Back in September 2018, I wrote about how important it was for hemp businesses to carefully plan the routes they would use to ship hemp and hemp products, including hemp-derived CBD. This is because some states are hostile towards hemp and do not recognize a difference between hemp and marijuana. My article was written prior to the passage of the Agricultural Improvement Act of 2018 (“2018 Farm Bill”), which expanded federal law to cover a wider range of commercial hemp activity and gave the US Department of Agriculture (“USDA”) regulatory authority over the cultivation of hemp. With regards to the interstate transfer of hemp, section 10114 (b) of the 2018 Farm Bill states the following:
In plain english, this means that states and Tribes can’t prohibit hemp or hemp products from passing through their state or territory if the hemp or hemp products were produced in compliance with Section 10113 of the 2018 Farm Bill. On it’s face this provision may look like hemp businesses no longer need to fear state-level enforcement against hemp or hemp products entered into interstate commerce. However, that is not necessarily the case and businesses who hang their hat on section 10114 do so at their own risk. The problem with relying on section 10114 is that it appears to be contingent on Section 10113 of the 2018 Farm Bill. Section 10113 of the 2018 Farm Bill covers hemp production (which you can read about here). In summary, Section 10113 indicates that the USDA will oversee hemp production at the federal level by approving of state and Tribal plans covering the cultivation of hemp. States and Tribes will submit plans to the USDA for approval. Section 297C of the 2018 Farm Bill requires that the USDA establish its own plan and and issue licenses to cover the cultivation of hemp in states or Tribal territories where that state or Tribe’s plan for hemp cultivation has not been approved. The USDA has not yet approved of any state or Tribes plan. It also has not created its own plan under Section 297C. That means that any hemp legally cultivated in the US was done so under Section 7606 of the 2014 Farm Bill. The 2014 Farm Bill allows states to implement agricultural pilot programs to research the cultivation of industrial hemp. State departments of agriculture can issue licenses for the cultivation of hemp. Some states have interpreted this to cover commercial activity. However, the 2014 Farm Bill provides no explicit protection for the interstate transfer of industrial hemp. Returning to the 2018 Farm Bill, Section 7605 (b) of the 2018 Farm Bill extends Section 7606 of the 2014 Farm Bill for one year after the USDA establishes a plan under 297C. That provision is not contained within Section 10113. Section 10114’s prohibition on interference with the interstate transfer of hemp does not reference the 2014 Farm Bill. Therefore, Section 10114’s protection against interference with the interstate shipment of hemp or hemp products may not currently apply to hemp or hemp products currently in transit because they cannot yet be cultivated “in accordance with” Section 10113. On the other hand, the intent of Congress seems to indicate that hemp and hemp products should be commercially distributed throughout the country. The 2018 Farm Bill changes the Controlled Substance Act (“CSA”) by explicitly removing “hemp” from the definition of marijuana. It also defines hemp as an agricultural commodity that is eligible for federal crop insurance. Additionally, it allows the USDA to license the cultivation of hemp in a state or Tribal territory that does not have an approved plan. Additionally, an administrative law judge has held that products containing CBD derived from 2014 Farm Bill industrial hemp are allowed to be distributed in the US mail. Also, a federal judge in West Virginia recently lifted a restraining order that limited a hemp cultivator from transporting processed hemp to a Pennsylvania lab that would process it into CBD isolate, because “the Court has become increasingly doubtful of the Government’s case on the merits.” This is due, at least in part, to the 2018 Farm Bill’s removal of hemp from the CSA. (A copy of the order is provided by Hemp Industry Daily, which also wrote about the decision here.) We’ll likely get additional insight into the question of whether companies can ship 2014 Farm Bill hemp across state lines as there is currently a lawsuit pending between Big Sky Scientific, LLC (“Big Sky”) and the Idaho State Police. I’ll provide some additional insight on this case later this week. For now, the bottom line is that hemp businesses must still carefully consider their shipping plans for hemp and hemp products. Blind reliance on Section 10114 to protect against local law enforcement is ill advised. Until the 2018 Farm Bill is fully implemented by the USDA, states may seize hemp shipments. Hemp businesses should avoid transporting their products through states that show hostility towards hemp. If you have questions about other ways to mitigate the risk of state level enforcement, please contact our regulatory attorneys. Source: https://www.cannalawblog.com/transporting-hemp-across-state-lines-is-still-risky/ The article Transporting Hemp Across State Lines is Still Risky is available on The Felicia Sullivan Blog from https://www.feliciasullivan.com/2019/02/19/transporting-hemp-across-state-lines-is-still-risky/
