Tag Archives: legalization

UKflag

How Much Cannabis Astroturfing Is Afoot In The UK?

By Marguerite Arnold
No Comments
UKflag

Astroturfing is the practice, in political messaging and campaigns, of creating what seems to be a legitimate, grassroots inspired campaign that is actually bought and paid for by an industry lobby or other corporate interests.

It is also clear that this practice is now entering the cannabis space, certainly in the UK.

How and Where?

On August 1, the British Conservative Drug Policy Reform Group sent out a group email entitled “Strategic litigation on medical cannabis access in the UK.” The email, from the group’s senior communications manager, was to announce the kick-off of a crowdfunding campaign to defend a cannabis patient.

It’s beneficiary? A British female MS patient, Lezley Gibson, now facing prosecution for growing her own cannabis after being unable to afford what was on offer at her local pharmacy.

Here is the first flag: MS is the only condition for which Sativex (manufactured by British firm GW Pharma) is prescribed on label (in other words without special approvals).

The problem is that the NHS (along with most of the German statutory approvers) feels that Sativex is still too expensive and not effective enough. And that problem won’t be solved with either patient home grow access or a lawsuit to gain that right, but rather funded trials.

UKflagHowever, more disturbingly, the email referenced the supposed success of a similar legal tactic in Germany several years ago. This is to say it used a highly inaccurate analogy. In Germany, a male chronic pain patient sued the government for the right to grow his own cannabis. He won the right temporarily, but this was taken away from him after the law changed in March 2017. Now he, like every other cannabis patient in Germany, must get his cannabis from a pharmacy. German patients also must get their initial prescription approved by health insurers – which is for everyone – but particularly non MS patients – the biggest fight in the room right now on the topic of medical efficacy.

Further, the right to grow one’s own medical cannabis, no matter the condition suffered, has been removed from patients in every legal jurisdiction where there is no constitutional right to it first – namely patients sue for the same.

As such, it is entirely conceivable that as a “strategic” case, this is more likely to put pressure on the NHS to pay the sky-high price of Sativex for MS patients (which it has already refused to do) than create any other kind of access for anyone else.

When contacted by Cannabis Industry Journal, a CDPRG spokesperson said that the patient had given her support for the crowdfunding campaign and needed help.

piechart
Most German Patients Are Still Only Getting Dronabinol

However, there are other issues here. Namely that when selecting a strategic case (no matter how harsh this sounds to the individual patient), the entire discussion at this point – certainly from an efficacy point of view, might be better served with supporting the case of a patient who has less access because of either physical condition or economic status.

In fact, in Germany so far, thanks to the change in the law that the British group references, while there certainly are tens of thousands of cannabis patients at the moment (including many MS patients), the majority of them receive Dronabinol or Sativex. And all of them have to fight for medical access and approval from their insurers. That is of course, when they can find a doctor to prescribe in the first place. There are also estimates that there are close to a million patients in Germany who cannot get access, thanks to the change in the law created by one patient’s law suit.

Is this flavour of litigatious advocacy now afoot in the UK, in other words, the kind of lawsuit that is designed to benefit the industry more than patients looking for affordable, home-grown, if regulated product?

Astroturfing Cannabis Issues Under Brexit Colors?

No matter the real versus stated intent of the instigators of the Gibson case, or the eventual outcome of such litigation, there is no doubt that cannabis is being brought into larger political debates. And further, no surprise, “patient access” is an issue just as ripe for “issue manipulation” and astroturfing as anything else.

“Strategic” if not “crowdfunded” cause or tactical lawsuits are another form of this technique.

That foreign cannabis money is already in the room is also no surprise. The British press was alight with stories during June of the amount of money contributed to the CDPR Group from Canadian sources.

Seen within the context of Brexit itself, this is disturbing locally.There are other issues involved in this kind of challenge to the law.

Not to mention the fact that in May, none other than Arron Banks, the self-styled backer of the Leave Campaign, decided, suddenly, to throw his hat into the CBD oil ring on Twitter. Not to mention repeated the same information repeatedly, including his $4 million investment into the space during the following months so far. Plus, of course, wildly optimistic valuations of the U.S. market.

Suing For Patient Justice Or A Backdoor For Canadian and Other Corporate Interests?

There are other issues involved in this kind of challenge to the law.

The first is that in the British case this is actually not a constitutional case per se, but a human rights one. See the problems that those who are trying to define the British constitution right now on other matters (see Brexit) are running into.

The second is that while the patient in question in this case (Ms. Gibson) is undoubtedly relieved at the prospect of a legal defence for growing her own medication in the face of insurmountable cost, on the “positive” side, her case is unlikely to do much more than make impoverished patients fight NHS paperwork if they can find a doctor. See Germany, as a prime example.This lawsuit, in other words, no matter how it might get one woman out of a terrible legal situation, is not necessarily “pro-patient.”

But what it will do is something else. It may well remove the current widespread prohibition on the harvesting of cannabis flower in the UK. And while patients would face again being moved into the slow lane of NHS approvals (with lots of fights over efficacy looming and still unsolved), corporate growers and processors if not importers, already investing millions into such efforts across the UK and Ireland, benefit.

