Vintners have known for centuries that every step in the winemaking process—from cultivation and harvest techniques to fermentation, aging and bottling—has immense impact on the quality and value of the final product.
And that same level of scrutiny is now being applied to cannabis production.
As someone who has worked in the consumer-packaged goods (CPG) space for decades, I’ve been interested in finding out how post-harvest storage and packaging affect the quality and value of cannabis flower. After digging into the issue some more, storage conditions and humidity levels have indeed come into focus as major factors, beyond just the challenges of preventing mold.
Weighty Matters
I enlisted my research team at Boveda, which has studied moisture control in all manner of manufactured and natural CPG products, to look closer at what’s happening with cannabis once it leaves the cultivation room. There’s not a lot of research on cannabis storage—we checked—and so we explored this aspect further. We were frankly surprised by what a big effect evaporation has on quality and how this is playing out on the retail level.
We suspected moisture loss could affect the bottom line too, and so we did some number-crunching.
It’s well understood that the weight of cannabis flower directly correlates with its profitability—the heavier the yield, the higher the market value. Here’s what our analysis found: A mere 5% dip below the optimal relative humidity (RH) storage environment eliminates six pounds per every 1,000 pounds of cannabis flower. At $5 per gram wholesale, that works out to upwards of $13,500 in lost revenue—and that’s with just a 5% drop in RH below the target range of 55-65% established by ASTM International, an independent industry standards organization.
We also purchased flower at retailers in multiple state markets and commissioned a lab to test the samples, which revealed that most strains sold today are well below the optimal RH range (55-65%). Regardless of fluctuating wholesale prices, when you do the math it’s clear that tens of thousands of dollars in revenue are simply evaporating into thin air.
Why So Dry?
Historically, cultivators, processors and packagers have emphasized keeping flower below a particular humidity “ceiling” for a reason: Flower that’s too moist is prone to hazardous mold and microbial growth, so it’s understandable that many operators err on the side of being overly dry.
The misconception that cannabis flower can be “rehydrated” is another cause of dryness damage. But this method irrevocably damages the quality of the flower through trichome damage.
The fine outgrowths, referred to as trichomes, house the majority of the plant’s resin
Those delicate plant structures that house the all-important cannabinoids and terpenes become brittle and fragile when stored in an overly dry environment, and are prone to breaking off from the flower; they cannot not be recovered even if the flower is later rehydrated.
When trichomes are compromised, terpenes responsible for the aroma, taste and scent of cannabis also can evaporate. Overly dried-out cannabis doesn’t just lose weight and efficacy—it loses shelf appeal, which is particularly risky in today’s market.
Today’s consumers have an appreciation for how premium flower should look, smell and taste. Rehydration cannot put terpenes back in the flower, nor can it re-attach trichomes to the flower, which is why preservation of these elements is so key.
Cannabis Humidity Control
Cured cannabis flower can remain in storage potentially for months prior to sale or consumption. By the time it reaches the end consumer, much of the cannabis sold in regulated environments in the U.S. and Canada has suffered from dry damage.
Rows of cannabis plants drying and curing following harvest
There are various humidity controls available for cannabis cultivators: desiccants that absorb water vapor; mechanical equipment that alters RH on a larger scale; or two-way humidity-control packets designed for storage containers.
In the CPG sector, with other moisture-sensitive products such as foods and electronics, we’ve seen that employing humidity controls will preserve quality, and cannabis flower is no different.
Saltwater-based humidity control solutions with two-way vapor-phase osmosis technology automatically add or remove water vapor as needed to maintain a constant, predetermined RH level and ensures a consistent level of moisture weight inside the cannabis flower.
Here’s one more notable finding we discovered in our storage research: Third-party lab tests commissioned by Boveda showed cannabis stored with humidity control had terpene and cannabinoid levels that were 15% higher than cannabis stored without.
Cannabis stored within the optimal humidity range maximizes all the qualities that attract and retain customers. Similar to wine-making, when cannabis cultivators focus on quality control they need to look beyond the harvest.
Project Yosemite, a cannabis product innovation and brand development company, announced earlier this month the appointment of Jennifer Raeder-Devens as their new Chief Scientific Officer. Raeder-Devens is a veteran of the MedTech industry, working for companies like Becton Dickinson, Cardinal Health, Medtronic and 3M.
Prior to joining Yosemite, she was the Vice President of Research & Development at Becton, Dickinson, where she oversaw product development and technology strategies to launch infection prevention products including the ChloraPrep first-in-the-US sterile solution patient preoperative topical antiseptic. She was previously the Vice President of R&D, Strategy and Innovation at Cardinal Health. She’s also held roles at Medtronic, 3M Drug Delivery Systems and 3M Skin Health Division and she has a number of patents in drug delivery and medical devices.
Jennifer Raeder-Devens, Chief Scientific Officer at Project Yosemite
In November of 2018, Project Yosemite launched their first product, OLO, which is an infused, controlled-release sublingual strip. Part of Raeder-Devens’ new role at the company is the continued development and expansion of the OLO sublingual strip technology platform. Andrew Mack, CEO and founder of Project Yosemite, says he’s thrilled to have Raeder-Devens on the team. “Jennifer is an extremely accomplished scientist and engineer with extensive experience driving innovation and R&D in the pharmaceutical and medical device industries,” says Mack.
We caught up with Jennifer over the phone to talk about her background in the MedTech space, why she decided to jump ship to join the cannabis industry and what she’s excited to work on now.
