Connect with us

One-Hit Wonders

United States: FDA Announces A Path Forward For CBD Consumer Products: A New Regulatory Framework Is Needed

Published

on


Cannabis industry stakeholders waiting for the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to forge a regulatory path forward for cannabidiol (CBD) in consumer products such as conventional foods and dietary supplements will now be waiting on Congress to act. FDA announced, on January 26, 2023, that its existing food and dietary supplements regulatory pathways are not appropriate for CBD products and that the agency does not intend to initiate rulemaking for CBD. Rather, FDA called for a new regulatory pathway for CBD products that “balances individuals’ desire for access to CBD products with the regulatory oversight needed to manage risks.”1Concurrent with this policy announcement, FDA denied three citizen petitions from trade associations that asked, among other things, for FDA to issue a regulation allowing CBD products to be marketed as dietary supplements. Companies waiting for certainty on the future of CBD product regulation will have to wait until Congress acts, perhaps, to amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to establish a unique regulatory pathway for CBD.

This Advisory contextualizes FDA’s policy announcement in the recent history of its actions with respect to CBD, summarizes the key points of FDA’s announcement, and covers the implications for stakeholders.

Background

Growth in the CBD industry followed significant changes in the legal status of hemp and its derivatives, most notably, the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018, Public Law 115-334 (known as the 2018 Farm Bill). The 2018 Farm Bill legalized the cultivation and sale of hemp, defined as “[T]he plant Cannabis sativa L. and any part of that plant . . . with a delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol concentration of not more than 0.3 percent on a dry weight basis.”2The law also amended the definition of marijuana in the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) to exclude hemp and its derivatives from the CSA’s definition of controlled substances.3Congress expressly preserved, however, FDA’s authority to regulate products containing CBD (derived from hemp) and other products containing hemp or hemp-derived compounds.4Thus, while hemp is no longer a controlled substance, FDA retained authority to regulate products such as CBD.

Indeed, FDA issued a statement on the day the 2018 Farm Bill passed, touting its awareness of the growing public interest in cannabis and cannabis-derived products, including CBD, and announcing the importance of clarifying FDA’s regulatory authority over those products.5FDA explained that it was unlawful to market CBD in food or dietary supplements, but also indicated that—

Pathways remain available for the FDA to consider whether there are circumstances in which certain cannabis-derived compounds might be permitted in a food or dietary supplement. Although such products are generally prohibited to be introduced in interstate commerce, the FDA has authority to issue a regulation allowing the use of a pharmaceutical ingredient in a food or dietary supplement. We are taking new steps to evaluate whether we should pursue such a process. However, the FDA would only consider doing so if the agency were able to determine that all other requirements in the FD&C Act are met, including those required for food additives or new dietary ingredients.6

Subsequently, FDA formed a “high-level internal agency working group” to explore potential pathways for dietary supplements and/or conventional foods containing CBD to be lawfully marketed, including consideration of the necessary statutory or regulatory changes and the public health impact of marketing such products.7FDA also convened a widely attended public hearing to obtain scientific data and information about the safety, manufacturing, product quality, marketing, labeling, and sale of products containing cannabis or cannabis-derived compounds. While FDA sorted out its approach to CBD, industry waited, and some companies sought to lawfully market CBD as a dietary supplement within the existing regulatory framework. For example, one company submitted a new dietary ingredient notification (NDIN) to FDA on March 3, 2021 for full-spectrum hemp extract (FSHE) which contains CBD.8FDA rejected the NDIN, however, having found that the FSHE, which contains CBD, was a CBD product precluded from marketing as a dietary supplement by the exclusion provision of the FD&C Act.9Following this rejection, it became clear to many that FDA’s position was settled and that FDA believed that lawful marketing of CBD as a dietary supplement was impossible absent FDA proceeding through notice and comment rulemaking to issue a regulation finding that CBD would be lawful in such products. Three citizen petitions, submitted in 2019, 2020, and 2022, requested that FDA take such action, though each would be denied alongside the January 2023 policy announcement, as we note below.