0 Comments
A common mistake among many beginner indoor cannabis growers is that of not changing lightbulbs often enough, so while the first few crops are a roaring success, later grows, despite having all the same parameters, don’t produce anywhere near the same quantity of buds. Why might this be? On many occasions it’s because you are using a grow lamp with far too many hours of use behind it. High intensity discharge bulbs, such as HPS, HM or CMH/LEC are, with use, gradually diminishing the amount of light emitted, so (although at first glance we may not realise it) after several crops we can find bulbs that are delivering half the lumens than when we first fitted them. In addition, at each phase of its development, the plant will require a maximum and a minimum of lumens to grow and flourish in a normal way. In this article we will see how to use a light meter to measure how much light is emitted by our lighting systems, as well as the ideal range of light intensity for each phase of our plants development.
Light meters for cannabis cultivationLight meters are devices for measuring the amount of light (in units called lux) in a given environment. They use a photoelectric cell that captures light and transforms it into electrical impulses, which are interpreted by the device and represented on the screen that the device usually incorporates. Of course, we can choose from the simplest models of light meter right up to the expensive PAR measuring equipment, although fortunately for our purposes we only need a relatively simple device like the LX1330B Luxmeter. Using this device we can measure the amount of light (lux) that our plants actually receive, so we will always know how high to hang the grow lamps to get maximum performance from the crop, or if we have “dark spots” in the grow area. We can also see how the reflectors work at different distances from the plants, to achieve as homogeneous a light diffusion as possible. In addition, we will also the best time to replace the bulbs and keep providing our plants with all the light they need for explosive flowering, which will save us from any unpleasant surprises at harvest time (something that happens more often than you might think). Finally, we can also make sure that we’re not providing our plants with more (or less) light than they are capable of assimilating, something that usually results in developmental problems, especially in the most tender parts of the plant like the apical tips. In fact, too much light can really damage our plants, especially in the case of young seedlings or freshly rooted cuttings. On the other hand, if they don’t receive enough light they will also have developmental problems, growing weakly and with a pronounced phototropism (stretching to find the light source). Quantity of light for cannabis cultivationWhen using a light meter, it’s important to know the exact optimal light quantity ranges for each stage of plant development if we want to get the most out of both the device itself and the crop. As the cannabis plant develops, its needs in terms of quantity and colour (colour temperature) of the light will change, so it’s up to the grower to meet these needs in terms of quantity and type of light in each stage if the aim is to get the best possible performance. Regarding the type of light, if you’re not sure, we recommend the following article: Basically, and broadly speaking, cannabis needs a relatively low amount of light during the first days of life, although soon, upon fully beginning the vegetative phase, it will need a large quantity of lumens to develop to its full potential. During these two phases (seedling and growth phase) it prefers a light with a blue/white spectrum (HM, CFL, white LED…), while for the flowering phase, lamps with a more red/orange spectrum are usually used (HPS). These are the values that we recommend:
Sometimes, certain plants are especially sensitive to excess light, so using a light meter will be very helpful in determining the correct distance to which we should have the cultivation lamp with respect to the cups of the plants. The plants suffer if they receive too much light, turn yellow and acquire almost white tones, and in addition, the younger shoots can get “toasted”, as sometimes happens when putting recently rooted clones under lighting equipment that’s too powerful for such tender foliage and young plants. Once we have found the correct distance, it’s a good idea to take light readings from other points within the crop and not just directly under the lamp. This way we can see how the light levels decrease the further away we are from the centre of the grow tent, and how well our reflector distributes the light over the canopy. The objective is always the same: to place the lamp where most plants receive the correct amount of light, so we will get maximum performance from the crop. Keep in mind that most light meters used in cultivation will not correctly measure the amount of light emitted by purple LEDs (red + blue), so if you’re using this lighting technology we recommend to either trust the values provided by the manufacturer of your LED panel or acquire a light meter that can measure the illumination from this type of LEDs, although they are usually very expensive. About lumens & luxThere is some confusion regarding the two terms, so let’s finish off this article by clarifying both of these concepts. Lux is the derived unit of light measurement based on lumens and square metres. So, while a lumen is the unit of measurement of the luminous flux emitted by a source, a lux represents the amount of lumens per square meter, in other words, it’s based on the amount of light (like the lumen) but also on the surface area that this light strikes. Thus, one lux equals one lumen per square metre. 1 lux = 1 lumen/m2 Don’t hesitate to leave a comment with any doubts you might have, we’ll be delighted to help. Happy growing! The post Light Meters in Cannabis Cultivation appeared first on Alchimia blog. Source: https://www.alchimiaweb.com/blogen/light-meters-cannabis-cultivation/ Light Meters in Cannabis Cultivation was first published to Felicia Sullivan from https://www.feliciasullivan.com/2019/02/19/light-meters-in-cannabis-cultivation/ The City of Los Angeles has long endured questions surrounding its elusive Phase 3 licensing process for cannabis businesses. The City completed Phase 1 and 2 licensing without too much crazy change, but Phase 3 is very likely going to be a different story, and will affect a lot of stakeholders for better or worse. On February 8, 2019, the Department of Cannabis Regulation (“DCR“) wrote to the Rules, Elections, and Intergovernmental Relations Committee (“Committee”), proposing total reform for Phase 3 licensing in the face of multiple regulatory issues caused by undue concentration, the promotion of social equity businesses, and the overall economic interests of various stakeholders who are waiting for Phase 3 to open. DCR wrote to the Committee that it wants to make certain strategic amendments to the licensing process in Phase 3 that “would make our licensing process more efficient, transparent, and, most important, equitable.” DCR’s obvious concern in its letter to Committee is that Phase 3 successfully hoist up social equity applicants and be as efficient as possible at the same time. In particular, the letter states that:
Based on its letter, DCR looks to be seeking to award those stakeholders that are patiently sitting on eligible commercial cannabis properties (bleeding rent and other costs while waiting for Phase 3 to commence) through swift and efficient licensing. The bottom line is that the current proposed licensing process potentially harms everyone, including social equity applicants who have either already made the investment in the unsettled program or that don’t have the resources to invest ahead of time to their detriment (since the City hasn’t yet established the assistance programs necessary to aid social equity applicants, but is finalizing a draft RFP “to identify vendors who can provide a suite of business and licensing support to Tier 1 and Tier 2 social equity applicants”). Combine the foregoing with the fact the City “expects approximately 200 storefront retail licenses will be available through Phase 3 before undue concentration is reached in most or all of the City’s Community Plans,” and DCR has taken the position that Phase 3 licensing procedures must change, and fast. DCR therefore proposes in its letter that Phase 3 licensing for the remaining estimated 200 retail licenses (probably all of which will go only to social equity applicants per existing laws) take place as follows: First come, first serve for verified Tier 1 and Tier 2 applicants (that also have locations ready to go) for the first 100 licenses OR a lottery system to issue the first 100 licenses (with various barriers to entry, including having a location on lock). And for the second 100 licenses, the DCR wants a merit-based system with various qualification criteria. There were other pretty important recommendations made in the letter to Committee regarding other amendments to current LA cannabis licensing laws, but the change-up