Tag Archives: regulatory framework

July 20, 2017

Massachusetts Lawmakers Reach Compromise on Cannabis Bill

By Aaron G. Biros

On Election Day last year, voters in Massachusetts approved a measure to legalize recreational cannabis. With recreational sales beginning in July of 2018, lawmakers have tried to get a bill through the state legislature to settle on, among other things, a tax rate and regulatory framework.

On Wednesday, multiple news outlets reported that the legislature has reached a compromise on a bill that would change the measure that voters passed to allow for lawmakers to implement higher taxes, a strategy on local bans and a regulatory framework, reports The Boston Globe.

MPP logo for the Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol Campaign in Massachusetts

In a statement to supporters, Matt Schweich, director of state campaigns at Marijuana Policy Project (MPP), the biggest changes are in local control and taxation. “After weeks of persistent advocacy from Massachusetts residents, the Senate and House have reached a compromise that largely respects the will of the people,” says Schweich. “The legislation adjusts the local control policy, allowing local government officials in towns that voted “no” on the 2016 ballot initiative to ban marijuana businesses until December 2019. For towns that voted “yes” in 2016, any bans must be placed on a local ballot for voters to approve.” Therefore if a town wants to ban cannabis sales, they need to bring it to a vote for the people to decide. 72% of the population voted in favor of the ballot initiative. “The maximum tax rate — which depends on whether towns adopt optional local taxes — will increase from 12% to 20%,” says Schweich. “Under the bill, the state tax will be 17%, and the local option will be 3%.” A major push behind increasing the tax rates concerned lawmakers’ worries that the original 12% tax rate would not cover regulatory costs and government expenditures on the industry.

Boston, MA
Photo: Trenton Kelley, Flickr

The ballot initiative created the Cannabis Control Commission, the regulatory body overseeing the industry, with three board members. That agency will remain in the new bill, just with five board members that will write the rules on things like marketing, safety, fines and penalties and fair business practices.

Schweich says the MPP helped orchestrate over 1,000 calls to legislators, urging them to reject the House’s version of the bill, which some have called draconian. “The bill isn’t perfect, and we preferred the original language of the ballot initiative,” says Schweich. “However, given how problematic the House bill was, we are satisfied with the final compromise.”

The bill is expected to pass votes in both the House and Senate on Thursday and Governor Charlie Baker is expected to sign the bill that same day.

January 24, 2017

States in Northeast Push Legalization Bills Following Massachusetts, Maine

By Aaron G. Biros

No Comments

On Election Day in November, two major states in the Northeast legalized recreational cannabis: Maine and Massachusetts. It seems that a handful of other states in the region are looking to legalize recreational cannabis now that their neighbors have done so.

2147345423_2209f02b09_z — New Hampshire Capitol Photo: Jim Bowen, Flickr

In New Hampshire, a bipartisan bill was introduced on January 4^th to establish “a commission to study the legalization, regulation, and taxation of marijuana.” The commission formed by House Bill 215 aims to “study the experiences of states that have or are in the process of legalizing and regulating the recreational use of marijuana by adults, with particular attention to be given to the ways the changes in marijuana laws in Maine and Massachusetts, as well as Canada, impact our state,” the bill states. Notably, the bill provides for a representative from the Marijuana Policy Project to be a member of the committee.

New Hampshire Senate Minority Leader Jeff Woodburn (D) says he plans to sponsor a recreational legalization bill separate from House Bill 215. According to the New Hampshire Union Leader, Woodburn would work with lawmakers and stakeholders to set a timeline and regulatory framework.

In Connecticut, a number of lawmakers have sponsored bills this session that would legalize recreational cannabis. Senate President Martin Looney (D) filed a bill that would legalize, regulate and tax cannabis, with the tax revenue going to the state’s general fund, according to the New Haven Register. State Rep. Melissa Ziobron (R) introduced a piece of legislation that would legalize adult use over the age of 21. Lawmakers are optimistic that with Massachusetts legalizing it, perhaps the outcome will be different than previous failed attempts to push cannabis legalization.