FDA’s January 2023 CBD Policy Announcement

FDA’s work and progress on regulating CBD took a turn on January 26, 2023, when FDA took coordinated action to issue the CBD policy announcement and deny the three citizen petitions that sought rulemaking on CBD. Principal Deputy Commissioner Janet Woodcock’s announcement stated that after careful review by an internal FDA working group, FDA concluded that a new regulatory pathway for CBD was necessary; FDA’s current conventional food and dietary supplement regulatory pathways would not be appropriate for CBD. Such a pathway, would balance consumers’ desire for access to CBD products with the regulatory oversight needed to manage risks. According to FDA, safety concerns and limited ability to manage risks associated with CBD products under the existing food and dietary supplement authorities drove FDA’s policy determination. FDA noted that the agency reviewed studies pertaining to Epidiolex, published scientific literature, information submitted to the CBD public docket, and studies conducted and commissioned by FDA. It concluded that the use of CBD raises various safety concerns, especially for long-term use, including potential risks to the liver and male reproductive system and the risk for medication interactions. FDA also expressed concern about CBD exposures by certain vulnerable populations, such as children, and those who are pregnant. Ultimately, the agency could not see how CBD products could meet safety standards applicable to dietary supplements or food additives—for example, FDA lacked adequate evidence to determine the level of CBD that can be consumed, and the duration of consumption, before causing harm.

The agency all but explicitly asked Congress to act, stating that “FDA is prepared to work with Congress on this matter” and “FDA looks forward to working with Congress to develop a cross-agency strategy for the regulation of these products to protect the public’s health and safety.” It provided a light roadmap, including recommendations for including safeguards and oversight to manage and minimize risks associated with use of CBD products, such as clear labels, prevention of contaminants, CBD content limits, and minimum purchase age.

Finally, FDA turned to the topic of compliance actions and essentially preserved the status quo. Per Dr. Woodcock, “FDA will continue to take action against CBD and cannabis-derived products to protect the public, in coordination with state regulatory partners, when appropriate. FDA will remain diligent in monitoring the marketplace, identifying products that pose risks and acting within our authorities.” As FDA-watchers are aware, the agency has not initiated any industry-wide compliance action, but has more selectively targeted companies marketing products that in FDA’s view, threaten the public health and/or are marketed to children. The agency has particularly focused its compliance actions on products that make claims to treat diseases or other specific health conditions.10

Implications

FDA’s action (or inaction), depending on your viewpoint, likely disappointed some in industry who expected that FDA would issue a regulation. Ultimately, FDA’s stance leaves Congress in the driver’s seat when it comes to establishing a regulatory path forward for CBD. In fact, shortly after FDA’s announcement, Rep. Morgan Griffith (R-VA) (House Energy & Commerce Oversight Subcommittee Chair) announced that he was in contact with FDA regarding the CBD announcement and “look[s] forward to working with the FDA so we may create a safe pathway for these products to come to market.”11Rep. Griffith, and others in Congress, would not be starting from scratch. Dozens of bills, including those on which he worked, have been introduced in both the House and Senate that propose to regulate cannabis and/or CBD. Arnold & Porter’s comprehensiveCannabis State-of-Play Advisory highlights the legislation related to cannabis and CBD introduced by the 117th Congress.

As noted above, FDA did not announce a new compliance policy or stance with respect to CBD, and we expect that FDA will continue to regulate CBD largely the same as it has in the preceding years—by taking selective compliance action, particularly with respect to disease claims or products marketed to children, as it deems necessary. We will continue to monitor developments with respect to both CBD and cannabis.

© Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP 2023 All Rights Reserved. This Advisory is intended to be a general summary of the law and does not constitute legal advice. You should consult with counsel to determine applicable legal requirements in a specific fact situation.

Footnotes

1 Statement from Janet Woodcock, M.D., Principal Deputy FDA Commissioner, FDA Concludes that Existing Regulatory Frameworks for Foods and Supplements are Not Appropriate for Cannabidiol, Will Work with Congress on a New Way Forward (Jan. 26, 2023),availablehere.

2 7 U.S.C. 1639o(1).

3 Section 12619(b) of the 2018 Farm Bill also amended Schedule I of the CSA to exclude the THC found in hemp from the definition of “tetrahydrocannabinols.”

4See2018 Farm Bill, section 10113, § 297D(c)(1).

5 By the time the 2018 Farm Bill passed, FDA had already approved a highly purified form of CBD in a prescription drug, Epidiolex.

6 Statement from FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb, M.D., on signing of the Agriculture Improvement Act and the Agency’s Regulation of Products Containing Cannabis and Cannabis-Derived Compounds (Dec. 20, 2018),availablehere.