on the Phase 3 licensing process is, by far, the most impactful. Even though the DCR has studied the foregoing issues for months, the City Council was not yet ready to act on the DCR’s recommendations. On Friday, February 15, after a hearing with Committee and then a hearing with Council regarding the DCR’s recommendations, Council instructed DCR “to report back at the next Rules, Elections, and Intergovernmental Relations Committee meeting with a further analysis of the recommendations for Phase 3 Storefront Retail processing and Non-storefront Retail processing, including consideration of a social equity applicant registry platform similar to the City of San Francisco” and to “suspend any Phase 3 processing until the enhanced Social Equity analysis for the San Fernando Valley, Boyle Heights, and Downtown Los Angeles is completed.” What does all of this mean? Basically, we’re back to square 1 in L.A., and original Phase 3 processing remains in place despite the DCR’s attempt at an overhaul. Without question though, Phase 3 licensing should change. The current timing alone on issuance of Phase 3 licenses will bankrupt or scare off the vast majority of people. First come, first serve likely appeals to most people, but it’s just as imperfect and arbitrary as a lottery system. So long as the right barriers to entry and restrictions are implemented, either system can work to effectuate quick and efficient licensing (just ask Washington State whose biggest problem with a lotto system was actually movement of winners after-the-fact). Lotto likely edges out first come, first serve if we’re talking maximum efficiency, because it eliminates the timing pressure and order of applicants at the outset when they file with DCR. With either proposal though, ambiguities would hinge around what a “complete” application really means and/or the ability of people to game the system by paying off family members (or whomever) to act as straw applicants to increase their chances of success. Merit-based also poses its own challenges regarding what qualities should net you the most points, especially when dealing with social equity applicants who remain the most popular form of licensing capital in L.A. and therefore the most vulnerable when it comes to scams and hawkish investor behavior. Interestingly enough at Friday’s hearing, Council did instruct the City Attorney to draft an ordinance (with input from DCR) to, among other things:
So, we know change is coming to Phase 3 licensing albeit at a glacial pace. For now though, it appears that the DCR will really have to persuade Council on adopting its Phase 3 recommendations for the licensing process, or all Phase 3 stakeholders will invariably suffer licensing by a thousand cuts. Source: https://www.cannalawblog.com/battle-royale-phase-3-cannabis-licensing-in-city-of-los-angeles/ The following blog article Battle Royale? Phase 3 Cannabis Licensing in City of Los Angeles was originally seen on www.feliciasullivan.com from https://www.feliciasullivan.com/2019/02/18/battle-royale-phase-3-cannabis-licensing-in-city-of-los-angeles/ As more and more states legalize cannabis in some form or another, and as more and more Senators and Representatives introduce legislation that would relax the federal pot laws, it’s important not to lose sight of reality: cannabis is still a Schedule I drug and is unlawful under federal law. That said, in the years since cannabis has become legal in various states, the federal government has taken an increasingly less active role in enforcement in those states. Sure, the feds could start ramping up enforcement even against state-lawful operators, but it doesn’t seem like that’s going to happen any time soon. To understand the future of federal pot enforcement, we need to look back a few years. Most readers of this blog are familiar with the Cole Memo, an Obama-era Department of Justice policy memo which essentially says that the federal government wouldn’t prioritize marijuana enforcement where operators follow state laws and would instead follow focused enforcement priorities. Since President Trump took office, Attorney General Jeff Sessions rescinded the Cole Memo but didn’t go full-enforcement, instead leaving it up to more local federal authorities to decide whether to enforce. But Sessions was removed, and the newly appointed William Barr has indicated that he probably isn’t going to spend federal resources enforcing the Controlled Substances Act against state-lawful operators. What is clear about future enforcement is that until the Controlled Substances Act (“CSA”) is amended to de-schedule cannabis, the feds will still be targeting cannabis businesses that don’t follow state laws. Just last month, an owner of an unlicensed cannabis company in Washington State pleaded guilty to crimes in federal court stemming from the operation of a