Providence, RI Photo: David Wilson, Flickr — Providence, RI
Photo: David Wilson, Flickr

Lawmakers in Rhode Island told reporters they want to be the first state to legalize recreational cannabis via the state legislature, rather than a ballot initiative, the most common path to legalization for other states. Sen. Joshua Miller and Rep. Scott Slater of Rhode Island, both Democrats, plan to introduce a legalization bill, the seventh year in a row that such a bill has been introduced in the state. They are also hopeful that after Massachusetts’ legalized it in November, they will have more success this time around. “Our constituents think it is time for lawmakers to pass this legislation, and we should listen to them,” says Miller. “If we fail to pass the bill this year, we will lose significant ground to Massachusetts.” Their bill would tack on a 23% tax on cannabis sales.

In each state’s case, lawmakers are keeping a close eye on Massachusetts and Maine’s regulations and tracking their progress. While the bills in the state legislatures are nascent in their journey to becoming law, the important takeaway is that geographic proximity to states with legalized cannabis is a catalyst for reform in New England.

September 14, 2016

Michigan House Approves Bills, State Set To Regulate Medical Cannabis

By Aaron G. Biros

No Comments

Update: On September 21, 2016, Governor Rick Snyder signed the bills into law, regulating the market officially.

The Michigan House of Representatives voted in concurrence with last week’s Senate vote, approving a series of bills that would establish a regulatory framework for the state’s medical cannabis industry, according to a Michigan Live article. Governor Rick Snyder is expected to sign the bills into law very soon.

The package of bills approved today includes provisions for a 3% tax on retail income, a licensing system for growers, dispensaries and patients as well as establishing a traceability system. The bills, if signed into law, would institute a regulatory framework akin to other states that have legalized cannabis recently. Packaging, labeling and testing requirements for THC, other cannabinoids and contaminants are included in the overhaul.

In 2008, voters approved the legalization of medical cannabis, since then however there has been little action from the state on regulating the safety, sale or distribution of cannabis. The bills are meant to eliminate the previous ambiguity in the laws surrounding the state’s patients, caregivers and dispensaries and establish a legitimate system for patients to access medical cannabis.

With over 203,000 registered medical cannabis patients, the passage of these bills could establish the second-largest medical cannabis market in the country, larger than the total number of Colorado and Oregon’s registered patients combined.

stevegoldner — Stephen Goldner, Esq, founder of Pinnacle Laboratory and Regulatory Affairs Associates

According to Stephen Goldner, founder of Pinnacle Laboratories in Michigan, the market will get regulated into five discrete categories for licensing: growers, dispensaries, testing labs, processors, and transporters. “The basic legislation that will become law is very sensible and almost completely mirrors what has already been passed by the Michigan House, thus rapid conformance is nearly guarantied,” says Goldner. “There is a clear intent to require all products to be tested before sale, and setting up an integrated reporting system by product batch code from production, through transport and to final sale.” Goldner believes this comes with an overriding intent to establish standardization across the board, and points to the Foundation of Cannabis Unified Standards (FOCUS) for ready-to-implement, vetted standards.

“Michigan requiring method validation and other requirements, such as adverse event reporting, thereby builds in greater assurance of product safety and compliance,” says Goldner. Pinnacle Labs has been preparing for this day for quite some time. “We have invested the past 18 months preparing for exactly this legislation,” says Goldner. “We look forward to helping the medical cannabis patients in Michigan get cost-effective, desirable products delivered legally and easily.”

If passed, this kind of legislation will present a litany of challenges for the state and all stakeholders involved. Growers dealing with contamination issues previously will now have to navigate legally mandated testing requirements. According to Goldner, the greatest challenges are those that other states already deal with. “The greatest challenge for dispensaries and other business in the chain of distribution is the lack of adequate banking services,” says Goldner. The state will have to hire inspectors, establish robust oversight and review applications while maintaining a smooth transition to a regulated market.

Until Gov. Snyder signs them into law, the state’s cannabis industry and the 203,000 patients remain in a state of uncertainty.

August 23, 2016

Quality From Canada

Hold on for Rec! Canada’s New ACMPR Program

By Tegan Adams

1 Comment

Earlier this month, Health Canada, in a press release, gave a glimpse as to what the new Access to Cannabis for Medical Purposes Regulations (ACMPR) might look like. On August 11^th, they announced the new set of regulations would go into effect on August 24^th this week. Information presented was not shocking. Most Canadians had hoped and suspected that the announcement would include a provision for growing cannabis at home – and it did exactly that.