Cannabis Industry Journal: Can you tell us about your background, including your work with 3M and Medtronic?
Jennifer Raeder-Devens: I’m coming directly from Becton Dickinson, a global med tech company, where I supervised the development of drug-device combination products for topical antiseptics. I spent about 10 years there, mostly in topical drug and combination product development. Prior to that, I was at 3M and Medtronic working in drug-device combination products. At 3M, I was supervising a team of technology developers for the 3M Drug Delivery Systems business. I had experience working with designing and manufacturing transdermal, nasal, buccal and inhalation drug delivery mechanisms for pharmaceutical partners.
I worked on implantable drug delivery systems at Medtronic, which included working on the biocompatibility of things like pacemakers and drug infusion pumps and optimizing them to reduce infection and enhance healing after the implantation procedure.
CIJ: What made you consider joining the cannabis industry?
Jennifer: With my work in topicals, transdermal and inhalation drug delivery, I had an easy understanding of the different routes of administration we see today in the cannabis industry. And so, from the technology standpoint, I thought this was a place I could contribute to immediately. And then what got me really excited about it was thinking about cannabis, and just like any other drug, with oral drug delivery, you’ve got first class metabolism and side effects from the 11-Hydroxy-THC that are undesirable and you’d rather not have delivered through the gut.
OLO sublingual strips have a 10-minute onset time
I got excited when I saw the development of things like sublingual strips that were focusing on alternatives to smoking that would preserve that relatively fast onset and mitigate some of the side effects of edibles.
The other thing I really like about the cannabis industry: Previously I have been very focused on known drugs that are already approved and repurposing them into a new delivery system. What really interests me about the cannabis industry is the active cannabinoids and terpenes are somewhat known and somewhat unknown, so there is this really interesting challenge there of trying to separate the wheat from the chaff in terms of producing therapeutic effects.
It is a really interesting space where the indications of certain molecules are evolving along with the delivery technology. So, it is a really exciting and eye-opening way to take the next step in my career and have this wide-open space in front of me, both in terms of the different cannabinoids, their effects and the delivery systems we can use.
CIJ: How might you be prepared, given your background, for some of the challenges in the cannabis space?
Jennifer: I think the challenges in cannabis delivery are not different from the challenges in pharmaceutical drug delivery. It’s just that we have this additional complexity of the entourage effect. We can be engineering not just the main ingredient of THC, but also all the other cannabinoids and terpenes. So, for example, with my background in infection prevention, we build a product that we know reduces the risk of infection, but we are really challenged to actually prove it reduces the risk of infection. We have a similar situation in the cannabis industry, where we can get the THC, or CBG or CBN where we want it to go, but then we are really challenged to figure out how we can find, what we call in the pharmaceutical industry, a surrogate end point for efficacy, so that we can test that product and really believe that when we put the product on the market, even though we haven’t tested thousands of users or conducted large randomized clinical trials, that the effect will be shown. We are networking and partnering with a good scientific community to build the right product and do some testing at a small scale that really demonstrates the product achieves the effect that we are really looking for.
CIJ: Can you tell us a little about your new role with Project Yosemite?
Jennifer: My job description falls into three buckets: The first part is that we are forming a scientific advisory board and we are working with some of the leading cannabinoid researchers around the country and around the world. These are the people identifying whether or not certain cannabinoids could reduce cancer cell metabolism or whether cannabinoids contribute to weight loss or diabetes control and other things of that nature. We are trying to reach as far upstream as we can to grasp the emerging understanding of the performance of cannabinoids and terpenes in the endocannabinoid system. So, part of my job is to chair that scientific advisory board, get the thought leaders together in the room and have them bring their knowledge and explore with our own knowledge what cannabis can really do.
The OLO sublingual strips
I have worked in topical, transdermal, buccal, nasal, inhalation drug delivery. In the second bucket of my job, we are trying to understand a given indication or experience that our users want to have, what would be the right route for them. We are challenging our sublingual delivery mechanism to see how fast of an onset we can really get. Right now, we are at 10 minutes for drug delivery in sublingual and we are still trying to get an even faster onset time for the sublingual strip.
For other indications, like chronic pain, we may want to think about a sustained release, so sort of aligning the different indications with which different cannabinoids and terpenes will work for it and see which delivery platform will work for what we are trying to accomplish in each indication. So, we do not plan to remain solely a sublingual strip company, but will build out additional delivery platforms as we develop new indications.
Right now, we are working upstream with the growers and the processors to get cannabis oil and extracts. Some of the growers are working on different genetics in their cultivars to grow plants that have different ratios of different cannabinoids that we know from the emerging research will have an impact on people’s experience. Now we are working with growers to really get ahead of the curve on how to formulate products with various cannabinoids.
We have an R&D team in house that I supervise. We are always working with our production team to make small improvements such as the faster onset and the dissolution rate and things like flavors, which covers a downstream focus as well.
Cannabis growers and distributors are “green” when it comes to cyber security. Unaware of the real risks, cannabis businesses consistently fall short of instituting some of the most basic cybersecurity protections, leaving them increasingly vulnerable to a cyber-attack.
Cannabis businesses are especially attractive to hackers because of the vast amount of personally identifiable and protected health information they’re required to collect as well as the crop trade secrets they store. With businesses growing by leaps and bounds, and more and more Americans and Canadians purchasing cannabis, cybercriminals are likely to increase their attacks on the North American market in the coming year. Arm your cannabis business with the following best practices for growers and distributors.