dispensary without a state license. This plea followed an investigation, which obviously means that federal offices are investigating what they view to be criminal activities. We wouldn’t expect this to stop anytime soon, and so unlicensed operators (either in state which still have prohibition or in states with licensing regimes) will need to worry about federal--and state—enforcement. It’s less clear how the federal government will handle state-lawful operators who violate state law—in other words, will the federal government allow the states to deal with violations of state law, or will they step in and interfere? Because of the CSA, any sale of cannabis is federally prohibited, so state-licensed cannabis businesses that make illegal sales risk both federal and state enforcement. It seems, however, that unless there is serious or egregious misconduct by a state-licensed operator, the federal government will keep deferring to the states. One agency that those rules may not apply so much to is the federal Food & Drug Administration (“FDA”). After President Trump signed the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 (or “Farm Bill”), the FDA (the same day) released a memo saying it retains jurisdiction over hemp and other cannabis products in foods. Pretty much immediately thereafter, the FDA began enforcing its position. It’s certainly plausible that the FDA could step in if manufactured cannabis products (especially edibles) contain what the FDA views as prohibited hemp-derived CBD, or if manufactured cannabis products make false health claims (we already know that the FDA has in the past sent a number of warning letters to state operators). The future of federal enforcement isn’t completely hashed out. Until the CSA is amended, however, it’s not going to end. Stay tuned to the Canna Law Blog for more updates. Source: https://www.cannalawblog.com/the-feds-arent-done-with-cannabis/ The Feds Aren’t Done With Cannabis was first published on Felicia Sullivan's Blog from https://www.feliciasullivan.com/2019/02/17/the-feds-arent-done-with-cannabis/ As ardent followers of this blog are well aware, one of my favorite pastimes is keeping tabs on who is suing whom in the cannabis industry for trademark infringement. These lawsuits serve as great examples for my clients of what NOT to do when choosing a brand for their company. The last couple of years have provided a couple of big-name cannabis trademark lawsuits, including the Gorilla Glue dispute and the Tapatio Foods lawsuit. This time, it’s the United Parcel Service (UPS) suing a group of cannabis delivery companies for trademark infringement. The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on February 13, 2019 and alleges trademark infringement against United Pot Smokers, UPS420, and THCPlant, all of which market and sell cannabis products. These companies, according to the complaint, offer delivery and logistics services via the websites www.upsgreen.com and www.ups420.com. In its complaint, UPS accuses the defendants of infringing its family of trademarks, which includes its famous shield logo, and states that the defendants “intended to capitalize off UPS’s extensive goodwill and reputation.” UPS allegedly sent multiple cease and desist letters to the defendants, which were unwisely ignored. The lawsuit includes claims for trademark infringement, trademark dilution, false designation of origin, deceptive advertising, and unfair business practices, and includes a request for damages, an end to defendants’ infringement, and control over defendants’ websites. We’ve made this point many times before, but it warrants repeating: Cannabis companies are not immune from trademark infringement claims, and must choose brands that do not infringe the rights of third parties, including third parties outside of the cannabis industry. For ease of reference, here are several past blog posts relating to trademark infringement, and how to choose a brand that won’t get you sued:
And here are the factors a court will consider in assessing whether one mark is likely to be confused with another, proving trademark infringement (AMF Inc. v. Sleekcraft Boats):
