Connect with us

Harris | Bricken

Six Requirements for CBD Product Labels

Published

on


Because the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) says that CBD-infused foods and dietary supplements cannot be lawfully sold or marketed in the United States, we’re left with a patchwork of often inconsistent state laws. One of the areas where there can be the biggest differences is in CBD product labels. Complying with CBD label requirements in each state of sale is a grueling – though necessary – task.

We’ve said for a long time that CBD companies need to deeply understand label laws in every state of sale. Because these laws are all over the place, companies usually opt to follow the most stringent rules, such as those imposed by Indiana, Texas, and Utah. Today, I want to cover the top six requirements for CBD product labels that tend to flow across all of these most stringent states.

CBD label requirement 1: the FDA’s general labeling requirements

All states that allow CBD products require that CBD product labels comply with Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) label requirements. The FDCA requires product labels to contain four basic elements:

An identity statement (as the name implies, this indicates what the product is); A net weight statement; A list of all

Read full article on HarrisBricken



Source link

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Harris | Bricken

Edible Arrangements v. Green Thumb Industries: Voluntary Dismissal, For Now

Published

on

By


We regularly cover intellectual property disputes on the blog, and the Edible Arrangements v. Green Thumb Industries trademark infringement case is one we covered two years ago when filed. Since then, this case appears to have been moderately active, with the parties engaging in the usual discovery and related motion practice.

However, things did take a surprising turn when late last week, Edible Arrangements filed a motion to voluntarily dismiss the case without prejudice (or in the alternative, to amend its complaint) due to “[t]he fast-shifting economic and legal landscape” of cannabis. Dismissing a case without prejudice means Edible Arrangements could revive it at a later point in time.

Recap of Edible Arrangements’ trademark infringement allegations

Edible Arrangements writes that it pursued this case upon passage of the 2018 Farm Bill, which of course paved the way for the CBD market to open. It was also interested in selling CBD products, so it began to develop and market them under their brand “Incredible Edibles.”

Edible Arrangements then became aware of Green Thumb’s own marijuana product line, the “Incredibles.” To be clear, the Incredibles included Delta-9 THC, which doesn’t derive from hemp and remains federally illegal. So, despite the fact that

Read full article on HarrisBricken



Source link

Continue Reading

Harris | Bricken

Cannabis and Psychedelics Election Updates and Q&A

Published

on

By


On Tuesday, November 15, 2022, Harris Bricken attorneys Vince Sliwoski (Portland) and Griffen Thorne (Los Angeles) hosted a free, hour-long webinar analyzing the election results. The panelists broke down a number of the state and local election outcomes and answered your questions about the impact of these new laws.

For anyone who was not able to join the webinar, we’ve got you covered! Below, please find the full webinar.

[embedded content]

Read full article on HarrisBricken



Source link

Continue Reading

Harris | Bricken

California Large Licensing Gets Really Small

Published

on

By


California law required the state Department of Cannabis Control to begin accepting large license applications on January 1, 2023. Earlier this year, DCC published proposed large licensing regulations (which I described here). As usually happens, on December 5, 2022, DCC dropped its second set of modifications to the proposed regulations. When DCC’s rules take effect, they will make it very difficult for people to get large licenses.

The new DCC rules and large licensing

To summarize my earlier post, the state will allow cultivators to apply for larger licenses than were previously available. Up until now, larger farms had to aggregate small licenses, which they can now convert into large ones. One of the key issues here though – which state law mandated years ago – was that large license holders couldn’t own testing labs, microbusinesses, and distributors. More on that below.

The big change though concerns prohibitions on license ownership. When I wrote my original post, the original proposed regulations said that “holders” of large licenses were ineligible to hold the other license types referred to above. This was an incredibly vague term. Did it mean that a business that holds a large license couldn’t hold the other types?

Read full article on HarrisBricken



Source link

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending

Copyright © 2021 The Art of MaryJane Media