Distributor Risk = A Customer’s PII
Cyber risk is the greatest for cannabis distributors, required to collect personal identifiable information (PII), including driver’s licenses, credit cards, medical history and insurance information from patients. State regulatory oversight further compounds the distributor’s risk of cyber-attack. If you’re a cannabis distributor, you’ll want to make sure to:
Know where you retain buyer information, and understand how it can potentially be breached. Are you scanning driver’s licenses into a database, or retaining paper files? Are you keeping them in a secure area off site, or on a protected network? Make sure a member of your management team is maintaining compliance with HIPAA and state statutes and requirements for cannabis distribution.
Institute strong employee oversight rules. Every employee does not have to have access to every sale, or your entire database of proprietary customer information. Delegate jobs behind the sales desk. Give each employee the access they need to do their job – and that’s it.
Distributors have to protect grower’s R&D information too. Most cannabis distributors have access to their grower’s proprietary R&D information so they can help customers understand which products are best for different medical symptoms/needs. Make sure your employees don’t reveal too much to put your suppliers in potential risk of cyberattack.
Grower Risk = Crop Trade Secrets
For cannabis growers, the risk is specific to crop trade secrets, research and development (R&D). If you’re a cannabis grower, you’ll want to:
Secure your R&D process. If you’ve created a cannabis formula that reduces anxiety or pain or boosts energy, these “recipes” are your competitive advantage – your intellectual property. Consider the way you store information behind the R&D of your cannabis crops. Do you store it on electronic file, or a computer desktop? What type of credentials do people need to access it? Other industries will use a third party cloud service to store their R&D information, but with cannabis businesses that’s typically not the case. Instead, many growers maintain their own servers because they feel this risk is so great, and because their business is growing so fast, there are not yet on the cloud.
Limit the number of people with access to your “secret sauce.” When workers are harvesting crop, or you’re renting land from farmers and planting on it, make sure to keep proprietary information in the hands of just the few who need it – and no one else. This is especially important when sharing details with third party vendors.
Cyber coverage is now ripe for picking
Although cannabis businesses are hard to insure – for just about every type of risk – cyber insurance options for cannabis companies have recently expanded, and come down in price. If you’ve looked for cyber coverage in the past and were previously unable to secure it, now is the time to revisit the market.
Know that cyber policy underwriters will do additional due diligence, going beyond the typical policy application, and ask about the types of proprietary information you collect from customers, as well as how you store and access it at a later date. Have this knowledge at your fingertips, and be ready to talk to underwriters about it when you’re bidding for a new policy – and at renewal time.
Back in August, Lake Superior State University (LSSU) announced the formation of a strategic partnership with Agilent Technologies to “facilitate education and research in cannabis chemistry and analysis.” The university formed the LSSU Cannabis Center of Excellence (CoE), which is sponsored by Agilent. The facility, powered by top-of-the-line Agilent instrumentation, is designed for research and education in cannabis science, according to a press release.
Chemistry student, Justin Blalock, calibrates an Agilent 1290 Ultra-High Pressure Liquid Chromatograph with a 6470 Tandem Mass Spectrometer in the new LSSU Cannabis Center of Excellence, Sponsored by Agilent.
The LSSU Cannabis CoE will help train undergraduate students in the field of cannabis science and analytical chemistry. “The focus of the new LSSU Cannabis CoE will be training undergraduate students as job-ready chemists, experienced in multi-million-dollar instrumentation and modern techniques,” reads the press release. “Students will be using Agilent’s preeminent scientific instruments in their coursework and in faculty-mentored undergraduate research.”
The facility has over $2 million dollars of Agilent instruments including their UHPLC-MS/MS, UHPLC-TOF, GC-MS/MS, LC-DAD, GC/MS, GC-FID/ECD, ICP-MS and MP-AES. Those instruments are housed in a 2600 square-foot facility in the Crawford Hall of Science. In February earlier this year, LSSU launched the very first program for undergraduate students focused completely on cannabis chemistry. With the new facility and all the technology that comes with it, they hope to develop a leading training center for chemists in the cannabis space.
Dr. Steve Johnson, Dean of the College of Science and the Environment at LSSU, says making this kind of instrumentation available to undergraduate studies is a game changer. “The LSSU Cannabis Center of Excellence, Sponsored by Agilent was created to provide a platform for our students to be at the forefront of the cannabis analytics industry,” says Dr. Johnson. “The instrumentation available is rarely paralleled at other undergraduate institutions. The focus of the cannabis program is to provide our graduates with the analytical skills necessary to move successfully into the cannabis industry.”
Storm Shriver is the Laboratory Director at Unitech Laboratories, a cannabis testing lab in Michigan, and sounds eager to work with students in the program. “I was very excited to learn about your degree offerings as there is a definite shortage of chemists who have experience with data analysis and operation of the analytical equipment required for the analysis of cannabis,” says Shriver. “I am running into this now as I begin hiring and scouting for qualified individuals. I am definitely interested in a summer internship program with my laboratory.”
LSSU hopes the new facility and program will help lead the way for more innovation in cannabis science and research. For more information, visit LSSU.edu.
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.
Then, 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
“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.