The two most basic factors I recommend our cannabis clients evaluate before they select a brand are 1) is your mark similar to or the same as an existing mark, and 2) are you intentionally “riffing” off an existing brand? Remember that parody is not a defense to trademark infringement that will typically fly in a commercial setting. When you choose a mark as a “parody” of an existing brand, chances are you’re actually infringing a registered trademark, and possibly diluting a famous mark, which is exactly what is alleged here, in the UPS case. And the fact that you knew of the senior trademark would absolutely play against you in litigation, as your infringement would be deemed willful. These two factors are only the beginning of the analysis. There are instances where similar, or even the same brand names can coexist if the goods those brands are used on are completely different and marketed through separate channels to disparate groups of consumers. The analysis for likelihood of confusion can be quite complex. Before adopting a new brand name, we recommend consulting with an experienced trademark attorney and we also recommend having them perform a trademark clearance search to ensure your brand won’t be infringing any existing registrations. Source: https://www.cannalawblog.com/ups-sues-multiple-cannabis-delivery-companies-for-trademark-infringement/ UPS Sues Multiple Cannabis Delivery Companies for Trademark Infringement was originally published on Felicia Sullivan from https://www.feliciasullivan.com/2019/02/16/ups-sues-multiple-cannabis-delivery-companies-for-trademark-infringement/ Some critics claim that consuming any cannabis whatsoever as a parent is irresponsible. In which case, you have to say the same about every parent on earth who ever indulges in a glass of wine or the occasional beer. It’s exactly the same thing – complete BS on both accounts. Just because you’re a parent […] The post Responsible Cannabis Consumption as a Parent appeared first on Legalize it. We Think So. Source: https://www.liwts.org/cannabis/responsible-cannabis-consumption-as-a-parent/ Responsible Cannabis Consumption as a Parent was originally published to FeliciaSullivan.com from https://www.feliciasullivan.com/2019/02/16/responsible-cannabis-consumption-as-a-parent/
On January 31, the Oregon Secretary of State released an audit of Oregon marijuana regulation. The audit is a hefty 37 pages, but its core findings are listed right there on the cover sheet: “Oregon’s framework for regulating marijuana should be strengthened to better mitigate diversion risk and improve laboratory testing.” Now: we would all like to see less diversion and better testing, but those findings are not exactly surprising. And no one should expect big fixes anytime soon. Below is some straight talk about the audit’s two primary conclusions, and a few thoughts about where things are headed.
The Oregon Medical Marijuana Act (OMMA) was passed over 20 years ago, in 1998. As we explained a few years back, OMMA was (and is) little more than an affirmative defense for designated marijuana possessors and distributers from state criminal prosecution, and from federal hassles to the extent possible. Those are commendable goals, but the program never made sense from a commercial perspective. Thus, the Oregon Health Authority (OHA) has always found itself in the unenviable position of struggling to write rules around legislation that creates a marketplace while ignoring the market itself. When the legislature did decide to build a primitive market, it did so in fits and starts. It took seven years to put a grow site registry together, and fifteen years for dispensary licensing. Heck, even the first grow site inspections (and there haven’t been many) didn’t occur until 2016. All of this was toothpicks and BAND-AIDS. And all the while, many people made money trading in the “medical” market. Did a lot of that weed and cash make its way across the country? You bet. Even if Oregon were to follow the audit recommendations, however, and ramp up funding for inspections and enforcement in both the OHA and OLCC (adult use) programs, there are inherent and well documented limits to supply-side efforts when it comes to federally controlled substances. Oregon can invest heavily in keeping its cannabis under seal, but its energy would be better focused on federal lobbying to de- or reschedule marijuana under the federal Controlled Substances Act, or even on longshot solutions like promotion of interstate marijuana exchanges. The state should also continue to push medical marijuana regulation, including enforcement, into the OLCC purview. The audit briefly suggests as much, and we’ve been talking about that forever on this blog. It’s not such a political quagmire anymore, especially as more overlap comes with each legislative session. The fundamental question is this: why have a revenue raising agency and a health authority both focus on intensive regulation of the same plant, especially when both are under-supported? It doesn’t make a lot of sense. Finally, here’s the part that administrators, legislators and even executive branch actors aren’t saying out loud: leakage into interstate commerce really doesn’t matter at this point, especially if the state is running its studies and making token efforts to stop it. There may be some federal enforcement against black market actors (which is great), but no one is shutting these state programs down. In 2019, cannabis leakage exerts more pressure on the feds to find legislative solutions than enforcement ones.
