what so far at least has been verbotten and largely because of Germany’s lead so far.

Even in places like Holland, Denmark, Portugal, Spain and Greece, the domestic cultivation discussion has been off the table. Luxembourg, and just outside the EU, Switzerland, has not raised this prospect.

That may well change in all of these countries plus others as the clock now starts to tick down to the end of 2021.

Regardless, early predictions about the pace of change as well as the size of the markets have largely been wrong.

So, for all the intriguing possibilities, this is not a slam dunk, but certainly a strong charge down the court in the right direction.

Consumer Protection Laws & CBD Products—What You Need to Know Before Going to Market

By Jonathan C. Sandler, Alissa Gardenswartz
No Comments

By now, cannabis companies have heard that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has issued a slew of warning letters to sellers of CBD products for selling unapproved and mislabeled drugs and illegally adulterated food, as prohibited by the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act. However, companies marketing CBD products should know that making any health-related claims about their products also exposes them to liability under state and federal consumer protection laws. These laws additionally prevent CBD sellers from misrepresenting how much CBD is contained in their products, and even govern how companies communicate with their customers via text message. As the former head of consumer protection enforcement in Colorado and a lawyer routinely defending consumer protection class actions in California, we have seen firsthand how not considering these laws when developing a sales and marketing strategy can result in protracted and expensive litigation.

Consumer Protection Laws – Federal and State

Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Act provides that “unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce . . . are declared unlawful.”1 The FTC enforces this law, and has clarified that “deceptive” practices involve a material representation, omission or practice that is likely to mislead a reasonable consumer under the circumstances.In other words, a claim is deceptive if an average consumer would believe and rely on the misleading claim to buy something. With the rise of social media marketing, the FTC has also issued disclosure guidelines for companies and influencers promoting products online.3 Every state has some form of consumer protection statute that similarly prevents deceptive marketing, and is typically enforced by the state’s attorney general. Many state laws also allow for consumers to bring actions themselves.

Both the FTC and state attorneys general have used these laws for decades against companies making scientifically unsupported health claims about their products. Just this month, the FTC and the Maine attorney general filed a lawsuit against two dietary supplement companies who were claiming that their products were a “miraculous natural solution” for life-threatening diseases. According to the lawsuit, the companies violated a 2018 settlement that required them to not make any health claims about their products without first conducting at least one randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial to support the claims.4 While much of the enforcement around dietary supplements has focused on unsubstantiated health claims, other actions have been brought for improper “expert” endorsements as well as misrepresenting the amount of active ingredient contained in the supplement.5 In other words, these laws are used to police all manner of labelling and marketing of products, including those containing CBD. The FTC has already issued warning letters to CBD companies several times this year, and has stated that CBD sellers could be subject to enforcement for making unsubstantiated health claims.6

While consumer protection laws are largely focused on the content of advertisements, there are also laws that address how sellers can communicate with consumers. The Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) restricts telemarketing and the use of automated systems to contact consumers, and applies to both voice calls and text messaging. Both the FTC and state attorneys general can enforce the TCPA, and consumers can bring private TCPA actions as well. Because the TCPA allows for courts to award $500 per violation—that is, per illegal call or text—companies can face judgments into the millions of dollars.

Recent Consumer Protection Lawsuits in the Cannabis Industry

Cannabis is proving to be an attractive target for consumer protection litigation.All companies need to navigate consumer protection laws when they market their products, but class action lawyers may be pursuing cannabis companies in particular because of the products’ legal uncertainty, and because they provide opportunities for unique claims of deception. For example, a nationwide class of consumers recently filed a lawsuit in California against a CBD company that had received a warning letter from the FDA in November of this year, alleging that they would not have purchased the company’s CBD products if they knew selling the items was illegal.7 The consumers claimed violations of a variety of California and Arizona consumer protection laws, including those related to breach of warranty and unfair competition. Other lawsuits have been brought because products did not contain the amount of CBD as represented on the label, or because the product claimed to not contain THC when it did.8

Cannabis companies have been subject to TCPA class actions as well. Florida’s largest medical marijuana company has been accused of spamming customers with unwanted texts in violation of the TCPA.9 A dispensary with multiple locations in Colorado was also the subject of a TCPA class action complaint in Florida alleging that it did not obtain prior consent from consumers prior to texting them.10

Cannabis is proving to be an attractive target for consumer protection litigation. However, companies can head off lawsuits by thoroughly vetting their marketing strategies with experienced consumer protection lawyers before going to market.