At the exclusion, also, as has been the case in Germany, of local producers who are not already large corporate interests or existing farms.

This lawsuit, in other words, no matter how it might get one woman out of a terrible legal situation, is not necessarily “pro-patient.” It also may well do everything to frustrate, slow down and further complicate medical access for those at the end of the chain, while only opening up “investment opportunities” for large companies and well-heeled interests who have nothing but profit, if not the destruction of the NHS in mind.

Luxembourg Announces Plans For Two Year Transition To Recreational Use

By Marguerite Arnold
No Comments

For those who have been watching, Luxembourg has played an inordinately influential role on the entire cannabis discussion in Europe for the past year.

This summer, the country announced that it had plans to implement recreational use (for residents only) within two years.

Last summer, the country not only changed its medical use policy as the Deutsche Börse tried to halt the clearances of cannabis trades made in Germany (Luxembourg is the place where the stock trades clear), but set a five-year mandate and timeframe as well.

This new announcement certainly is an attempt to signal at any rate, that the government is not going to run out the clock. But, realistically, with the extra six months already in front of the start date necessary to enshrine the legislation, plus whatever complications arise after that, Luxembourg could initiate its market on January 1, 2022.

Or, as is more likely, it could not. Including rolling delays caused by everything from EU objection and internal logistical hurdles of other kinds to lack of access to product.

Refom Redux?

Will Luxembourg be the “Colorado of Europe?” Probably not.

Will Luxembourg “be the next Canada?” Probably not either. However it is also worth noting that legislators and lawmakers from Luxembourg have drawn recent inspiration via numerous fact finding trips to Canada of late.

It is also worth remembering that even Canada’s great, green, “well-oiled” cannabis machine delayed its recreational market start by months last year. And that was a scenario already a generation in the making.

Further, as some would argue this summer, certainly post CannTrust, the relative “speed” with which Canada embraced its recreational market is again being criticized for not only being precipitous but a direct cause of problems in financial compliance and tracking.

The lack of regulatory muster, in other words, that even allowed a CannTrust to happen, will not fly in Europe. Certainly not in a country where regulations, including that of the European kind, are decided upon (the other center of EU regmaking is of course Brussels).

For that reason, no matter how exciting the news to an industry fighting an uphill battle on medical efficacy, there is plenty of room to temper enthusiasm.

Luxembourg is not going to be “just like” anywhere seen so far. The needle has moved. And the conversation is morphing if not moving on.

One of the most intriguing aspects of all of this, of course, is how insurers will treat the entire discussion.

Holland Round 2?

Here is what Luxembourg also won’t be. A new tourist mecca for out of towners. At least according to the current discussion. How the government will prevent that, is of course unclear. The same grey areas exist in the law behind Barcelona’s social clubs. The Dutch have tried for most of this decade to discourage this – and have largely failed.

What it very well might be, however, is a catalyst for change.  A before and after moment if you will.

european union statesThe Swiss are moving ahead with recreational and medical trials. The British, whatever their relationship with the world after Halloween, are too.

Luxembourg, whatever it ends up being, in other words, is well timed, if nothing else, to be a reference point if not conversation starter about real reform.

Including of course, medical impact, if not, beyond that, efficacy.

Here is where Luxembourg might in fact, be much closer to the Dutch experiment than any other place. Despite the fact the country has had a coffee shop culture for over 30 years, and Dutch medical cannabis is exported to countries all over the world, here is what is missing in Holland: Medical health insurance coverage for patients. In fact, Dutch insurers, en masse, stopped reimbursing the drug as soon as Germany changed its insurance rules in March 2017.

If that is on the agenda for Luxembourg, in other words, no matter how exciting a timeline for recreational is anywhere in Europe, this will be a pyrrhic victory indeed.

Who’s Afraid of Biotech Institute LLC?

By Brett Schuman, Daniel Mello, Nicholas Costanza, Olivia Uitto
No Comments

While cannabis patenting activity is still in its infancy, relatively speaking, a lot has been written already about the cannabis patenting activity of an entity called Biotech Institute LLC (BI) of Westlake Village, California.1 BI is building a sizable portfolio of utility and plant patents covering various aspects of the cannabis plant. According to some commentators, BI’s patents have “many in the cannabis industry concerned.”2

But how concerned should members of the cannabis industry really be about BI’s patents? Generally, patents are susceptible to numerous challenges in multiple fora. From 2012-2016, approximately 80% of challenged patents were invalidated by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) each year.3 The PTAB was created in 2011 by the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, 35 U.S.C. § 6, to create a process for eliminating improvidently issued patents. And the statistics suggest that the process may be working as intended by Congress.

BI may be building its portfolio by taking advantage of some unique challenges in the cannabis patenting area. First, even though cannabis has been cultivated and consumed by humans for thousands of years, there is a relative lack of published prior art available to patentees and patent examiners examining patent applications.4 Second, patent examiners are not as familiar with cannabis patent applications as they may be with other types of patent applications.