Essentially, the ACMPR expands accessibility of cannabis from our highly regulated 34 licensed producers (LPs) to include those authorized by their health care practitioner to access cannabis. Anyone with the appropriate medical documentation can now grow for him or herself at home, or designate a grower to do so for them. Health Canada also stipulated in the press release that “Storefronts selling marijuana [sic], commonly known as ‘dispensaries’ and ’compassion clubs’ are not authorized to sell cannabis for medical or any other purposes.” The regulatory body went on to add: “These operations are illegally supplied and provide products that are unregulated and may be unsafe. Illegal storefront distribution and sale of cannabis in Canada are subject to law enforcement action.”

There were a few curve balls in the announcement, including a statement issued that suggests commercial producers may be the only ones authorized to distribute seeds or plants to those growing for themselves or on behalf of another. It is unclear how the plant and seed sourcing aspect will be regulated and/or how that statement may impact LPs over individual producers. Restriction of strain availability and additional costs are examples of potential implications to individuals[1]. LPs therefore remain in control of the types of cannabis available on the market. It is unclear if this regulatory aspect will mean they can restrict access to strains they have on hand, or not, especially if they are popular for sales.

When the first glimpse of the ACMPR was released, we saw many LPs stock drop in price across the board, in some cases greater than 10%. It is not anticipated however that the ACMPR will cause any long-term negative effects on LPs stock price or profitability. The ACMPR was put in place merely to satisfy a court ruling on a deadline. The deadline was inconvenient, occurring around 9 months before the regulations governing recreational sales are meant to go in effect. It meant that Health Canada employees had to dedicate time to finding a Band-Aid solution up until recreational sales instead of focussing on recreational regulatory framework itself.

Recreational regulations are scheduled for release in 2017, and it is unclear when exactly they will begin. As they do begin to unfold it is projected that the production and sale of cannabis will remain highly regulated. LPs will remain the consistent quality source of supply. There have been multiple distribution models in discussion, including co-op retail ownership, pharmacy dispensary and liquor board models. While yes, those with medical documentation anticipate still being able to produce at home; it is unlikely this allowance will have any effect on the overall sales of LPs as the market unfolds. Alcohol and wine are good examples to compare the regulatory model to. While sure, any of us can do home brewing, odds are we would still like to purchase beer from commercial breweries. In both Vancouver and Toronto, property is very expensive. Higher percentages of the population are starting to live in apartments, condos and smaller homes. Many people working full time are not interested in growing their own cannabis and would prefer the variety of the marketplace. There are many reasons individuals will continue to purchase from LPs. As competition rises in the marketplace, so will efficiencies in production as producers become more familiar with growing practices. Canada is anticipating a drop in retail prices to be much more affordable than existing “black markets.” Cannabis will become commonplace on shopping corners and it will be a product that most will be able to afford.

July 12, 2016

Quality From Canada

Cannabis in Canada: 6 Key Considerations for Recreational Legal Distribution

By Tegan Adams

No Comments

Canada has been undergoing many changes in the cannabis marketplace, most notably in the last two years. Originally, the system began with increasing access to cannabis for those with medical conditions under a “grow your own” model, the Medical Marihuana Access Regulations (MMAR). After running for a while, our regulatory authority, Health Canada, decided that among other faults, the MMAR program could pose a security risk to individuals growing at home. Following the dissolve of the MMAR, later released was a set of regulations, called Marihuana for Medical Purposes Regulations (MMPR) to license commercial producers now called Licenced Producers (LPs). While some MMAR patients were grandfathered in, the MMPR began as the mainstream cannabis production platform. MMPR LPs are inspected with high security and quality standards to produce and distribute cannabis exclusively to medical patients with a doctor-prescribed medical document. Patients register with one LP exclusively and receive cannabis by a mail-order system, and mail order only.

Why mail order with a medical document? What about all the dispensaries selling cannabis across Vancouver and Toronto? Where is all this cannabis coming from, if the MMPR LPs can only distribute direct to a patient through mail order?

These are good questions. And they are questions you should be asking. There are a few different factors contributing to the vast array of consumer confusion across borders in the Canadian system. People are passionate about cannabis, as well as their own personal freedom to have it. Some are passionate for medical reasons, others for the pure punch of liberation. Either way these passions have resulted in an interesting series of court decisions including a more recent one that deemed the MMPR unsuitable to provide enough access to cannabis for those in need. Effective close to the end of August this year in 2016, the MMPR as it is currently written will cease to be in effect and require revisions or a new system entirely for the legislation to be accepted and continued with.