References

 

  1.  15 U.S.C. Sec. 45(a)(1).
  2. See FTC Policy Statement on Deception, October 14, 1983.
  3. See Disclosures 101 for Social Media Influencers at https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/business-center/guidance/disclosures-101-social-media-influencers.
  4. See https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2019/12/ftc-state-maine-file-contempt-action-against-dietary-supplement.
  5. See FTC v. Nobetes Corp., Case No. 2:18-cv-10068 (C. D. Cal) (complaint against supplement company for using deceptive endorsements); “New York Attorney General Targets Mislabeled Herbal Supplements,” https://www.npr.org/2015/02/03/383578263/new-york-attorney-general-targets-mislabeled-herbal-supplements. (detailing the New York attorney general’s investigation of herbal supplements, and finding that they did not contain the ingredients as advertised).
  6. See https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/blogs/business-blog/2019/09/making-cbd-health-claims-careful-disseminating.
  7. Fausett et al. v. KOI CBD, LLC., Case No. 2:19-cv-10318 (C. D. Cal).
  8. Potter et al v. PotNetwork Holdings, Inc., Diamond CBD, Inc., and First Capital Venture Co., Case No. 19-cv-24017, (S. D. FL); Horn v. Medical Marijuana, Inc., Case No. 15-cv-701-FPG, (W.D.N.Y.).
  9. Jaslow v. Trulieve, Inc., Case No. 4:19-cv-RH-CAS (N.D. Fla.).
  10. Stinnett v. Hobby Farms, LLC d/b/a A Cut Above, Case No. 9:18-cv-81449-RLR (S.D. Fla.)
Radojka Barycki picture

Preparing Your Recall Strategies

By Radojka Barycki
No Comments
Radojka Barycki picture

A product recall is the removal of a defective product from the market because it can cause harm to the consumer or place the manufacturer at risk of legal action.

Although a recall is not something that companies want to be related to, preparing for it is very critical and it is an important part of crisis management.Product recalls can cost companies million dollars in profit loss and civil damages. The company senior management and employees can also face criminal action, if the investigation shows negligent acts. The company will also face loss of reputation and the trust of its customers.

Although a recall is not something that companies want to be related to, preparing for it is very critical and it is an important part of crisis management.

There are several phases when preparing a recall strategy:

Planning Phase

During the planning phase, a recall plan is developed. A recall plan is the procedure that will be followed by an appointed company’s team during an actual recall. A good recall plan will have the following components:

  • Definitions of the type of products recalls. According to federal regulations, there are three types of recalls. The company should know what type of recall they are performing to understand the risk the consumer is facing.
  • A Recall Team. The recall team is the key stakeholders that are responsible for different processes within the company. A good recall team will be multidisciplinary. A multidisciplinary team is a group of people that have different responsibilities within the manufacturing site (i.e. Receiving Manager, QA Manager, etc.) and/or outside (i.e. Legal Counsel, Public Relations, etc.) 
  • A description of the recall team member’s responsibilities must be outlined. A recall coordinator and a backup should be assigned to ensure that there is one person organizing all activities during the recall. 
  • A Communication Plan. It is important that only the appointed person that has the responsibility of external communications (i.e. media, regulators, customers, key stakeholders, etc.). In addition, there should be only one person appointed to handle all the communication within the team (internal communications.)
  • Documents to be used during the recall are:
    • Communication documents: Letters to customers, regulators and media must be drafted and kept on hand for use during the crisis.
    • Forms that will be used to keep track of product inventory on hand (still in the site), product being returned and product being destroyed.
  • A Traceability Procedure should be in place to ensure that materials used in the manufacturing of the finished good can be traced from the time of the delivery to the facility and throughout the product manufacturing process. In addition, traceability must also be provided for finished goods from the manufacturing site to its first point of distribution. This is known as traceability one step back (materials used) and one step forward (first point of distribution.)