So, we examined carefully BI’s earliest and arguably broadest utility patent, U.S. Patent No. 9,095,554, and concluded that maybe the cannabis industry need not be so concerned about this and some of BI’s other utility patents. Although the ’554 patent is lengthy – 247 columns of text and over an inch thick when printed in hardcopy – there appears to be little if any novelty to the claimed invention. Alternatively, the patent appears to be obvious in light of the available prior art.

In a patent, the claims define the metes and bounds of the patentee’s intellectual property. Claim 1 of the ’554 patent recites:

  1. A hybrid cannabis plant, or an asexual clone of said hybrid cannabis plant, or a plant part, tissue, or cell thereof, which produces a female inflorescence, said inflorescence comprising:
  1. a BT/BD genotype;
  2. a terpene profile in which myrcene is not the dominant terpene;
  3. a terpene oil content greater than about 1.0% by weight; and
  4. a CBD content greater than 3%;
  5. wherein the terpene profile is defined as terpinolene, alpha phelladrene, beta ocimene, careen, limonene, gamma terpinene, alpha pinene, alpha terpinene, beta pinene, fenchol, camphene, alpha terpineol, alpha humulene, beta caryophyllene, linalool, cary oxide, and myrcene, and wherein the terpene oil content is determined by the additive content of the terpenes in the terpene profile; and wherein the terpene contents and CBD content are measured by gas chromatography-flame ionization detection (GC-FID) and calculated based on dry weight of the inflorescence; wherein a representative sample of seed producing said plants has been deposited under NCIMB Nos. 42246, 42247, 42248, 42249, 42250, and 42254.

While claim elements define the metes and bounds of the invention, typically only certain claim elements are intended to distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. Other claim elements merely help to describe the invention. For example, the preamble in the ‘554 patent, or the part of the claim before subpart (a), describes the flowering part of the cannabis plant. This is not intended to describe anything novel about the claimed invention, but rather it simply describes the part of the cannabis plant that is relevant to the invention.

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

Before the priority date of the ’554 patent, it was known in the prior art that BT/Bgenotypes produce nearly equal amounts of THC and CBD (both are dominant; one is not recessive).5 Thus, it is not unexpected to have a CBD content greater than 3% in a genotype that can produce large amounts of CBD (known references state as high as 21% in CBD-dominant strains and 3%-15% in BT/Bgenotypes).6 Further, it was known in the prior art that terpenes generally constitute more than 1.0% percent by weight (usually between 2-4%) of the flower.7

As these databases continue to grow and studies of cannabis are publicly disclosed, cannabis patents like BI’s ’554 patent will become more and more susceptible to patent challenges and invalidation.Claim element (b), reciting a terpene profile in which myrcene is not the dominant terpene, appears to be one of – if not the only – claimed element of novelty of the BI invention. Terpenes are aromatic compounds produced in plants, and the cannabis plant has more than 100 different terpenes. Claim element (e) simply lists the most abundant terpenes in the cannabis plant. A majority of cannabis strains express high levels of myrcene; however, there are known prior art strains that express high levels of other terpenes, such as caryophyllene, limonene, pinene, etc. Additionally, it is well known in the art that terpenes have different therapeutic effects. For example, pinene and linalool are known to have antidepressant activity.8 Thus, a prior disclosure of a BT/Bgenotype that has a terpene profile where myrcene is not the dominate terpene very likely invalidates this claim. And even assuming there is any novelty to a high-CBD strain where myrcene is not the dominant terpene, there is a motivation to breed for a dominant terpene besides myrcene.

Because cannabis has been and remains a Schedule I drug under the Controlled Substances Act, previously known and used strains generally have not been chemically characterized, studied, researched, and the subject of publications that can be used as prior art for purposes of challenging cannabis patents. But that is changing. For example, the Open Cannabis Project (OCP) attempted to characterize and publish chemical details of cannabis plants. Even though OCP closed as of May 31, 2019, is database is still publicly available. Another example is CANNA, a non-profit initiative of the CANNA Espana Fertilizantes SL company, which carries out studies and conducts research on cannabis and its active compounds.9 In one study,10 CANNA found that some strains have terpene profiles where myrcene is not the dominant terpene, which could be relevant to a novelty-based or obviousness challenge to claim 1 of the ‘554 patent. As these databases continue to grow and studies of cannabis are publicly disclosed, cannabis patents like BI’s ’554 patent will become more and more susceptible to patent challenges and invalidation.