Back in the day, when OHA first started licensing dispensaries, there were no real rules around testing. People would take weed to labs with inadequate equipment and inconsistent practices. They would leave with unreliable results. In 2016, when OHA began accrediting the first laboratories for the medical and adult use (OLCC) markets, not many of them signed up. In the OLCC market, this meant bottlenecks for an extended period. Nowadays, all cannabis making its way to retail sale is tested more strictly than other agricultural crops, but medical marijuana outside that channel typically goes untested (unless the flower is processed by a medical marijuana processor, which is pretty niche). That’s a shame because medical marijuana patients are the ones who would benefit from testing the most: many of these individuals have conditions like cancer and HIV that directly compromise their immune systems. And roughly 10% of Oregon’s medical marijuana patient community includes children under 18 years of age and seniors over 70. As far as testing issues that affect our industry clients (OLCC businesses and financiers) the audit recommends expanding testing requirements to screen for microbiological and heavy metal testing, and it promotes “shelf audits” at dispensaries. In theory, those steps could drive up costs along the supply chain, but we wouldn’t expect significant variance. Altogether, the testing push is more about protecting vulnerable individuals in Oregon, including people in limited, patient-caregiver relationships. We can get behind that. Source: https://www.cannalawblog.com/oregon-marijuana-audit-everything-is-all-messed-up-and-also-just-fine/ The following blog post Oregon Marijuana Audit: Everything is All Messed Up and Also Just Fine was originally seen on Felicia's Smokin' Blog from https://www.feliciasullivan.com/2019/02/15/oregon-marijuana-audit-everything-is-all-messed-up-and-also-just-fine/ We’ve been writing a lot on this blog about the regulation and sale of cannabidiol (“CBD”) products at the state and federal levels. The United States is not the only international actor, however, that is concerned with regulating the sale of CBD products, including CBD-infused foods. The European Food Safety Authority (“EFSA”), the European equivalent of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”), recently changed guidance on cannabinoids, declaring that all new food products infused with the plant or its derivatives should receive a pre-market approval under the European Union “novel food” regulation. Regulation 2015/2283, which is the latest food regulation adopted by the European Parliament and the European Union (“EU”), defines “novel food” as “food that was not used for human consumption to a significant degree within the Union before 15 May 1997, irrespective of the dates of accession of the Member States to the Union.” The EU Novel Food Catalogue entry for CBD, which contains a non-exhaustive list of ingredients that inform member nations on whether a product will need an authorization under the Novel Food Regulation, now refers to a broader class of “cannabinoids” and provides that:
This new EFSA guidance drastically expands the categories of cannabinoids that would require pre-market approval–note, however, that hemp seeds, flour and seed oil remain permitted–and it suggests that CBD-infused food could be off the European market for some time. Generally, it takes 3 years for an ingredient to gain novel food status. A handful of European countries such as Spain, Italy, and Austria have already taken enforcement actions against CBD products on the basis of being “novel foods.” As such, it seems likely that these EU member nations will adopt the new EFSA guidance and continue their efforts in regulating CBD-infused foods as “new foods.” The EU or its affiliates are expected to provide further guidance on this issue; however, due to administrative procedures and time required for adequate data collection, such publication won’t likely be released until 2020. This new EFSA guidance will further complicate U.S. CBD companies’ ability to export their products overseas. In addition to potential international law violations, CBD companies run the risk of FDA and Customs and Border Protection (“Customs”) enforcement actions. The FDA has yet to release guidelines on shipping CBD products to other countries; however, the main FDA inquiry for the purpose of exporting CBD would likely be whether the CBD products were adulterated or mislabeled due to the fact that they were not manufactured or labeled in compliance with the target country’s law. Another risk in exporting CBD products is that Customs agents may not have a sophisticated understanding of the difference between hemp and marijuana, as demonstrated in recent state enforcement actions. If such confusion were to occur, Customs would likely seize the CBD shipment and potentially involve the Drug and Enforcement Administration. In light of those regulatory changes, CBD companies should remain informed on domestic and international shipping laws and consult with experienced lawyers to assess the risks of exporting their products overseas. For more on cannabis and international law, check out the following:
Source: https://www.cannalawblog.com/exporting-cbd-food-just-got-harder/ Exporting CBD Food Just Got Harder: The European Union Makes a Move See more on: https://www.feliciasullivan.com from https://www.feliciasullivan.com/2019/02/14/exporting-cbd-food-just-got-harder-the-european-union-makes-a-move/ We explain the basics of hemp wick and how and why to use it. The post Hemp Wick 101: Is It a Better Way to Burn? appeared first on Leafly. Source: https://www.leafly.com/news/cannabis-101/hemp-wick-cannabis-101 The post Hemp Wick 101: Is It a Better Way to Burn? was initially seen on https://www.feliciasullivan.com/ from https://www.feliciasullivan.com/2019/02/13/hemp-wick-101-is-it-a-better-way-to-burn/
This post is part two of two on how New York is regulating CBD. On Monday, I wrote about the New York City Department of Health’s (“DOH”) recent crackdown on Hemp-CBD in food and how it was consistent with the New York State Department of Agriculture’s (“Department”) FAQs on hemp-derived CBD (“Hemp CBD”). In summary, the Department’s FAQs state that any Hemp-CBD product sold in New York state must be labeled and manufactured as a dietary supplement. Today’s post focuses on the Department’s Template CBD Processor Research Partner Agreement (“CBD Agreement”) which elaborates on the dietary supplement classification. The CBD Agreement is a research contract between Hemp-CBD processors, referred to as “Research Partners” in the Agreement, and the Department. Its provisions would not bind other actors including Hemp-CBD sellers or Hemp-CBD processors legally operating in other states. However, the CBD Agreement does shed light on what the Department is going to require for Hemp-CBD. Research Partners cannot process or sell Hemp-CBD as food. A Research Partner must also obtain written approval from the Department if it intends to sell or distribute Hemp-CBD dietary supplements in a form other than “pill, capsule, caplet, tablet, tinctures, droplets or elixir, chewable, or isolate form[.]” The CBD Agreement expands on how Research Partners, or CBD processors in other states hoping to sell products in New York, can comply with FDA’s dietary supplement standards:
The dietary supplement standards are in addition to THC testing for CBD products. Hemp-CBD intended to be consumed or absorbed into the human body must also be tested under New York’s medical marijuana program for “cannabinoid profile, solvents, pesticides, heavy metals, bacteria and molds.” The CBD requirements requires that Research Partners must also provide a serving size and applicable warning on the label. According to the CBD Agreement, CBD products shall also include the following information:
“This product is neither reviewed nor approved by the State of New York; and has not been analyzed by the FDA. There is limited information on the effects of using this product. Keep out of reach of children.” The CBD agreement also covers reporting, approved extraction methods, and sourcing hemp. According to the CBD Agreement, the Department may eventually require registration from entities selling Hemp-CBD. Recently, I wrote about the FDA’s stated position is that Hemp-CBD is not a dietary supplement. As such, the Department’s position is contrary to the FDA’s. The following language in the CBD Agreement requires Research Partners to acknowledge the FDA’s position:
For CBD Processors in New York, the CBD Agreement must be carefully observed. For CBD Processors operating in other states who wish to sell products in New York, the Department’s position makes things a little more complicated. For example, the FDA has different standards for cosmetic products. CBD Processors may want to argue that they are selling a CBD cosmetic not a dietary supplement. However, if that CBD cosmetic is sold in New York, it must be labeled as a dietary supplement. This may mean that the CBD cosmetic distributor may need to avoid New York or adopt labeling and manufacturing requirements as if the product was a dietary supplement. Though it may be hard to comply with the Department’s regulations, the FAQs and CBD Agreement at least provide guidance. If you want to sell Hemp-CBD in New York, it must be sold as a dietary supplement, at least for now. Source: https://www.cannalawblog.com/beyond-the-crackdown-new-york-classifies-hemp-cbd-as-a-dietary-supplement-part-two/ The following post Beyond the Crackdown: New York Classifies Hemp-CBD as a Dietary Supplement (Part Two) is republished from The Felicia Sullivan Blog from https://www.feliciasullivan.com/2019/02/13/beyond-the-crackdown-new-york-classifies-hemp-cbd-as-a-dietary-supplement-part-two/ |
ABOUT USAround Here, It's ALWAYS 4/20! ArchivesNo Archives Categories |