    PlantTag
    A plant tagged with a barcode and date for tracking
  • A description of (or reference to) product quarantine (product hold) procedures that must be followed to ensure that the product that is still at the site do not leave the facility. 
  • Product Destruction The company must outline (or reference) how product will be destroyed during a recall process.

Implementation Phase

There are three processes that need to be followed when implementing the recall plan:

  • Training: The recall team must be trained on their roles and responsibilities. Employees working at the site will be receiving directives from the appointed recall team members. It is also important that they are aware about the recall plan and understand the importance of urgency during the situation.
  • Exercise: It is important that the company doesn’t wait until the incident occurs to ensure that everyone in the team understands their roles and responsibilities during the recall. Therefore, annual testing of the procedure is imperative. This implies creating a “mock recall” situation and providing the information to the team to evaluate if they fully understand their role and responsibilities. This also allows the testing of the traceability protocols and systems that have been put in place by the site. Ensure that the team understands that this is an exercise and not an actual recall. You don’t want the team members going through the emotions that an actual recall gives. However, stress the importance of their participation during this exercise. You do not communicate to customers, media or regulators during a recall exercise. 
  • Execution: This is the actual recall and full implementation of the plan. During the actual recall, you communicate to the regulators, customers and media. The company must also conduct daily recall effectiveness checks by using the forms developed for tracking product inventory, recovery and destruction. 
  • Identify root cause and implement corrective actions. Root cause(s) will be identified during the recall process by analyzing the information resulting from the investigation of the incident. Regulatory agencies will actively participate in the discussion for identifying in the implementation of corrective actions. 

Improvement Phase

The recall team should always meet after the recall exercise or the actual recall incident. The team must evaluate what positive or negative outcomes resulted from the process. If there are gaps identified, these need to be closed, so the process is improved.

Banking Rights in the Hemp Industry

By Jonathan Miller
2 Comments

The hemp industry has experienced and continues to see a surge of growth and awareness nationwide. Following the passage of the 2018 Farm Bill, permanently legalizing the crop and removing hemp from its classification as a controlled substance, consumer demand for hemp and hemp products like CBD have skyrocketed.

Unfortunately, there remain many challenges. Confusion about hemp’s legal status – and the differences between hemp and its intoxicating cousin, marijuana – has too often stymied commerce in the industry, particularly with traditional banking products and merchant services being limited in their availability to those trying to grow their businesses.

This month, we witnessed a breakthrough development. Upon the bipartisan urging of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Senator Ron Wyden, four federal banking regulatory agencies – Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the Federal Reserve, Financial Crimes Enforcement Network – joined by the Conference of State Bank Supervisors – issued joint guidance confirming the legal status of hemp and the requirements for banks providing financial services to businesses.

Just some of the many CBD products on the market today.

The new guidance achieves many necessary benchmarks integrating hemp and banking, such as no longer requiring banks to file suspicious activity reports for customers solely because they are engaged in the growth or cultivation of hemp in accordance with applicable laws and regulations. Further, the guidance clarifies the difference between hemp businesses and marijuana businesses – adding yet another point of relief to banks concerned with national and state legality.

The hope is that the joint guidance should alleviate any fear of audits or regulatory crackdowns that have slowed financial institution integration with the hemp industry. However, this does not require banks or financial entities to participate in business with hemp companies. Nor does this guidance directly address the legality of hemp-derived CBD commerce.

With all of this in mind, there is still work to be done. Priority #1 is passage of the SAFE Banking Act. This bipartisan legislation, initially focused on providing a green light to marijuana banking in states where pot is legal, was amended to ensure a separate safe harbor for hemp, with far fewer hoops since it is not a controlled substance. It also directs federal financial agencies to provide clear guidance to both banks and other financial institutions – such as credit card companies – that hemp and CBD commerce are legal. The bill was passed overwhelmingly by the House in September and we are hopeful to see full Senate consideration soon.