References

  1. See, e.g.,Amanda Chicago Lewis, The Great Pot Monopoly Mystery, GQ (August 23, 2017), https://www.gq.com/story/the-great-pot-monopoly-mystery;  Brian Wroblewski, Utility Patents on Marijuana? Who is BioTech Institute LLC?, The National Marijuana News, https://thenationalmarijuananews.com/utility-patents-marijuana-biotech-institute-llc/; Eric Sandy, Biotech Institute Has Applied for Patents on 8 Individual Cannabis Cultivars, Cannabis Business Times(June 24, 2019), https://www.cannabisbusinesstimes.com/article/biotech-institute-cannabis-patent-applications/.
  2. Nicole Grimm, George Lyons III, and Brett Scott, Biotech Institute’s Growing Patent Portfolio — U.S. Patent No. 9,095,554 and the Path Forward, JD Supra (November 17, 2017), https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/biotech-institute-s-growing-patent-17433/.
  3. World Intellectual Property Organization, An overview of patent litigation systems across jurisdictions,World Intellectual Property Indicators 2018, https://www.wipo.int/edocs/pubdocs/en/wipo_pub_941_2018-chapter1.pdf.
  4. Brett Schuman et al., Emerging Patent Issues In The Cannabis Industry, Law360(February 20, 2018), https://www.goodwinlaw.com/-/media/files/publications/emerging-patent-issues-in-the-cannabis-industry.pdf.
  5. Chandra, et al. Cannabis sativa L. – Botany and Biotechnology, pages 142-144, Springer, 2017 (citing de Meijer, Genetics163: 225-346 (2003)). See alsoMolecular Breeding (2006) 17:257-268, doi/10.1007/s11032-005-5681-x. 
  6. American Journal of Botany 91(6): 966:975 (2004). doi.org/10.3732/ajb.91.6.966; See e.g., Jikomes, Peak THC: The Limits on THC and CBD Levels for Cannabis Strainshttps://www.leafly.com/news/science-tech/peak-thc-cbd-levels-for-cannabis-strains.
  7. PLoS One. 2017; 12(3): e0173911. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0173911.  See also, Fischedick J. T., Hazekamp A., Erkelens T., Choi Y. H., Verpoorte R. (2010). Phytochemistry712058–2073 (2010). 10.1016/j.phytochem.2010.10.001
  8. J Ethnopharmacol. 2012 Sep 28;143(2):673-9. doi: 10.1016/j.jep.2012.07.026. Epub 2012 Jul 31.
  9. Retrieved from https://www.fundacion-canna.es/en/about-us, on August 6, 2019.
  10. Retrieved from https://www.fundacion-canna.es/en/variations-terpene-profiles-different-strains-cannabis-sativa-l, on August 6, 2019.

Michigan Shuts Down Cannabis Testing Lab

By Aaron G. Biros
No Comments

In a state where cannabis testing labs are already hard to come by, one lab just got their license suspended, bringing the total number of testing labs in Michigan from six down to five.

According to the Detroit Free Press, last week, Michigan’s Marijuana Regulatory Agency (MRA) filed a formal complaint against Iron Labs, based in Walled Lake, “for, among other things, finding marijuana that tested above the legal limit for various contaminants but not reporting those test results in the state’s tracking system. The lab allegedly also didn’t report edibles that tested above the state’s potency limit for THC, the psychoactive substance in marijuana that produces a high.”

The formal complaint filed by the regulatory body said that Iron Labs lacks “integrity, moral character and responsibility or means to operate or maintain a marijuana facility.” While no reports of health issues associated with products tested by Iron Labs have surfaced, the state is still urging patients to reconsider using products tested by the lab in question.

In a statement last week, MRA Executive Director Andrew Brisbo said he wants his agency to focus on protecting patient and consumer safety. “It is imperative that our licensees follow the rules and laws, especially regarding the testing of medical marijuana product,” says Brisbo. “We are intensely focused on making sure that the marijuana product in the regulated industry meets established safety standards.”

Because the issues are still under investigation, the regulatory body will not comment on how much cannabis is potentially contaminated and how much of the market has been using Iron Labs as an analytical testing partner.

Curaleaf Fined Big Time in Massachusetts

By Aaron G. Biros
No Comments

According to Masslive.com, the Massachusetts Cannabis Control Commission fined Curaleaf $250,000 “for failing to disclose a change of ownership and ask permission from state regulators before completing the transaction.” The news comes just weeks after the US Food & Drug Administration (FDA) sent a warning letter to Curaleaf President Joseph Lusardi for making unsubstantiated health claimsand for misbranding their products as drugs.

Steven Hoffman, Chairman of the Massachusetts Cannabis Control Commission

Curaleaf, one of the largest cannabis companies in the United States, has dispensaries in a handful of locations across Massachusetts, with plans to open more locations. Curaleaf Massachusetts went from being a non-profit to being a for-profit business, then merged with a Canadian company to access the Toronto Stock Exchange.

The $250,000 fine is the largest penalty assessed by regulators to a state-licensed cannabis business to date. Curaleaf and the Cannabis Control Commission came to an agreement, signed in early August. “In assessing this fine against Respondent, the Commission acknowledges that Respondent’s violation was the result of Respondent’s good-faith but mistaken interpretation of the Commission’s regulations, that Respondent has fully cooperated with the Commission’s investigation, and that the Respondent has accepted responsibility,” reads the agreement.