With recent changes in federal and state law, and growing consumer awareness, the long-dormant hemp industry may finally be able to take heed of George Washington’s advice, “Make the most you can of [India Hemp] … The Hemp may be sown anywhere.”1
Hemp has a long and varied history in the United States. Throughout his lifetime, George Washington cultivated hemp at his Mount Vernon Estate, and, for a time, Washington even considered replacing tobacco with hemp as the Estate’s primary cash crop.2 Like Washington, Thomas Jefferson grew hemp at Monticello and his lesser-known Poplar Forest plantation.3 Both Founding Fathers primarily used the hemp cultivated on their property for making household items like clothing, rope, and fishing nets.
From the colonial era until 1970, hemp was routinely cultivated across the United States for industrial use. But, with the passage of the Controlled Substances Act (“CSA”) in 1970, U.S. hemp production ceased.4 The CSA banned cannabis of any kind, eliminating any distinction between hemp and other types of cannabis. As a result, hemp production became illegal in the United States.
A wide variety of hemp products can be found throughout the Untied States markets. Image courtesy of Direct Cannabis Network
More recently, the U.S. government finally began to ease restrictions on hemp cultivation and production. The 2014 Farm Bill introduced the USDA Hemp Production Program.5 Under the Program, universities and state departments of agriculture are allowed to cultivate hemp if:
The industrial hemp is grown or cultivated for purposes of research conducted under an agricultural pilot program or other agricultural or academic research; and
The growing or cultivating of industrial hemp is allowed under the laws of the state in which such institution of higher education or state department of agriculture is located and such research occurs.
The 2014 Farm Bill did not remove hemp from the auspices of the CSA, nor did it address the continuing application of federal drug control statutes to the growth, cultivation, manufacture, and distribution of hemp products.
The 2018 Farm Bill built upon the deregulation that began in 2014.6 Although both the 2014 and 2018 bills define hemp as the plant Cannabis sativa L. and any part of that plant that has a delta-9 THC concentration of 0.3% or less by dry weight,7 the 2018 Farm Bill took the additional step of removing hemp from the federal list of controlled substances and categorized it as an agricultural product. As a result, the production of hemp is now subject to USDA licensure and regulation. However, until the USDA completes its rulemaking process for implementing hemp regulation, hemp production remains illegal unless done in compliance with the terms of the earlier 2014 bill.8 For the time being, legal cultivation of hemp still must occur in a state that has authorized hemp research9 and the researcher must be either an institute of higher education or a state department of agriculture (or its designee).
With the increasingly favorable changes to federal and state law allowing for the expanded cultivation and production of hemp in the United States, the market is expected to grow significantly in the coming years. In 2014, the U.S. industrial hemp market was estimated at approximately $504 million.10 In only one year after the passage of the 2014 Farm Bill, the industrial hemp market was estimated to have increased by over $95 million to almost $600 million. By 2017, the worldwide market for industrial hemp was estimated to be $3.9 billion and growing at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 14%.
In addition to favorable changes in U.S. law, the hemp market is benefiting from growing consumer awareness and demand for hemp-based food products.11 High in omega-3 and omega-6, amino acids and protein, hemp is growing in popularity as a cooking oil, dairy substitute, flour source and bakery ingredient. Among other things, hemp is considered by some to provide positive health effects for those seeking help with insulin balance, cardiac function, mood stability, and skin and joint health.
Although hemp cultivation is now allowed in the U.S.—at least for research purposes—and the market is forecasted to rise steadily under growing demand for hemp-based products, broad access to viable, legal seeds continues to present a challenge for researchers and commercial growers. In order to legally implement authorized cultivation programs and take economic advantage of a swiftly growing market, farmers must have access to seeds that can be guaranteed to consistently produce plants that fall under the legal definition of hemp. In an attempt to alleviate the problem, several states, including California, Indiana, Maine and Oregon, have implemented programs to license or certify compliant seed distributors and producers.
The importance of hemp seed availability and development has also been recognized on the federal level. On April 24, 2019, the USDA Agricultural Marketing Service published a Notice to Trade announcing that the USDA’s Plant Variety Protection Office (“PVPO”) is now accepting applications of seed-propagated hemp for protection under the Plant Variety Protection Act (“PVPA”). Among other things, the PVPA provides intellectual property protection to breeders who have developed new varieties of seed-propagated plants. Under the new guidance, breeders of new hemp varieties can now secure protection pursuant to the PVPA. Those holding a certificate of protection from the PVPO can exclude others from marketing or selling a registered hemp variety and manage how other breeders and growers use their protected variety.
The process for requesting protection under the PVPA is fairly straightforward. Breeders, or their attorneys, must complete all application forms, pay the required fees,12 submit a distinct plant variety name, and provide a deposit of at least 3,000 viable and untreated seeds of the variety (or 3,000 seeds of each parent variety for a hybrid). One required form for a completed PVPA application is the Objective Description of Variety form.13 This form provides a series of questions that identify the distinct aspects of the variety in question, including, among other things, plant and leaf characteristics, seed properties and anticipated uses. Upon receipt of the completed application and fees, the PVPO examines the application to determine whether the listed plant variety is new, distinct, uniform, and stable. If the PVPO determines that the requirements are satisfied, it will issue a certificate of protection granting the owner exclusive rights to the registered variety for a period of 20 years.Now is the time for farmers, researchers, and hobbyists alike to take advantage of the expanded opportunities available for protecting intellectual property for proprietary hemp varieties.