7 Statement for FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb, M.D., On New Steps to Advance Agency’s Continued Evaluation of Potential Regulatory Pathways for Cannabis-Containing and Cannabis-Derived Products (Apr. 2, 2019),availablehere.

8 FDA Response to NDI 1199 – Full Spectrum Hemp Extract (FSHE), FDA-2021-S-0023-0050,availablehere.

9See21 U.S.C. 321(ff) (excluding from the dietary supplement definition, an article that is approved as a new drug or authorized for investigation as a new drug for which substantial clinical investigations have been instituted and made public, which was not before such approval or authorization marketed as a dietary supplement or foodunlessFDA issued a regulation finding that the article would be lawful under the FD&C Act). FDA reached this conclusion because CBD is the active ingredient in an approved drug product, and the existence of substantial clinical investigations involving CBD had been made public. Additionally, FDA determined that CBD was not marketed as a dietary supplement or conventional food before it was authorized for investigation as a new drug.

10See, e.g., FDA Warning Letter to Naturally Infused LLC (Nov. 16, 2022),availablehere, (“[T]he Agency is particularly concerned that some of your products are in forms that are appealing to children. For example, your CBD Lollipops, CBD Gummies, and Delta-8 THC Gummies are in forms that would be attractive to children and could easily be mistaken for traditional foods that are commonly consumed by children. Furthermore, you market other products that consumers may confuse with traditional foods for humans, including CBD Infused Sugar and CBD and Delta-8 THC Infused coffees. Therefore, there is a risk that consumers of these products, including children, will unintentionally consume CBD or Delta-8 THC ingredients. Additionally, we note that the CBD coffee products appear to contain caffeine. Evidence suggests that CBD may affect caffeine metabolism and may increase and/or prolong caffeine’s effects.”).

11 Griffith Offers to Work with FDA to Develop CBD Pathway,InsideHealthPolicy(Feb. 2, 2023),availablehere.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.



Source link

Continue Reading

One-Hit Wonders

Minnesota Office of Cannabis Management Issues Rejections to Majority of Social Equity Applicants

Published

on

By


The Minnesota Office of Cannabis Management (“OCM”) has begun issuing final denials to the overwhelming majority of previously qualified social equity applicants (“SEA”s) ahead of its first statewide cannabis lottery on December 2 for 280 available “preapproval” cannabis licenses.

Flag of Minnesota in Marijuana leaf shape. The concept of legalization Cannabis in Minnesota. Medical cannabis illustration.

Per reporting from MJ Biz Daily, “The applicants who are barred from the lottery failed to complete the application process or acted improperly by submitting multiple applications or disguising the true investors in their companies, according to [OCM].” Obviously applying for more licenses than is allowed and/or concealing owners or financial interests are clear grounds for SEA application rejection. Other alleged “deficiencies” though may not be so cut and dry.

While state law does not permit appeals from denied applicants (which is not uncommon for states with cannabis licensing programs), impacted SEAs can still secure a review of their records submitted to the OCM within seven days of the rejection decision (by logging into their Accela Citizen Portal and pulling the internal record there).

The main issue emerging as a result of these rejections is the fact that the OCM did not consistently issue deficiency notices to rejected applicants if there was a material problem with their submitted applications (although as of October 16, the OCM had sent out deficiency notices to over 300 SEAs). In turn, there are instances here where SEAs were rejected for minor, seemingly non-material deficiencies in their applications (things like submitting incorrect corporate documentation that still contained the same information the OCM sought, or re-submitting documents upon request by the OCM only to be rejected for lack of the same document after-the-fact, or even blank denials altogether with no stated reason for rejection).

In an interview with the Brainerd Dispatch, Charlene Briner, the interim director of the OCM, cast these denied SEA applications into four categories:

  • Failure to meet the basic qualifying standards under state law (i.e., social equity applicant owning at least 65% of the business among others)
  • Failure to provide the requisite verification documents (i.e., legitimate business plans, source of funds, ID, etc.)
  • Hidden or inconsistent ownership or true parties of interest
  • Fraudsters (i.e., those trying to game the system by flooding it with multiple applications via proxy or otherwise by using the same address or phone number tied to the same person on multiple applications)

The first and second bullet points above are going to be the ripest ground for rejected SEAs to try to stop the OCM prior to the December 2 lottery, but that’s only if those rejected SEAs can very quickly obtain copies of their submitted documents (within 7 days of the rejection) and start the administrative litigation process and/or seek injunctive relief at the same time against the OCM.