Steven Hoffman, Chairman for the Cannabis Control Commission told the public that he thinks the company has been “very constructive and collaborative” in working with the Commission. “I think they were wrong, but I can understand they were acting in good faith,” says Hoffman.

CannTrust Meltdown Indicative Of Summer Of Scandal To Come

By Marguerite Arnold
No Comments

While you may not have heard of CannTrust Holdings so far, that is now about to change. A summer spectacle of double dealing and corporate greed has put this Canadian cannabis company on the global map.

Unfortunately, the current meltdown underway is indicative of more to come.

A Summary Of The Story So Far

CannTrust, a company which serves 72,000 Canadian patients and got into the game early, decided to do what it saw other companies doing all around them. That covers a lot of ground (good and bad at this point). Regardless, the most relevant recent twist to the saga came when the company hired a new CEO, Peter Aceto last October.

Aceto however, along with the now also fired co-founder and chair of the board Eric Paul, decided to continue growing and harvesting unlicensed product. Worse, this occurred while boasting in public of their productivity gains on the way to securing a hefty investment of capital this spring. $170 million. The grow rooms finally got their certification in April.

What is even more embarrassing however, is that this was a round led by the much-vaunted investors the industry has been courting assiduously for the past several years. Specifically, in this case? Institutional banks like Bank of America, Merrill Lynch, Citigroup, Credit Suisse Securities and RBC Capital Markets.

But that is “just” the North American hemisphere. The rather unfortunately named CannTrust (certainly at this point) also had a European footprint – notably Denmark. Unlicensed cannabis ended up there too, of course. Stenocare A/S, the company at the receiving end of the same, reported receipt of product from the unlicensed rooms on July 4.

As far as such things go, however, you have to give it to CannTrust company executives. In terms of setting standards if not benchmarks and “records”, they certainly seemed to have set a few, although probably not the ones they aspired to. If not, with certainty, their investors.

A Surprise Or Inevitability?

That said, for many who have been sounding warnings for at least a year, the 2019 Summer of Canadian Cannascandal is certainly starting to confirm what many have been saying for quite some time. This is not the first time a securities exchange, for one, has sounded the alarm. Deutsche Börse delisted the entire North American public cannabis industry last summer briefly. Then they revised their policy, reluctantly, after Luxembourg changed its stance on medical use. That said, they are still watching with a standing policy of bouncing any company that runs afoul of their rules.

The problems, issues and more bubbling at the center of this cannameltdown, in other words, are not limited to just one company or country.

And everyone knows it.

Accounting For Past Mistakes

For those who are counting, the value of all of that illegally grown CannTrust product is not insignificant. Estimates are floating in the CA$50-70 million range. The problem is, of course, nobody is sure what numbers to rely on. CannTrust employees knowingly provided inaccurate information to the new CEO if not regulatory body until a whistle-blower provided a few more details.

That said, for all of the hullabaloo, one thing this story also does is point a bright spotlight on the lax enforcement of even this pretty easy-to-understand regulation.

The question, however is, if CannTrust thought it could get away with this kind of blatent flouting of the rules, if not lax oversight, are there any other companies who might have also done similiar things?

After all, even the pesticide scandal of 2016 did not occur at just one company either.

Where Are The Proceedings?

This is a rolling story, which began to break at the beginning of last month when Health Canada issued a non-compliance order to CannTrust and impounded 5,200 kg of dried cannabis that was apparently grown in unlicensed grow rooms on July 3.

There have already been some jaw dropping revelations so far (beyond the executive decision to even go down this road in the first place) no matter how attractive pimping numbers was. Starting with things like fake walls being erected to hide the grow. And then of course pictures that have been all over social media of late, of the now departed CEO Aceto being photographed directly in front of said unlicensed rooms too.

As a result, the drama has continued to unfold in a highly predictable way.

By August 1, CannTrust Holdings, a Canadian cannabis company listed on both the New York and Toronto stock exchanges, was facing a “quasi-criminal investigation” by the Canadian Joint Serious Offenses Team. This is a coalition of law enforcement agencies including the Ontario Securities Commission, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Financial Crimes Unit, and the Ontario Provincial Police Anti-Rackets Branch.

But CannTrust’s issues don’t end there. This is an international story that is just beginning. Government regulators in Europe if not elsewhere are paying attention.So are shareholders, and their lawyers.

Andrew Kline, Director of Public Policy at NCIA, to Speak at 2019 Cannabis Quality Conference & Expo

By Cannabis Industry Journal Staff
No Comments

EDGARTOWN, MA, Aug. 6, 2019 – Innovative Publishing Co., publisher of Cannabis Industry Journal, has announced that Andrew Kline, Director of Public Policy at the National Cannabis Industry Association (NCIA), will serve as the keynote speaker at the 2019 Cannabis Quality Conference & Expo on October 2. The Cannabis Quality Conference & Expo (CQC) takes place October 1-3 in Schaumburg, IL (just outside Chicago). The CQC is an educational and networking event for cannabis safety and quality solutions. Serving the Midwest market with a unique focus on science, technology and compliance, the CQC enables attendees to engage in conversations that are critical for advancing careers and organizations alike.