Although hemp has traditionally been used in the textile and fiber industries, the estimated 17.1% CAGR in the hemp seed segment is being driven by the increase in demand for hemp oil, seedcakes, and other food and nutraceutical products. These products are primarily derived from the hemp seed as opposed to its fibers. Presently, hemp seeds contain approximately 30-35% oil, of which approximately 80% is essential fatty acids, and 25% crude protein.14 Under the new PVPA guidelines, if a breeder is able to cultivate a sustainable plant that increases the plant’s production of the desirable compounds, he or she could achieve a significant position in the growing market.
The protection provided by the newly expanded PVPA builds upon other avenues of intellectual property protection now available to hemp breeders and growers. In addition to the PVPA, plants meeting certain criteria may also be protectable under a plant patent or a utility patent, both of which are administered by the U.S. Patent and Trademark office. Generally speaking, PVPA protection may be available for seeds and tubers, plant patent protection applies to asexually propagated plants, and utility patent protection may be available for genes, traits, methods, plant parts and varieties.15
With a market that is expected to grow substantially in the near future, and with the passing of increasingly friendly federal and state legislation, the hemp industry is on the cusp of significant expansion. Now is the time for farmers, researchers, and hobbyists alike to take advantage of the expanded opportunities available for protecting intellectual property for proprietary hemp varieties.
George Washington to William Pearce, 24 February 1794.
To date, at least 41 states have passed legislation authorizing hemp cultivation and production programs consistent with federal law. As of the date of this article, those states that have not enacted legislation allowing the cultivation of hemp for commercial, research, or pilot purposes include: Connecticut, Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Louisiana, Mississippi, Ohio, South Dakota, Texas, and the District of Columbia.
Currently, the Food and Drug Administration prohibits hemp-based CBD in food and beverages. However, the FDA has set a public hearing to discussing the legalization of CBD in food and beverages for May 31, 2019.
The PVPA application fee is currently $4,382 with an additional fee of $768 due upon issuance of a certificate of registration.
Hemp Seed (Cannabis sativa L.) Proteins: Composition, Structure, Enzymatic Modification, and Functional or Bioactive Properties,Sustainable Protein Sources (Ch. 7), R.E. Aluko (2017).
Regulations are currently under consideration that could expand or otherwise modify the scope of protection available under each of the enumerated intellectual property protection schemes. Consult a licensed attorney for questions regarding the specific program that may apply to a particular set of circumstances.
Folks from around the country and the world tuned into the U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) website as they held a public hearing on Friday, May 31. Manufacturers and suppliers asked the FDA to regulate CBD like food or dietary supplements, while the FDA seemed to want more evidence on the safety of CBD products before giving the greenlight.
Background On The Hearing
For the uninitiated, after President Trump signed the Farm Bill into law back in December 2018, Scott Gottlieb, now former director of the FDA, issued a statement the same day the Farm Bill passed, clarifying the FDA’s regulatory authority. In the statement, Gottlieb explained that Congress preserved the FDA’s authority to regulate products containing cannabis and its constituents under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act).
In April 2019, around the same time he resigned from the FDA, Gottlieb issued another statement, acknowledging the quickly growing industry throughout the country and total lack of federal regulatory guidance. This time around, Gottlieb laid out a handful of steps that the FDA plans on taking to address regulations around hemp and cannabidiol (CBD). Those included scheduling the public hearing for May 31, where written and oral public comments were submitted by stakeholders, sharing “their experiences and challenges with these products [hemp and CBD products], including information and views related to product safety.”
That statement also announced the formation of an internal agency working group to “explore potential pathways for dietary supplements and/or conventional foods containing CBD to be lawfully marketed; including a consideration of what statutory or regulatory changes might be needed and what the impact of such marketing would be on the public health.”
Fast-forward to May 31, the day of the public hearing, and all eyes in the industry focused on what all these stakeholders had to say to the FDA about CBD. The day started off with about two hours of oral comments, each speaker had roughly two minutes to deliver their thoughts.
Karen Howard, CEO of the Organic and Natural Health Association, speaks about the quality of CBD products
Oral Comments
Industry stakeholders representing cannabis businesses sang much of the same tune, clamoring for wise regulations on safety, testing, banking and interstate commerce, among other standards. NCIA Policy Director Andrew Kline’s comments included running through five major positions of the industry trade organization representing CBD companies. Those included recommending the FDA act quickly in setting up regulations, stressing the massive economic impact of the industry, saying that CBD products are generally safe, clamoring for voluntary, consensus-based standards and informing consumers of any potential risks. “The bottom line is this – an overwhelming preponderance of evidence indicates that cannabis and cannabis-derived compounds present minimal health and safety concerns,” Kline told the folks at the FDA. “Time is of the essence. Hemp-derived CBD products are in very high consumer demand and the industry is eagerly awaiting FDA’s regulatory framework for these products. We strongly recommend that FDA act quickly to clarify the regulatory environment because there is significant confusion in the market.”
Anna Williams, representing the American Association for Laboratory Accreditation (A2LA), stressed the importance of testing for contaminants and adulterants as well as advocating for national standards on lab testing, instead of the state-by-state network of different standards.
Patients & Public Safety
After industry stakeholders had their chance to speak, the FDA allowed a group of advocacy organizations representing patients time to speak. That included representatives for the Alzheimer’s Association and the American Epilepsy Society, both of which were hesitant to throw their full support behind CBD as medicine. Kevin Chapman with the American Epilepsy Society said he wants to see clear warning labels, testing standards, more clinical trials and more studies before the group is ready to form a position on using CBD as medicine. Keith Fargo with the Alzheimer’s Association supports clinical trials to study it more, but thinks CBD is risky for patients without serious evidence of efficacy. A representative from the Tuberous Sclerosis Alliance also echoed similar concerns. They want to see labeling of drug interactions on labels of CBD products.