What was once more than 1800 qualified social equity applicants for the lottery has been winnowed down to around 640. The OCM rejected applicants for a multitude of reasons, some of which are clearly legitimate and some of which appear to be questionably enforceable from the perspective of complying with Minnesota’s state constitution and its administrative procedure act.

If you’ve been impacted by an OCM rejection, you do not have much time to act ahead of the December 2 lottery. If you have questions about your potential civil or administrative claims against OCM due to a questionable SEA rejection, contact Jeffrey O’BrienHilary Bricken, or Nick Morgan.

Minnesota Office of Cannabis Management Issues Rejections to Majority of Social Equity Applicants



Source link

Continue Reading

One-Hit Wonders

Wait? My CBD Business May Be Racketeering? A Potential Existential Crisis We Have Been Warning About

Published

on

By


Even the most responsible hemp operator should understand that it operates in a world full of risk. But I doubt many of them believe they might be accused of racketeering. Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments about whether to sanction a commercial trucker’s attempt to bring a racketeering claim against CBD companies, whose allegedly mislabeled products the trucker claims led to his firing.

As always, Sam Reisman at Law360 distills the issue nicely:

The case concerns an allegation that companies sold CBD products with detectable amounts of THC, purportedly costing plaintiff Douglas J. Horn his job as a commercial trucker after he tested positive on a drug test. Oral arguments on Tuesday hinged largely on whether Horn’s claims stemmed from a personal injury — which would be excluded from the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, or RICO — or whether his firing was an economic injury and therefore redressable under RICO.

In taking the case, the U.S. Supreme Court could resolve a 3-2 circuit split over whether the civil prongs of the RICO statute allow a plaintiff to seek damages for economic harms stemming from injuries to their person.

Again, from Reisman:

During oral arguments on Tuesday, the liberal wing of the high court expressed skepticism with the CBD companies’ rendering of the case, which they said foregrounded Horn’s ingestion of the product as the source of the injury, as opposed to his firing for a positive drug test.

Lisa Blatt, an attorney for the CBD companies, told the justices that agreeing with Horn’s interpretation of the statute would open the door for virtually limitless personal injury cases under civil RICO, as long as plaintiffs could allege some connection between their ingestion of a product and a loss to their business or property: “Respondent’s rule also leaves the personal exclusion [in civil RICO] toothless, since virtually all personal injuries result in monetary loss,” Blatt said. “It is utterly implausible that Congress federalized every slip-and-fall involving RICO predicates. Personal injuries are serious and may support state tort claims, but they are not the stuff of RICO.”

On the other side, conservative justices attempted to discern how to draw a line between bona fide economic claims and personal injury claims pleaded as economic claims.

Easha Anand, arguing on behalf of Horn, said the vast majority of personal injury claims, such as those alleging pain and suffering or emotional distress, would still be excluded even if Horn was permitted to pursue his RICO claim against the CBD companies: “In your average slip-and-fall case, you’re not going to be able to prove a predicate act, let alone a pattern of predicate acts, let alone a pattern carried on through a racketeering enterprise,” Anand said.

Justice Neil Gorsuch observed, “There’s a failure to warn that this product contains ingredients that your client didn’t know about and should have known about and had a right to know about. I would have thought that that would have been kind of a classic personal injury.”

The Takeaway

This is pretty scary stuff for CBD and other hemp operators. RICO is no joke and carries very serious penalties (both civil and criminal depending on who is bringing the suit).

From the perspective of a CBD manufacturer, it seems unfair to hold the manufacturer responsible to control how its products are used and, as in this case, the implications of that use (here, an alleged economic injury).

If the Court rules that CBD and other hemp manufacturers are subject to RICO charges simply by selling their products to people who do things outside of the manufacturers’ control, it could pose an existential crisis to the industry with potentially unlimited civil (and maybe even criminal) liability. We have warned about this before.

That said, while it’s always difficult to predict how the Supreme Court will vote on any issue, I do not believe the Court will push the hemp industry to the brink. I suspect the Court will either rule that the claims in the present case are personal injury claims excluded from RICO and/or provide guidance for how lower courts should examine such “mixed” claims.