There are a few different critiques of the MMPR which include: not enough variety, no ability to “see and feel” products before purchase, limitations on supply sources, limitations on dosage formats (i.e. oil and dried flowers only) and some might try to argue the rise in cost. While cannabis remains illegal to traffic without adequate controls across Canada, it is low on the priority list for the RCMP to spend resources on. Depending on which town and situation you are caught carrying it in, you would be hard pressed to be charged for carrying cannabis unless you ask for it. So, Canada has seen a surge in retail dispensaries, licensed or not, at the municipal level to the point where hundreds of them now exist across the country, distributing hundreds of millions of dollars of cannabis products per year.

Dispensaries vary in degree of professionalism, prices and strains available. Some have over sixty strains while others hold only four or five. Because Health Canada does not require laboratory testing of these products, most do not know their cannabis’ potency or that it is safe from bacteria, moulds, pesticides and aflatoxins. If they wanted to know, they could not find out since those with Narcotics Licences for testing are unable to accept their products under any regulatory framework.

We have seen false and unaccredited labs pop up on street corners accepting the unregulated products, but what we have not seen is information on the methods these labs are using, how they are validated and whether or not they are accurate. Regardless, the general consumer base does not seem to mind. Many of these locations have been reportedly selling $20,000-$30,000 CAD per day per 5,000 square feet or less of an operation. That is on average $600,000 per month and if continued for a full year as some have done, around $7.2M per year. All unregulated, and all up until recently tolerated by our RCMP and local policy authorities.

Finally, given the industrial-scale distribution that was not just occurring in the black market anymore, different neighbourhoods that did not like cannabis complained. LPs complained. And other regulated product industry members complained. They all complained that the unregulated distribution of cannabis was negatively affecting them in one way or another. And so, Canada saw raids. Hundreds of dispensaries raided, and many people were arrested if only temporarily. Products were seized. However, these raids generally proved ineffective and we saw most of these dispensaries open the next day. While the daily amounts seized might have sounded like a lot, they were only about one day’s sales for most of these locations, providing the authorities with a better glimpse into just how much diversion of the supposedly controlled substance was going on.

Given that cannabis is promised for recreational legalization in the spring of 2017 in Canada, many are wondering about what sort of business opportunities there might be on the horizon. We know that while control of production will probably remain similar to how it is now, our distribution models will change. Here are a few points Health Canada is considering in their latest discussions:

A phased-in approach to distribution will probably be necessary. First, continuing with the mail-order system would be the easiest phase in approach.
Regulated storefronts as an alternative to the current dispensaries. It is doubtful that dispensaries operating as they are will continue. There are rumors floating around that Shopper’s Drug Mart and other pharmacies will be able to help with distribution. Time will tell if these rumors evolve.
Provincial and Territorial uniqueness. Distribution could be altered at regional levels and different models could be developed across the country, similar to liquor regulations in effect. Some of our provincial liquor distribution entities have inquired to become distributors.
Keep cannabis away from minors. Health Canada is considering a look at locations, hours of operation, density of retailers and producers and consumption of cannabis outside of personal dwellings all as factors in the new system.
Guarding against impaired driving. Our regulators want to make sure they have enough tools to monitor those who may have been driving after consumption of cannabis.
Sound product packaging and labeling. A focus on understanding THC & CBD potencies as well as appropriate health warning messages. Packaging and Labeling, and effectively sound testing, will all be necessary.

Want to know more, or see for yourself? Check out Health Canada’s latest discussion document.

Curious to know what this will mean for packaging and labeling? Get in touch with me to better understand what Eurofins-Experchem currently tests for with our Licensed Producers. Contact me at 416 665 2134 ext 252 or teganadams@eurofins.com

June 13, 2016

Soapbox

A Case To Not Reschedule Cannabis

By Tyler Dautrich

4 Comments

As many probably already know, last month the DEA announced that the organization was going to reconsider its position on cannabis and would come to a decision about whether or not to reschedule cannabis on The Controlled Substance Act (CSA) by June of this year. Many would say this is long overdue, considering the DEA has cannabis listed as a Schedule I drug, the same as heroin and LSD.