Banking is one of the key targets that the hemp industry is aiming to secure, as this will allow for an increase in legal hemp business growth and practices. The goal of the U.S. Hemp Roundtable is to provide consumers with safe and legal hemp products along with the knowledge that the companies are meeting the highest standards and complying with national and state law.

Top International Cannabis News Stories of 2019

By Marguerite Arnold
No Comments

Cannabis as a news story and an industry moved forward again this year, albeit in a rather more halting way than the last few. The volatility of the market in fact was one of the largest stories of the year, particularly after the events of this summer.

It’s Been A Wild Ride Kind Of Year

This time last year, the world was in a tizzy over the literally billions of bucks invested into a few top Canadian cannabis companies. This year, predictions are definitely a little more sober when it comes to the future of cannabis stocks. Most of the industry has taken a major beating this fall.

That said, the current correction was in the cards for just as long. What goes up, dramatically, must come down.

That said, this is not the whole picture of the industry – not by a long shot. Reform ain’t going back. Patient numbers are climbing, albeit slowly.

Here in Europe, the first and so far biggest public tender on cannabis was finally concluded in Germany with Aurora, Aphria and the cannabis company formerly known as Wayland (ICC) winning the bid lots for domestic cultivation this spring.

The British, who waffled around all year on what kind of “animal” cannabis actually is, celebrated that anniversary late in the year with a highly limited scope of coverage by the NHS.

And Luxembourg threw down the gauntlet on “recreational” within an aggressive timeframe (by 2022) and tripling its medical cannabis training budget for doctors next year.

International Cannabis Is Growing Like…A Weed

The most interesting discussions right now are clearly emerging on the international front. Cannabis became an internationally mainstreaming commodity this year as patient numbers began to climb on the continent.

Canopy_Growth_Corporation_logoThis in turn has led to the normalization of the idea at least of an export trade in cannabis not only across Europe but globally as companies target the region. Cross border cannabis companies, in other words, are a “thing” that blossomed this year – and frequently, while sometimes financed by Canadians, called another country home.

The announcement of at least the first German wholesale reference price this year will also do wonders to start to normalize prices across not only the EU but all those hoping to export here.

That in turn will have global impact.

Regulation Is Beginning to Materialize

For those who thought that higher standards were a passing fad, the events of this year, particularly of the latter half of it have confirmed one thing for sure: Regulatory muster is here to stay.

GMPTo add to the general confusion, however, international standards on medical products and even food are absolutely in the mix as countries find that standards, measurements and production processes might be similar, but on the ground, still differ. Harmonization is a word many in the cannabis industry are hearing now, and not just in the medical space, but also the food and supplements market.

The initials “GMP” are on the lips of many this year. Not to mention another exciting development the cannabis industry from abroad did not see coming and still broadly does not understand – namely Novel Food.

The War For Reform Is Being Fought On Several Fronts

Inevitably, just as in the United States, the fights in the room right now as well as legislative gridlock are focusing on some strange nitty gritty. For example, cannabidiol (CBD) is just one cannabinoid from the plant. It is a chemical substance. Yet, suddenly, in Europe, this discussion is being bogged down in pseudo-scientific discussions in the name of public policy about whether CBD is a “new kind” of food.

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

Ultimately this is a discussion about regulation – whether CBD and hemp production should be regulated differently than they are right now – and whether the plant should be put in a different bucket than, say, tomatoes. Or when extracted, tomato juice.

GMP is also a very strange discussion which has still not exited the stage – mostly because of the lack of uniformity internationally between Canada and European states although that is moving in the right direction.

The last issue of course, which has been looming from the Canadian side for several years, including of course all the pesticide scandals, new regulations on the cultivation of all plants for human consumption. Even German farmers are up in arms (with a recent tractor protest in Berlin that paralyzed the city).

Cannabis is in the bullseye on all fronts.

Auld Lang Syne

If there was a theme to the industry as of this summer, it was clearly that things cannot continue as they have. The CannTrust Scandal absolutely encapsulated all that is wrong with the industry.

That said, there is every reason to believe that the most egregious scandals (or at least quite so many of them) are a passing fad. Indeed, many in the industry are in fact committed to turning over a new leaf (for the new year or just because).

The good news? There is every sign of course that it will.