One section of the oral comments included discussions about patients, public safety and retailers/distributors.
After those comments, some organizations had the chance to speak followed by comments from retailers and distributors. Patrick Bird, owner of PMB BioTek Consulting, spoke on behalf of AOAC International, where he primarily discussed public safety. He said they want cannabis products to be regulated with food safety in mind, asking for FSMA to apply to hemp products. They want to adequately ensure product safety with things like mandating HACCP plans, recall readiness, saying hemp products should be treated just like food products.
Retailers & Distributors
Peter Matz, representing the Food Marketing Institute, the trade association for the supermarket industry, said that regulatory ambiguity is a serious issue that needs addressing. “There is mass confusion in the marketplace for the public, suppliers, retailers and state regulators,” says Matz. “Demand for CBD products in human and animal use is growing rapidly. ¼ of American have already tried it. We are fielding questions from companies seeking clarity regarding the current federal regulatory framework.” He added, what many others also mentioned, that the FDA needs to move swiftly to provide a pathway to regulation.
State Regulators
Next on the docket came presentations from state government entities, including state departments of agriculture, followed by healthcare professionals. The state regulators that spoke mentioned a lot about food safety, standards, testing regulations, GMPs and things like that to protect consumer safety. “Currently states are struggling with the lack of sound scientific research available in CBD and long-term health impacts,” said Pam Miles, representing the Virginia Department of Agriculture.
The docket for state regulators delivering presentations
One interesting aspect on their talks however was telling the FDA just how large their markets have gotten already and how they need guidance on how to regulate markets in their own states. Joseph Reardon, with the North Carolina Department of Agriculture, said they already have about 600 farmers growing hemp and thousands of processors working with the product in their state. “We urge the FDA to resolve the statutory issues improperly establish a legal pathway for CBD products to enter the market place,” Reardon commented. He also asked that the FDA extend the written comment period from July to August. “We are simply looking for a regulatory framework on the extraction, production and reconstitution of CBD or cannabinoid related products.”
Healthcare & Research
Healthcare providers, and physician testimony also echoed a lot of the same concerns, including the lack of research done, concerns about effects on at-risk populations and concerns about use as ingredients in dietary supplements and food. Some of the presentations also highlighted the room for nefarious activity in an unregulated marketplace. Some went as far as to mention cases where they found CBD vape juices with DXM in it (the active ingredient in cough syrup), CBD products found to contain THC, as well as synthetic cannabinoids responsible for drug overdose deaths. Some advocates in the hemp and CBD community have equated these arguments similar to reefer madness.
The major takeaway from this hearing is that everyone wants to see more data. Researchers and healthcare providers want to study the efficacy of CBD used in medicine, regulators want public safety information, patient advocates want to see data about effects on at-risk populations, trade organizations want data to back up label claims and the FDA wants to see just how safe CBD really is.
Products using hemp-derived cannabidiol (CBD) designed for pets is not a new concept; Companies have been marketing CBD pet products for quite some time now, making their way into pet stores across the United States. Some pet owners have embraced the trend, using CBD oil to calm pets down, help alleviate joint pain as well as inflammation, while others are understandingly skeptical when it comes to using novel remedies for their furry friends.
Researchers at the University of Pennsylvania’s School of Veterinary Medicine hope to find some answers to those questions, particularly regarding the efficacy of using CBD remedies for dogs. According to a press release, a team of researchers at University of Pennsylvania’s Veterinary Clinical Investigations Center will perform the first major double-blind clinical trial to study the effectiveness of CBD in treating joint immobility in dogs. The trial will be led by principal investigator Dr. Kimberly Agnello.
According to the press release, this is the largest trial for cannabinoid therapy in pets so far. The trial will include use of the CBD-infused pet product, Therabis’ “Mobility.” Therabis is a subsidiary of Dixie Brands, Inc., a large cannabis infused products company in markets across the United States. Here are some of the details on the clinical trial, shared through the press release:
Dogs known to be suffering from inflammation secondary to osteoarthritis will be studied to determine whether those who receive the Therabis supplement achieve better outcomes than untreated dogs. One group of dogs will receive the formula for a proprietary veterinarian-specific formula Therabis product; a second group will receive Cannabidiol alone which previous studies have shown may have benefit in osteoarthritic dogs; a control group will receive a placebo. Study designers are targeting inclusion of up to 20 dogs in each group. The design of this study will provide valuable data defining the synergistic potential of the additional ingredients in the Therabis formula.
According to Dr. Stephen M. Katz, co-founder of Therabis, they think the data from the trials will show a positive outcome for dogs using their products. “We are honored to have a Therabis product selected by the world-renowned experts at Penn Vet for their first major study of the effects of natural hemp oil to reduce joint pain in dogs,” Says Katz. “Our experience in my clinic has shown that cannabidiol (CBD) is an effective treatment in reducing inflammatory response. We have a passion for improving dogs’ quality of life, and we look forward to learning all we can about therapeutic methods to achieve this.”
The results from this clinical trial, to be published in an academic journal upon conclusion of the study, should be of great interest to the hemp industry. Brightfield Group estimates that the CBD-infused pet products market is a $199 million industry, expected to grow up to $1.16 billion by 2020.