Rescheduling cannabis to Schedule II would place it in the same category as Vicodin, cocaine, methamphetamine, Adderall, oxycodone, and many more. These substances are defined as drugs with a high potential for abuse, with use potentially leading to severe psychological or physical dependence. However, they are recognized as having some potential medical benefits.

If cannabis were to become a Schedule II drug, it would allow further research on the plant. This could be beneficial to the industry because further medical research would finally provide the scientific validation that cannabis does have medical benefits and that it should be accepted as a form of medicine.

Those benefits come with a steep cost.

If cannabis becomes Schedule II it means the federal government finally sees cannabis as a plant (drug) that can provide some medical value. Which, at face value, is good because that is what many advocates have been fighting for. On the other hand, the only reason that larger pharmaceutical companies have largely kept out of the industry so far is because it is a Schedule I drug and the government did not officially recognize that it had any medical value. If this were to change, there is no reason for those pharmaceutical companies to continue watching from the sidelines. There is also no industry better fit than the pharmaceutical industry to run, manufacture, control, and profit from medical cannabis. The infrastructure is already in place.

There is also not another industry that has the money and the historical relationship with the FDA like the pharmaceutical industry. If the FDA were to regulate cannabis, it would have to regulate every single product on the shelf of every single dispensary, which would require more stringent lab testing guidelines. Just because one of your brownies made it through the FDA regulation process, does not mean the cookie next to it will. Entering into this process would take companies years to complete and cost more than $1 billion per product. Think about how many products some dispensaries have. Think about the number of different strains that dispensaries carry. That requires years of testing and multiple billions of dollars, just for the strains.

Big Pharma is positioned perfectly to come in and take control of the entire process if this happens. It will be a mad rush from all pharmaceutical companies to come in and quickly obtain market share. I know that as an industry we think we are seeing a lot of money in sales and profit, but compared to the pharmaceutical industry, it is merely a drop in the bucket. These companies will easily, and willingly, out-spend every company currently in the industry to the point where we can no longer compete. All the work that advocates and business professionals have put in to get the industry to where it is today could be lost.

Schedule II status would also turn the adult-use industry into utter chaos. The only reason we are able to have an adult-use market right now without the interference of the FDA is because cannabis is federally illegal. If cannabis is moved to Schedule II it will be recognized by the government, which means the FDA will have to come in and start the approval process for every product on the shelf. How smoothly do you think that will go for the adult-use retail centers in the industry? The cost alone will force shops to close. There is also not another substance that has a Schedule II classification that we have an adult-use industry for. Could cannabis be the first? I would not want to take that chance with the government or have to go through that process as an adult-use cannabis business owner.

When discussing this matter with several colleagues, some would ask “But what about now? We are in direct violation of the federal law right now, and they are leaving us be.”

Yes, that is for the most part true, but it is true because cannabis is now a Schedule I, federally illegal drug. Meaning the government does not even recognize it. The FDA will not regulate anything that is not recognized by the federal government because they are a federal agency. If the FDA were to implement regulations and an approval process, that would mean that a federal agency is recognizing cannabis as a consumer product. Right now that goes directly against the government’s public stance on the issue. And pharmaceutical companies cannot start selling a drug that is federally illegal and has been classified by the government as having no medical value. But as soon as the government recognizes cannabis as a form of medicine, it opens the doors for these organizations to get involved because it is justifiable now.

If that were to happen all the money that has been generated in this industry, and has made several people very wealthy and successful, will slowly, but surely get stuffed into the pockets of Big Pharma, the FDA and the government.

That is a lot of individuals that stand to lose a very significant amount of money. This could be devastating for Colorado. Colorado’s entire economy is booming right now largely because of the cannabis industry. Colorado’s Real Estate market has seen tremendous growth since legal cannabis took effect with home values going up 13%, which is nothing compared to commercial properties. Cannabis is the driver behind half of Colorado’s tourism, and provided the state with $35 million to put into schools.

In my mind, rescheduling cannabis to a Schedule II substance will create more issues for the industry than it will benefits.

If the government were to take any stance on cannabis, it should completely declassify it. It should not be listed on any type of controlled substance list by the government. It is a natural plant, not a man-made substance. If the government will not declassify cannabis, I would rather them keep it as a Schedule I substance. At least this way it protects the industry and keeps it as is, belonging to the people.