Andrew Kline, Director of Public Policy at NCIA

To see the agenda for the CQC and registration pricing, click here.Kline’s keynote talk is titled “The Business of Cannabis: Why Public Policy Matters.” It will feature two discussions: First, a general update on public policy and government relations with respect to the cannabis industry. Second, Kline will discuss how cannabis should be regulated at the federal level once legalization happens.

Kline joined NCIA’s leadership team in April of this year and began his work with the organization swiftly. He led a coalition of CBD and hemp businesses to prepare public comments and testimony for the purpose of educating and influencing FDA rule-making. Prior to working with NCIA, he served as President of the National Association of Cannabis Businesses (NACB), the first self-regulatory organization for the cannabis industry.

Before joining the NACB, Kline was Special Counsel for the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) Enforcement Bureau where he was responsible for high-profile investigations and public policy negotiations affecting the telecommunications, internet, cable and satellite industries. He also served as Chief of Staff and Senior Advisor for Intellectual Property Enforcement in the Obama Administration.

Andrew Kline will be delivering the keynote talk on October 2. To learn more about the Cannabis Quality Conference & Expo, click here. 

european union states

European Cannabis Summer Roundup

By Marguerite Arnold
2 Comments
european union states

There have been many significant developments this summer in Europe that will shape the debate about reform and the legal cannabis market that trails it, for at least the next year. Here is Cannabis Industry Journal’sroundup of our biggest events and trends over the summer so far.

Medical Sales Across Europe Are Slow

In Germany, it is easy to maintain a fairly ballpark understanding of patient count. Find the number of prescriptions issued in the trade press and divide by four. Everywhere else, however, the true realization of what is going on across Europe is slowly starting to hit everyone outside producers wanting to know what is going on.Establishing territorial footprint has been what the race in Europe has been all about since mid 2016 for the Canadian LPs so far.

This is going to start to hit stock prices soon beyond the wobbles already evident in the market thanks to this summer’s breaking industry scandals (CannTrust, lawsuits in every direction) to lack of financial performance for investors (Bruce Linton’s firing from Canopy). It is becoming increasingly obvious to everyone that just because a public Canadian company issues a press release about a (cultivation, import, export or processing) “event” does not mean anything other than a slew of social media telling everyone about it. The frustration with “forward looking” statements has hit European investors big time, from the retail to the institutional kind.

Despite a lot of press releases in other words, which clearly show market penetration, there is not much else going on from the sales perspective when it comes to growing those first numbers. Establishing territorial footprint has been what the race in Europe has been all about since mid 2016 for the Canadian LPs so far.

However, from an industry, if not investor and of course, patient perspective, patient numbers are what really count. And unlike Canada, where patients remain the biggest existential threat to the industry, the same industry may not sign them up or ship to them directly in Europe. For several reasons.

Germany is still the only country in Europe with a significant patient count, and while growing, slowly, is still a group where 2/3 of patients obtain dronabinol. It should shock nobody that the most accurate patient count right now in the UK is hovering somewhere under 20. For the whole country, 9 months after the law changed. While the peculiarities of Brexit are also in the room, this is so far, compared to U.S. state markets, Canada, Israel and Germany before it, pathetic.

The Industry Says It Supports Patients…But Does It?

There are several levels to this debate which start with the still appallingly high level of price gouging in the room. 2019 and certainly this summer is a time when the Canadian companies are clearly learning that European governments negotiate for drugs in bulk. Even (and especially in the near future) this one. See the difference between the EU and the US.

UKflagThe level of industry promotion vs patient access recently reached a new nadir this summer when it emerged that despite a great deal of interest, more people showed up (by far) to the week-long cannabis industry conference (European Cannabis Week in London in June) than there are legitimate patients in the UK right now.

That is about to change, but so far, industry support for trials has not materialized. When the various trials now being planned do get going, look for new battles over a couple of issues, starting with patient access to and control of their medical data.

Novel Food: The Regulation That Keeps On Giving

The issues involved in this discussion are complex, certainly by North American standards. This of course starts with the fact that there is no such regulation on the continent. But also rapidly bleeds into puncturing the amount of hot air entrepreneurialism there is in the room.

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

The CBD market in Europe that everyone got so excited about in investor releases, in other words, is basically dead for the time being. Yes, there are a few smart niche players weaving around the regs, but it is a full-time job.

Here is the reality: Since Christmas last year when Austria put the kabosh on all products containing the cannabinoid CBD, several major countries have weighed in on the issue. It is not going away. And it is here to stay, even after recreational.

Political Advocacy Is Stirring In Europe

Whether it is the vagaries of Brexit, the discussion across the continent about how the EU will work together, right wing populist screeds about “too much regulation” or national elections, cannabis is in the room from now until the end of at least 2021 as one of the hottest global political issues under the sun. That includes of course, a discussion about global climate change, sourcing, pricing and resource use so far unaddressed but rapidly looming.

german flag
Photo: Ian McWilliams, Flickr

Further, patients are still having a voice – whether it is making sure that their children obtain imported CBD, or that they can obtain their own THC prescriptions without going bankrupt or having to solicit in the black market.

