Tag Archives: hemp

By David C. Kotler, Esq.

Let’s talk about cannabidiol, CBD, a non-psychoactive component of cannabis. Let’s not talk about CBD from the whole plant. This is a conversation about the proliferation of hemp-based CBD marketed everywhere from gas stations to specialty health and wellness stores. Heck, “its legal in all 50 states”, right?

On the Federal Level, pursuant to Title 21 USC 802 Section (16) The term “marijuana” means 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. The term does not include the mature stalks of such plant, fiber produced from such stalks, oil or cake made from the seeds of such plant, any other compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of such mature stalks (except the resin extracted therefrom), fiber, oil, or cake, or the sterilized seed of such plant which is incapable of germination.

Proponents of the position that hemp-derived CBD is legal point to the lack of a specific definition under the above description (often asserting that their oil is not processed from the flower) and the Ninth Circuit’s opinion in Hemp Indus. Ass’n v DEA, 333 F.3d 1082 (9^th Cir. 2003). They buttress their belief by citing the DEA’s clarification of hemp in the Federal Register released in October 2001 and the 2013 Farm Bills’ adoption of the following definition of industrial hemp (adopted from plant scientists research in the 70’s: “The term ‘industrial hemp’ means the plant, cannabis sativa L. and any part of such plant, whether growing or not, with a delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol H. R. 2642—265 concentration of not more than 0.3 percent on a dry weight basis.” Much of the foregoing has been extended to even support opinions that hemp-derived CBD from domestic sources under the 2013 Farm Bill is legal for distribution nationwide.

Opponents of the hemp-derived CBD is legal argument (putting aside the issues with imported hemp and contaminants, etc.) point to the exception in the definition of “marijuana” i.e. to actually get a workable form of CBD from hemp, the preparation of the stalk puts you into the resin category which is excepted from the terms that are specifically not included in “marijuana.” In regard to HIA v. DEA cited above, opponents posit that the court decision, never mentions CBD, and the HIA maintain that this ruling did not legalize CBD.

In February 2015 and again in February 2016 the FDA issued warning letters to CBD companies. The overall context of the letters dealt with mislabeling and improper claims in addition to the most recent round of letters addressing CBD products’ exclusion from the dietary supplement definition under the FD&C act and how that is affected by CBD’s consideration as a new drug in one or more new drug applications. What has not been addressed or asserted by the FDA is the legal status of CBD under the Controlled Substances Act.

Although I have seen many commentators and attorneys opine on the legality as the case may be of hemp-derived CBD and its ability to be shipped to and sold in all 50 states (often with a caveat that readers should consult them for further advice), I have never seen the issue addressed from a practitioner that deals with the United States Patent and Trademark Office. I am not that practitioner. However, I do represent a company that has recently made application. I, not being a trademark attorney, but being sensitive to the federal government’s position collectively on CBD, found the examiner’s questions in her Office Action Letter surrounding CBD to be quite interesting. They were as follows:

Do applicant’s identified goods contain marijuana, marijuana based preparations, or marijuana extracts or derivatives, synthetic marijuana, or any other illegal controlled substances?
If the applicant’s goods contain Cannabidiol (CBD), is this derived from marijuana or from industrial hemp?
Are the applicant’s goods lawful pursuant to the Controlled Substances Act?

I searched for another application and Office Action Letter from 2016 for another CBD product (both were vaporizer products rather than the lotions, balms, etc. that have been the subject of other applications). The questions to that applicant mirrored those above.

What I take from the questions that trademark examiners are asking is that perhaps the debate raging in academic and legal circles is for naught. It looks like at least the USPTO has resigned itself to there being a difference between cannabis or whole plant and hemp-based CBD in terms of definition and proscription under the federal controlled substances act.

So we have come full circle in my question, ‘Is it legal in all fifty states?’ If you answer yes to that question then please provide me the definition of marijuana/cannabis from the Controlled Substance Act from each of the fifty states individually and a copy of the documentation from a source showing how the industrial hemp was grown and processed and verifiable lab reports of the particular product’s contents.

February 1, 2016

Reasons for Hemp Production: The Need for Sustainable Paper Production

By Tyler Dautrich

No Comments

Currently in the United States, there are 27 states that have removed barriers to the production of industrial hemp. Not all of those states have actual licenses in place that would allow farmers to do that. In Pennsylvania, a bill to legalize industrial hemp (SB 50), sits in the house awaiting a final vote.