Opportunities like the cannabis industry are once in a lifetime. It would be a shame to see it taken by Big Pharma, or controlled by the government.

For those that have made it this far down on this post, please understand that this is a worst-case scenario. A very drastic, but realistic outcome down one of the many paths the industry could go. But the motto in this industry since the beginning was, “prepare for the worst, and pray for the best.” I think we should follow those instructions now more than ever.

Editor’s Note: This article represents the opinion of the author, not necessarily that of Cannabis Industry Journal. We invite all readers who agree or disagree with the author’s opinion to join the conversation in the comments section below the article.

November 4, 2015

The Role of 3rd Party Accreditation in Cannabis Safety

By Roger Brauninger

1 Comment

Living in a world of ever-increasing interdependence and an era of limited state government, financial and human resources, it is imperative that those charged with protecting the health and safety of patients and users of medical and recreational cannabis products leverage what private sector institutions and existing frameworks already offer in setting up quality standards for laboratory testing operations. That this moment arrives now – at a point where state governments are being tasked with undertaking the most significant change in the regulation of this substance whilst the federal government appears unwilling to play a substantial role – makes this partnership both inevitable and absolutely necessary.

Accreditation is an internationally accepted conformity assessment tool for ensuring laboratory competence and confidence in the accuracy and reliability test data. The accreditation infrastructure is well-established through accreditation bodies (ABs) and the Mutual Recognition Arrangement (MRA) of the International Laboratory Accreditation Cooperation (ILAC), supported by regional cooperative arrangements, including those of the Asia Pacific Laboratory Accreditation Cooperation (APLAC) and the Inter-American Accreditation Cooperation (IAAC). ILAC functions as a forum for harmonization of laboratory accreditation procedures and policies, thus reducing technical barriers to trade and promoting laboratory accreditation as a mechanism for establishing confidence in testing facilities. ILAC MRA signatory ABs are recognized, through a rigorous peer evaluation process, as competent to accredit testing organizations. All signatory ABs must meet the requirements of ISO/IEC 17011 and use ISO/IEC 17025 as the basis for accreditation of laboratories. In turn, under the ILAC MRA and the regional co-operations, competent laboratories are recognized globally, thus facilitating acceptance of the test results that accompany goods across international borders.

In other areas, such as the food supply and energy, both state and federal government have been an active participant in accreditation activities. According to The Administrative Conference of the United States in its Agency Use of Third-Party Programs to Assess Regulatory Compliance*, “…agencies in diverse areas of regulation have developed third-party programs to assess whether regulated entities are in compliance with regulatory standards and other requirements. Through these programs, third parties are charged with assessing the safety of imported food… Third parties also ensure that products labeled as organic and energy-efficient meet applicable federal standards. In these regulatory third-party programs, regulated entities generally contract with third parties to carry out product testing and other regulatory compliance assessment activities in the place of regulatory agencies. Regulatory agencies take on new roles in coordinating and overseeing these third-party actors.” While this reference largely deals with areas outside of cannabis regulation, it remains useful and relevant because of the manner in which cannabis products are used.

Traditionally, ABs have worked with regulators to establish specific technical requirements to supplement the ISO/IEC 17025 accreditation framework. In this partnership, the AB is responsible for executing the assessment and accreditation process but the regulator retains responsibility for the ultimate decisions on the acceptance of that organization’s accreditation. In the example of our food supply and its various sources, governmental recognition of accreditation bodies operating in accordance with international standards is much more practical than government agencies themselves accrediting the individual testing organizations or ABs. Thus the public/private partnership paradigm: To assess regulatory compliance a Regulatory Agency approves ABs that accredit organizations that assess whether Regulated Entities or Regulated Products are in conformity with a Regulatory Standard.*

In this example, all of the organizations are treated equally by the regulatory agency since they use the same recognition criteria for ABs and the same accreditation requirements in the assessment of conformity assessment bodies. This approach would also provide consistency at a point in time where many states are grappling with trying to find the best quality standard to use and which, to date, has resulted in many different standards being chosen or considered for implementation. This is especially true when one looks at the requirements put into place by the “early adopter” states. However, in those states that have entered this area more recently, it seems clear that the consensus is use of ISO/IEC 17025 as the most appropriate quality management standard for testing laboratories.

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.