Cultivation Bids Looming?

One of the surest signs yet that the German authorities at any rate, are in no mood to solve the cultivation issues still on the ground and the bid itself, is that the government just renegotiated, for the second time since last fall, the amount of medical cannabis to come over the Dutch-German border. Who is going to go next? With the Italian hybrid now done and dusted, Poland is likely to be next. And when that happens, expect a raft of similar initiatives across Europe. But probably not until then.

And in the meantime? Distributors are looking for product. The demand is clearly there. But across Europe this summer there is a clear sense that the hype machine that has been the industry’s mouthpiece is at minimum overenthusiastic about the bottom-line details behind it all.

Poland Pushes Forward On Reform

By Marguerite Arnold
No Comments

Given all the fuss about newly opened markets in Europe of late (see all the hullabaloo recently in the UK), it would be remiss for anyone in the industry to forget about Poland.

The Eastern European country that shares a large part of its border (if not recent history and long cultural influence) with Deutschland has been proceeding slowly into the cannabis space for the last couple of years.

There are a couple of similarities (and differences too) about the market development in the country to its Teutonic sister to the West as well as the emerging fight over access that is sparking patient revolutions all over the continent now.

A Brief History Of Polish Cannabis Reform

Like other culturally conservative places (see state reform in the United States in places like Georgia), Poland has moved towards reform in a way that may make political sense, but has left patients in much the same boat as British ones. Reform began happening without access as of late 2017.

Polish Flags Image: włodi, Flickr

Poland, or so the joke goes in Germany, is Deutschland’s “trailing sister,” on most things, and cannabis reform in some ways, is absolutely following that pattern. But it is not exactly analogous, starting with patient access. In fact, the first opening of the market did not touch import much less cultivation. It only authorized patients to cross borders in search of their medication. No matter the high cost involved. And of course, the still dodgy proposition of returning across a border with a highly stigmatized narcotic product.

Fast forward a year? Many of the major Canadian cannabis companies had achieved some sort of import (mostly of small amounts of the drug and mostly to single hospitals). See the announcement of Aurora last October on the same day that the Polish government announced a change in the law that they had imported in bulk to a hospital.

But what is going on now, particularly with a growth in acceptance of the medicinal impact of the drug across Europe? And will the Poles, like the Germans, launch a domestic cultivation bid anytime in the near future? Not to mention learn the lessons that so far have continued to stymie German domestic cultivation as well as frustrate a smooth supply chain if not operations on the ground?

The Market Is Coalescing

According to Andrew Makatrewicz de Roy, managing director of Bearstone Global, a market research and investigative firm moving into the cannabis space, Poland has one of the more progressive laws in Europe, but still is lagging behind other countries in terms of organisation and a political lobbying movement.

“There is a lot of vibrancy in the market, but we want to make sure that there is an initial forum where the market can meet and discuss the industry here”.There are also a few (low volume) transactions taking place.

However, as in other places (see the UK in particular), there is a lot of heat if no fire yet behind the scenes. Both individuals and companies are starting to appear who will help build a wider ecosystem in the cannabis space.

As in other countries in Europe, despite the market potential, there is still a general political lag in further development of the industry. Perhaps because of complications in the German market. And almost certainly because of complications with German reform and its own cultivation bid. There have been rumours of a Polish bid circulating for at least a year. Licensed cultivation is beginning to take place.

In response, Makatrewicz de Roy is moving to establish one of the first industry conferences in the country in October. In late July, he also held the first precursor to the same – an online streamed event that attracted 70 major thought leaders from the industry including many members of the political class, producers and distributors (including some of the biggest Canadian ones), doctors and patients.

“We want to build an ecosystem,” de Roy said. “There is a lot of vibrancy in the market, but we want to make sure that there is an initial forum where the market can meet and discuss the industry here”.

CBD Health Claims Spur FDA Warning & Product Seizure Threats

By Greg Boulos
2 Comments

The 2018 Farm Bill gave cannabis businesses around the country a legal path to market and sell hemp and hemp-derived products. Despite the groundbreaking law, several regulatory uncertainties remain. The FDA has been a source of many of those uncertainties, but recent action suggests that the agency plans to impose heavy burdens on companies selling CBD products that claim to provide health benefits. Recently, the FDA held a public hearing during which it signaled that health claims associated with cannabis-related products was a primary concern. Congress subsequently pressured the FDA to develop a regulatory framework for the cannabis industry and the agency announced that it was expediting its efforts to do so, promising an update on its progress by this fall.

FDAThen, on July 22, the agency issued a warning letter to Curaleaf regarding its claims that several of its products provide specific health benefits. The agency included a threat to seize Curaleaf’s products if the issues raised in the letter are not resolved. How the FDA ultimately regulates cannabis products going forward will have a significant impact on the industry as a whole. Indeed, the agency has significant powers over product manufacturers, including the ability to seize products through the U.S. Marshalls. This article will delve into the specifics on the FDA’s warning letter and address how manufacturers can limit the risks associated with making health-related claims.  