We’ll of course provide additional information once we hear from the Court. Stay tuned.



Source link

Continue Reading

One-Hit Wonders

What ‘material’ about therapeutic goods is considered advertising?

Published

on

By


It is important to note that advertising health services is subject to different regulations than advertising therapeutic products. Consequently, advertisers, manufacturers and sponsors must evaluate whether their business name could be interpreted as an advertisement for therapeutic goods. If so, they should consider whether the business name, including company or trading names, could be viewed as a ‘reference’ that draws the audience’s attention to medicinal cannabis, as any mention or similar terms to ‘cannabis’ are likely to have that effect. It is essential to recognise that the impact of promoting the use or supply of medicinal cannabis does not depend on a single promotional element but rather on the overall promotion. This includes all components of the promotional information and materials that accompany the name or branding. Advertising can result from the combination of separate statements, images or designs that collectively promote the use or supply of therapeutic goods.

Advertising

The prohibition on advertising medicinal cannabis to the public is determined by the context in which the material is perceived. When evaluating whether information about therapeutic goods qualifies as advertising, it is essential to consider the broader context of the material’s presentation. This encompasses various factors that influence the conveyed message, including the context of the information or activity, the intended audience and their likely interpretation of the message, as well as the presence of non-verbal and unwritten cues, such as visual elements. These factors can significantly affect communication and may alter the message perceived by consumers. 

For example, if an advertisement for a health service, such as a pain treatment service, includes references to medicinal cannabis, even in the company name or trading name, a reasonable consumer may conclude that the advertisement seeks to promote both the use of medicinal cannabis for pain relief and the pain treatment service itself. Including a disclaimer, such as advising the consumer to consult a health professional regarding suitable treatment options, does not exempt the advertiser from complying with legislative requirements.

The distinction between promoting a health service and the therapeutic product utilised in its delivery can be nuanced. Therefore, it is crucial for advertisers to consider how a typical consumer might perceive their advertisement in relation to the promotion of the therapeutic product.

Legal Compliance

To ensure legal compliance in promoting a business or service, advertisers should focus on the health services they provide and avoid referencing medicinal cannabis. For instance, stating “Our clinic offers consultations related to pain management” is a more compliant approach. The Therapeutic Goods Administration’s interpretation of advertising for medicinal cannabis is broad, covering all methods of promoting its use or supply. This includes company names, product names, abbreviations such as CBD and THC, colloquial terms, and any imagery related to cannabis. Any combination of statements or images that implies medicinal cannabis can be considered advertising, even in the absence of explicit promotional language.

Summary

In summary, it is prohibited to mention prescription medications in advertisements for therapeutic goods. If content discusses health conditions and consumers can reasonably infer, either from the context or through direct or indirect references, that medicinal cannabis or any other prescription medication is intended for use concerning these conditions, the content may be deemed an unlawful advertisement for therapeutic goods. Not all information related to therapeutic goods is classified as advertising. However, if the content aligns with the definition of ‘advertise’ as outlined in the Therapeutic Goods Act 1989 (Cth)—which includes anything that is directly or indirectly intended to promote the use or supply of therapeutic goods—then the relevant legislative requirements for advertising such goods must be complied with.

“Indirect intent” in this context does not refer to the explicit intention of the party responsible for the content, but rather to what a reasonable consumer might infer as the intent behind the content. Terms such as “plant-based medicine,” “plant medicine,” “cannabidiol” and “CBD oil,” which relate to medical cannabis products, may be considered promotional if they suggest a connection to medicinal cannabis. Businesses promoting a health service must ensure they do not inadvertently advertise a prescription medicine in their marketing materials. If the consumer is encouraged to seek out a health service based on the therapeutic goods available, the content is likely to be regarded as an advertisement for those therapeutic goods.

For additional information, the Therapeutic Goods Administration has established the Medicinal Cannabis Hub, accessible at https://www.tga.gov.au/products/unapproved-therapeutic-goods/medicinal-cannabis-hub, and has also provided advertising guidance for businesses involved in the medicinal cannabis sector, which can be found at https://www.tga.gov.au/sites/default/files/advertising-guidance-businesses-involved-medicinal-cannabis-products.pdf. These resources are designed to assist both consumers and industry professionals in understanding their obligations.



Source link

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending

Copyright © 2021 The Art of MaryJane Media