For those less familiar with the hemp plant, it has been labeled a miracle crop that can produce such products as paper, plastic, fuel, food, clothes and rope to name a few. Almost all of these products can be produced by hemp in a more sustainable and environmental friendly way than they are currently being produced. For this column, I will focus on paper.

Currently the world consumes around 300 million tons of paper each year and 30% of that is consumed in the US alone. A majority of this paper is created via paper mills that cut down trees, applying different chemicals to create a paper pulp.

We have cut down an estimated 4 billion trees around the world to supply the paper industry on every continent. As we continue, just remember that one tree, creates enough oxygen for three people to breathe.

Each year millions of pounds of highly toxic chemicals such as toluene, methanol, chlorine, dioxide, hydrochloric acid and formaldehyde are released into the air and water from papermaking plants around the world, making the industry the 3^rd largest industrial polluter of air, water and soil. After the paper is made, sold, and used it ends up in landfills where it decomposes, and releases methane gas, a gas that’s 25 times more toxic than carbon dioxide. The paper industry is also one of the world’s largest consumers of water. It takes 324 liters of water to make 1 kilogram of paper.

An extreme cost to the world for something as simple as a piece of paper. Hemp is a much better solution. While trees take an average of 25 to 30 years to be ready for paper products, hemp regenerates in months. Hemp paper can be recycled up to seven times, while regular paper is recyclable three times. Most importantly, hemp paper does not need to be bleached with chlorine, and is naturally acid-free. A much cleaner and more environmentally sustainable solution.

It is hard to ignore such wasteful processes, particularly when there is a much more sustainable and sensible method that yields the same results. As states begin to allow the production of industrial hemp back into the economy, it creates the opportunity for us to reverse the damage that we have done to this planet.

Imagine, walking into your office one day and seeing all of your documents printed on hemp paper. What do you think? Should we go back to using hemp paper?

October 28, 2015

BEST Extractions

Defining BEST Extraction

By John A. Mackay, Ph. D.

No Comments

Over the next few months, I would like to walk through a series of articles to cover the number of ways to extract potentially pharmaceutically active compounds from cannabis plants. However, in the first article I would like to review concerns being addressed in state regulations: contamination in concentrates with pesticides, mycotoxins, and residual solvents. The next article will cover the most common extraction with two different modes: CO2 versus hydrocarbons.

Currently, there is a lot of focus on the cannabis strain of hemp. This is defined as having less than 0.3% of THC, (the psychoactive compound). To be clear, the science of extraction is eons old, but the current revitalization is due to new scientific inquiry regarding the applications of the cannabis plant.

I am often asked, “What is the ‘best’ extraction for a natural product?” The BEST extraction? The key to this answer is that you must assume unintended consequences until you can prove that they are at least minimized compared to the intended consequences.

I have a suggestion for you to consider and I look forward to your response to it. I also assume the right to adapt and revise it.

Botanical integrity from seed to shelf

Efficacy of the process beyond efficiency, economics, effectiveness

Safety of people and product

Testing for confirmation at each step of process

The hemp industry has changed significantly over the past few years. Just casually flipping through the channels on television, reading a newspaper or magazine, (on any topic – news, business, sports, food and science) and there is some facet of hemp’s value being examined. The reduction of traditional pulmonary intake (smoking) in the legal marketplace can be tracked by sales of these products in the states where it is legal. The balance of ingestion is drastically tipping toward what might still be considered smoking with vaporizer products as well as toward edible consumables. The ingredients in these products come not from just adding the plant to the formulation, but rather a concentrated mixture. This is the difference between adding a raw vanilla and a teaspoon of vanilla extract. The compound getting the most coverage is cannabidiol (CBD), which is the compound derived from cannabidiolic acid (CBDA). The effects of the other compounds in the plant are being studied as well.

Unintended consequences from the concentration – extraction – are something we need to consider seriously as consumers. The labeled use of “natural” is one that is critical, but can be totally nullified by the unintended contamination in the extraction workflow. Years of making sure the hemp adheres to strict growing environment can be destroyed in seconds with the addition of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH’s) by the use of solvent that has these toxic chemicals in them. These come not through intended consequences, but not knowing the stabilizers and other additives in material being added to these previously pure plants.

What if I pour sour milk on a natural granola for breakfast? What if I use water with high lead or contaminated water to pour over natural coffee grind? Not a great way to start the day, but it is no different than using the most premium hemp and unknowingly adding low grade solvents or adding components from cleaning the surfaces of instruments that come in contact with hemp.