For those who have been watching (if not in the thick of) the drama over Israeli medical cannabis export rights, this latest development was not only inevitable but overdue. Israel’s parliament unanimously approved the legislation on Christmas Day (along with Thailand). Less than a month later, the cabinet concurred.
That means that export rights are now actionable law.
Beyond this final passage into reality, export rights have been at the forefront of a global drama on cannabis- most recently in this part of the world, as a specific chip in political dealmaking between U.S. President and Israel’s Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu since the former entered office. This go around at least.
Tel Aviv, Israel
The political bargaining that even allowed Israel’s medical program to flourish and get funding from its earliest days (including of the U.S. federal government kind) of course, is nothing new.
Pioneers Of The Cannabis Industry
Hard as it is to believe, most of what is widely known and easily digitally shared (including on social media) about cannabis (as a plant, let alone distinctions between cannabinoids) is information created during this last four to eight-year period (certainly since 2010). This has been driven by reform, and a birth of wider education about medical and recreational cannabis plus the cannabis industry and broader lifestyle press. And most of what is credible out there, no matter who claims credit today, has an Israeli origin, and of the medical kind.
Add this history of scientific research and insight to the philosophy of a nation driven by entrepreneurial zest, and say no more.
Now that Israel can begin to export its cannabis, the interesting thing to see is whether cannatech will in the end, be more valuable than individual strains themselves. The pick axe in this particular “green gold rush?”
For now, of course, all bets are off, even on the cultivation front. Because, no matter what else it is, it is well timed, globally, to give even the Israeli medical production market a big green shot in the arm.
Germany and Europe Beckons
The change in the law in Israel also comes as those who made first qualifying round in the German cultivation bid are getting prequalification letters, although this time, no firms, anywhere, have issued press releases about their finalist round status.
And here is the other issue to consider: While the bid itself does not have anything to do with import capability, new Israeli game in town is, in itself, a big game changer for anyone whose hat was thrown into the coalitions who applied for the pending cultivation license. Why? Until they deliver their first crops grown auf Deutschland, firms have to deliver from somewhere. And this being Germany, the import destination has to be from a place where the plant is federally legal. Israel becomes another option in a market so far dominated by Dutch and Canadian firms.
The Tikun Olam strain Avidekel being grown in Israel.
Can you smell new bid lawsuits also, if this scenario has not already been addressed by BfArM? The history of cannabinoids in Germany in general (historically as well as recently) is fraught already. This pending challenge, should it come, will be laden with symbology modern Germany will do everything to avoid provoking.
Beyond the soap opera that the bid has turned into in Germany (the ultimate test case for cultivation and insurance-backed medical and industry acceptance across the rest of the EU essentially), there are of course, other markets beckoning. This includes all of Eastern Europe and much of the EU. This includes France and the UK immediately.
In other words, no matter what the longer-term impacts will be, this well timed, politically astute Israeli decision is coming at the beginning of what is going to be, as everyone is clearly seeing at the end of January, a momentous and earth-shaking year not only for Europe, but globally.
And that is big business for a little country with an eye on the export game.
I was wrong. And that’s a good thing! Based on all available data, I assumed that evaporating ethanol from a cannabis oil/ethanol solution would result in terpene loss. As it turns out, it doesn’t. There are so many beliefs and assumptions about cannabis: Cannabis cures cancer!1 Smoking cannabis causes cancer!2 Sativas help you sleep; Indicas make you creative!3,4 CBD is not psychoactive!5 But are these ‘facts’ backed by science? Have they been experimentally tested and validated?
I postulated a theory, designed experiments to validate it and evaluated the results. Simply putting “cannabis backed by science” on your label does not solve the problem. Science is not a marketing term. It’s not even a fixed term. The practice of science is multifaceted and sometimes confusing. It evolved from the traditional model of Inductivism, where observations are used in an iterative process to refine a law/theory that can generalize such observations.6 Closely related is Empiricism, which posits that knowledge can only come from observation. Rationalism, on the other hand, believes that certain truths can be directly grasped by one’s intellect.7 In the last century, the definition of science was changed from the method by which we study something, such as Inductivism or Rationalism, and refocused on the way we explain phenomena. It states that a theory should be considered scientific if, and only if, it is falsifiable.8 All that means is that not the way we study something is what makes it scientific, but the way we explain it.
I wonder how can we use empirical observations and rational deliberations to solve the questions surrounding cannabis? And more importantly, how can we form scientific theories that are falsifiable? Cannabis, the plant, the drug, has long been withheld from society by its legal status. As a result, much of what we know, in fact, the entire industry has thrived in the shadows away from rigorous research. It’s time for this to change. I am particularly concerned by the lack of fundamental research in the field. I am not even talking about large questions, like the potential medical benefit of the plant and its constituents. Those are for later. I’m talking about fundamental, mundane questions like how many lumens per square centimetre does the plant need for optimal THC production? What are the kinetics of cannabis extraction in different solvents? What are the thermodynamics of decarboxylation? Where do major cannabinoids differ or align in terms of water solubility and viscosity?
The lack of knowledge and data in the cannabis field puts us in the precarious position of potentially chasing the wrong goals, not to mention wasting enormous amounts of time and money. Here’s a recent example drawn from personal experience:Certainly, I cannot be the only one who has made an incorrect assumption based on anecdotes and incomplete data?