The FDA’s Warning: Beware of “Unsubstantiated” Health Claims

The FDA’s letter explained that it determined several of Curaleaf’s CBD products “are unapproved new drugs sold in violation of sections 505(a) and 301(d) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA).” The letter goes on to say that one of Curaleaf’s pet CBD products “are unapproved new animal drugs that are unsafe.” Curaleaf has 15 days to respond to the agency’s letter. The agency cited the following health claims as problematic, among others.

  • “CBD has been demonstrated to have properties that counteract the growth of [and/or] spread of cancer.”
  • “CBD was effective in killing human breast cancer cells.”
  • “CBD has also been shown to be effective in treating Parkinson’s disease.”
  • “CBD has been linked to the effective treatment of Alzheimer’s disease ….”
  • “CBD is being adopted more and more as a natural alternative to pharmaceutical-grade treatments for depression and anxiety.”
  • “CBD can also be used in conjunction with opioid medications, and a number of studies have demonstrated that CBD can in fact reduce the severity of opioid-related withdrawal and lessen the buildup of tolerance.”
  • “CBD oil is becoming a popular, all-natural source of relief used to address the symptoms of many common conditions, such as chronic pain, anxiety … ADHD.”
  • “What are the benefits of CBD oil? …. Some of the most researched and well-supported hemp oil uses include …. Anxiety, depression, post-traumatic stress disorders, and even schizophrenia …. Chronic pain from fibromyalgia, slipped spinal discs . . . Eating disorders and addiction . . ..”
  • “[V]ets will prescribe puppy Xanax to pet owners which can help in certain instances but is not necessarily a desirable medication to give your dog continually. Whereas CBD oil is natural and offers similar results without the use of chemicals.”
  • “For dogs experiencing pain, spasms, anxiety, nausea or inflammation often associated with cancer treatments, CBD (aka cannabidiol) may be a source of much-needed relief.”

The letter explicitly warned, “Failure to correct the violations promptly may result in legal action, including product seizure and injunction.” The FDA has a history of seizing products it deems non-compliant with its regulations. Recently, the U.S. Marshals, at the direction of the FDA, seized 300,000 units of a cosmetic company’s product. The impact of such a seizure on a business’ profits and operations is staggering. FDA action also has a direct impact on publicly traded cannabis companies’ stock price. When news of the FDA’s Curaleaf letter circulated, Curaleaf shares plunged 8%.

Balancing Regulatory Risk and Business Objectives

While the FDA’s letter appears to create a new risk for the cannabis industry, the stock market’s reaction is arguably overblown. The fact that the FDA would question a product’s ability to kill cancer cells is not surprising. I am not familiar with Curaleaf’s research efforts and it is not my goal to pass judgment on their claims. Rather, my point is that manufacturers need to make sure legitimate scientific studies underpin all of their health claims, regardless of the industry. Manufacturers will never be able to avoid regulatory scrutiny or even litigation regarding their health claims entirely. Instead, cannabis companies should take steps to ensure that they can credibly respond to regulatory scrutiny or present strong defenses in potential litigation. Establishing a robust research department is a start. But manufacturers must develop institutional knowledge of the most cutting-edge research regarding their products.Developing in-depth institutional knowledge regarding the state-of-the-art scientific research on your product is a must. 

Manufacturers that market products primarily for their health benefits should consider working with clinical researchers to study their products. There should be written policies and guidelines, as well as employee training, for conducting these studies and dealing with researchers in order to protect the quality of the study. For purposes of mitigating regulatory and litigation risks, the perceived quality of these studies can be just as important as their actual quality. Regulators and plaintiff’s attorneys can easily misinterpret (sometimes intentionally) written communications between a manufacturer and researcher in ways that suggests a particular study was outcome-driven and not a legitimate scientific undertaking. Manufacturers should consult with attorneys experienced in defending product liability and mass tort litigation so that their labeling and research practices are based on historical examples of successful (and sometimes, unsuccessful) product manufacturers.

Key Takeaways

Manufacturing consumer products comes with substantial litigation and regulatory risks. There are several historical and current examples of product labels, health claims, and warnings leading to thousands of lawsuits filed simultaneously across the country against a single manufacturer. Fees associated with defending against even meritless claims can force a manufacturer into bankruptcy. The regulatory risks can also have devastating effects on the day-to-day business operations of any manufacturer. Eliminating these risks is impossible, but addressing them upfront before a product launch, regulatory crackdown, or lawsuit is considerably less expensive than dealing with costly litigation or government seizure of entire inventories. Developing in-depth institutional knowledge regarding the state-of-the-art scientific research on your product is a must. Also, consider working with a clinical researcher to support any claimed health benefits or even discover new health benefits associated with your product. Finally, consult a lawyer with experience in product liability and mass tort litigation to strengthen your policies and procedures regarding research, develop credible health claims, and craft strong warnings.