Note that, by definition, we are concentrating the material from the hemp plant. From 4,000 grams, we are getting 400 grams of CBDA if it is 10% by weight (and later converted to CBD). That compound is 10 times more concentrated in a solution. What other compounds are now also 10 times or 5 times or 100 times more concentrated? Maybe no “bad” ones, but how do you know that something else is not also in the mixture?

figure1 extract — Figure 1. With each step of concentration of the green balls, so it could be with other components in the mixture.

This is illustrated in the filtering of green balls in Figure 1. As the green balls become a greater and greater percentage of the solution, it is possible that other compounds like pesticides are also increasing in percentage of the extraction solution. The solution is more concentrated and “simpler” versus all of the other things in the original mixture.

The simple answer is in the testing of the components. The labeling of major compounds is only the beginning of what is on the label that you read. Heavy metals? PAH’s? Residual solvents? Pesticides? Molds? And a long list of other material that could come into the process after the plant left its pristine organic farm. Many studies can be read about slip agents in bags, contamination from workers in the workflow, and other sources of inconsistency.

There are a significant number of companies that I have seen that take this very seriously. New companies are being formed that have safety of product at the top of the list of importance. They are building facilities that are sterile and putting standard operating procedures in place that continually test the product along every step to ensure that they are in compliance.

ecxtractionfig2 — Figure 2. Science and economics merge when considering all the possible uses of concentrated compounds to final product formulations

Supercritical fluid extraction is GRAS (generally regarded as safe). It is, only as long as the solvent specifications are known, the vendor meets those standards, and the instrument surfaces meet any necessary standards.

Supercritical carbon dioxide is used to clean surfaces of electronics and bones for skin grafts. It is used for the decaffeination of coffee as well as pulling trace amounts of pesticides from soil. It is used to extract antioxidants from krill and the active ingredients from algae as well as oil from core samples deep below the earth. It also extracts the terpenes and CBDA from hemp – as well as possibly anything that has been added to it.

The key take away from this article is to know the BEST extraction.

Botanical integrity from seed to shelf

Efficacy of the process beyond efficiency, economics, effectiveness

Safety of people and product

Testing for confirmation

Taking each of these into consideration will bring the best results for concentrations of hemp products. I hope you can extract the best from your day.

August 3, 2015

Hemp-Infused Beverages: FDA Compliance and the Cannabis Industry

By Aaron G. Biros

No Comments

With cannabis-infused edibles gaining a bigger market share in 2014 (See the marijuana edibles regulatory update here), it comes as no surprise that cannabis-infused beverages are growing in popularity. Some of these beverage manufacturers operate in a very interesting legal environment because of the differentiation between compounds found in hemp and marijuana, two different varieties of cannabis.

“Under federal legislation, there is an exemption for hemp and as long as we process our CBD (Cannabidiol) molecules from the hemp plant, we are allowed to sell our products federally,” says Chris Bunka, CEO of Lexaria, a company that makes a hemp-infused tea.

A number of scientific research studies have suggested that the compound CBD has medical properties that can help mitigate symptoms like inflammation, anxiety, chronic pain, and much more.

Because of the federal exemption for hemp, Lexaria can enjoy interstate commerce and other freedoms that manufacturers using marijuana flowers do not, such as access to banking services. Dried marijuana flowers contain the psychoactive compound, Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC). This compound is responsible for the regulatory and legal schism between the states that have legalized marijuana and the federal government, which still considers it to be a Schedule I narcotic.

Much unlike a number of marijuana edibles manufacturers operating in states where marijuana is currently legal, hemp-infused beverage manufacturers operate in full FDA compliance.

Michael Christopher, founder of Loft Tea, is working with a laboratory and bottler that are both 100% FDA compliant. “We definitely operate up to and abide by all FDA best practices with our laboratory and as far as producing and handling material we use best manufacturing practices and processes,” says Christopher.

“We have to partner with a bottler and laboratory who have the reputation to build trust with our brand as an industry leader in safety and quality,” says Christopher. “Until the FDA gives us complete guidelines on cannabis-infused products, we will continue to operate above and beyond best manufacturing practices with our infusions.”

Because these manufacturers view their hemp tea as a health and wellness product, it is only a matter of time before we see these types of products lining the shelves of health-food stores nationally. However, before this happens, an FDA regulatory framework specific to hemp-infused products is needed to address this growing industry.

“The hemp infusion industry has a lot of opportunity when presented in the right framework,” Christopher says. “There is still education needed in the marketplace to get it to the point where it will be on the shelves in stores like Whole Foods.”

Until that time comes, expect to see a steady growth of interest and inquiry from consumers, manufacturers, and regulators alike in the cannabis industry, whether federally legal or not.