Some of the most common steps in cannabis oil production involve ethanol solutions. Ethanol is commonly removed from extraction material under reduced pressure and elevated heat in a rotary evaporator. I expected that this process would endanger the terpenes in the oil – a key component of product quality. My theory was that volatile terpenes9 would be lost in the rotary evaporator during ethanol10 removal. The close values of vapor pressure for terpenes and ethanol make this a reasonably assumed possibility.11 In the summer of 2018, I finally got the chance to test it. I designed experiments at different temperatures and pressures, neat and in solution, to quantify the terpene lost in ethanol evaporation. I also considered real life conditions and limitations of cannabis oil manufacturers. After all the experiments were done, the results unequivocally showed that terpenes do not evaporate in a rotary evaporator when ethanol is removed from cannabis extracts.12 As it turns out, I was wrong.
We, as an industry, need to start putting money and effort into fundamental cannabis research programs. But, at least I ran the experiments! I postulated a theory, designed experiments to validate it and evaluated the results. At this point, and only this point, can I conclude anything about my hypothesis, even if that is that my working theory needs to be revised. Certainly, I cannot be the only one who has made an incorrect assumption based on anecdotes and incomplete data?
There is a particular danger when using incomplete data to form conclusions. There are many striking examples in the medical literature and even the casual observer might know them. The case of hormone replacement therapy for menopause and the associated risks of cardiovascular diseases showed how observational studies and well-designed clinical trials can lead to contradicting results.13 In the thirties of the last century, lobotomy became a cure-all technique for mental health issues.14 Dr. Moniz even won the Nobel Prize in Medicine for it.15 And it must come as no surprise when WIRED states “that one generation’s Nobel Prize-winning cure is another generation’s worst nightmare.”16 And with today’s knowledge is impossible to consider mercury as a treatment for syphilis, but that is exactly what it was used as for many centuries.17 All those examples, but the last one in particular should “be a good example of the weight of tradition or habit in the medical practice, […] of the necessity and the difficulties to evaluate the treatments without error.”18 There is the danger that we as cannabis professionals fall into the same trap and believe the old stories and become dogmatic about cannabis’ potential.
We, as an industry, need to start putting money and effort into fundamental cannabis research programs. That might be by sponsoring academic research,19 building in-house research divisions,20 or even building research networks.21 I fully believe in the need for fundamental cannabis research, even the non-sexy aspects.22 Therefore, I set up just that: an independent research laboratory, focused on fundamental cannabis research where we can test our assumptions and validate our theories. Although, I alone cannot do it all. I likely will be wrong somewhere (again). So, please join me in this effort. Let’s make sure cannabis science progresses.
References
No, it does not. There are preliminary in-situ studies that point at anti-cancer effects, but its more complicated. The therapeutic effects of Cannabis and cannabinoids: An update from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine report, Abrams, Donald I., European Journal of Internal Medicine, Volume 49, 7 – 11
No, it does not. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. The Health Effects of Cannabis and Cannabinoids: The Current State of Evidence and Recommendations for Research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/24625.
No, it does not. The chemical profile of the plant dictates the biological effects on humans, not the shape of the leaf. Justin T. Fischedick, Cannabis and Cannabinoid Research, Volume: 2 Issue 1: March 1, 2017
Indica and Sativa are outdated terms. Piomelli D, Russo EB. The Cannabis sativa versus Cannabis indica debate: An Interview with Ethan Russo, MD. Cannabis Cannabinoid Res 2016; 1: 44–46.
No, it is. CBD’s supposed “calming effects” is indeed a psychoactive effect. However, it is not intoxicating like THC. Russo E.B., Taming THC: potential cannabis synergy and phytocannabinoid-terpenoid entourage effects.Br. J. Pharmacol. 2011; 163: 1344-1364
As attributed to Francis Bacon.
See the work by philosopher Baruch Spinoza.
As theorized by Karl Popper.
Monoterpenes have a vapor pressure in the low to mid hundreds of Pascals at room temperature.
Vapor pressure of 5.95 kPa at 20˚C.
Furthermore, there is always the possibility of azeotropes in complex mixtures. Azeotropes are mixtures of two or more liquids that have different boiling points individually, but in mixture boil together.
Terpene Retention via Rotary Evaporator Application Note, Heidolph North America
This website uses cookies so that we can provide you with the best user experience possible. Cookie information is stored in your browser and performs functions such as recognising you when you return to our website and helping our team to understand which sections of the website you find most interesting and useful.
Strictly Necessary Cookies
Strictly Necessary Cookie should be enabled at all times so that we can save your preferences for cookie settings.
We use tracking pixels that set your arrival time at our website, this is used as part of our anti-spam and security measures. Disabling this tracking pixel would disable some of our security measures, and is therefore considered necessary for the safe operation of the website. This tracking pixel is cleared from your system when you delete files in your history.
We also use cookies to store your preferences regarding the setting of 3rd Party Cookies.
If you disable this cookie, we will not be able to save your preferences. This means that every time you visit this website you will need to enable or disable cookies again.
It’s well understood that the weight of cannabis flower directly correlates with its profitability—the heavier the yield, the higher the market value. Here’s what our analysis found: A mere 5% dip below the optimal relative humidity (RH) storage environment eliminates six pounds per every 1,000 pounds of cannabis flower. At $5 per gram wholesale, that works out to upwards of $13,500 in lost revenue—and that’s with just a 5% drop in RH below the target range of 55-65% established by ASTM International, an independent industry standards organization.
