Hemp Eruption Favors New Jersey First
While leaving unanswered questions about how the U.S. Food and Drug Agency (FDA) will regulate hemp-derived products (including CBD cosmetics, dietary supplements and food additives), this much is clear: hemp just erupted and Jersey got there first.
January 16, 2020 at 01:25 PM
8 minute read
Was it really this asinine? Up until last year, three federal agencies and 42 state governments were creating contradictory hemp growing and processing rules often barring hemp-derived product sales and demonizing one particular item, cannabidol (CBD).
This exploded in the ensuing 12 months with $641 million in domestic hemp-derived product sales, 78% of which was CBD, and 510,000 acres licensed to cultivate hemp across 34 states (a 455% increase over 2018).
Following its recent issuance of domestic hemp production interim final rules requiring states to obtain proposed hemp production plan approval, on Dec. 27, 2019, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) approved New Jersey, Louisiana and Ohio's hemp growing, processing and selling regulations.
While leaving unanswered questions about how the U.S. Food and Drug Agency (FDA) will regulate hemp-derived products (including CBD cosmetics, dietary supplements and food additives), this much is clear: hemp just erupted and Jersey got there first.
|Industrial Hemp Overview, CBD and the Feds
A fast-growing, sustainable and inexpensively produced plant, hemp is a variety of Cannabis sativa L. containing less than 0.3% plant chemical delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), see Agricultural Act of 2014, 7 U.S. Code Section 5940. Unlike marijuana, which is cultivated to yield psychoactive THC, hemp yields more than 25,000 oil and fibrous products.
CBD is an oil-based hemp-derived product offering broad health and wellness uses, serves as a food additive and is found in many beauty items. "Animal Feed" is an example of a fibrous hemp-derived product, which, before being sold or distributed, must be deemed "generally recognized as safe" by the FDA or listed as a "recognized feed ingredient" by the American Association of Feed Control Officials.
On Dec. 20, 2018, President Donald J. Trump signed the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 (Farm Bill) legalizing hemp and its derivatives and forever removing them from the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970, 21 U.S.C. Sections 801, (1970) (Controlled Substance Act) and Drug Enforcement Administration's (DEA) clutches.
Prior to the Farm Bill's passage, confusion existed whether hemp and its derivates were permissible under the Agricultural Act or a prohibited Schedule 1 narcotic. Beyond removing plant Cannabis sativa L. containing no more than 0.3% THC on a dry-weight basis from the Controlled Substances Act and DEA's purview to be federally administered by the USDA and FDA, the Farm Bill:
- Guarantees that hemp and hemp-derived products can be imported, exported and transported from state to state like any other crop;
- Tasks USDA with promulgating hemp regulations;
- Tasks states, territories and Native American tribes with submitting hemp-growing regulations plans to the USDA including THC testing procedures, annual inspections, bookkeeping procedures to track land approved for hemp cultivation and "effective disposal" plans for excessive THC-containing hemp plants;
- Empowers the USDA to approve or reject those cultivation regulations within 60 days; and
- Bans hemp cultivation by those with drug felonies in the past 10 years.
Powered by a $6.1 billion annual budget and prosecutorial alliance with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), the FDA oversees a wide range of food, drugs and cosmetics pursuant to the federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, 21 U.S.C. 301, and Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. Sections 41-58 (FTC Act) conferred powers. Following hemp's cultivation, the FDA has enormous sway over how hemp-derived products can be prepared, manufactured and sold. Other than Epidiolex (an FDA-approved severe epilepsy treatment), the FDA deems most CBD products to be "adulterated" or "misbranded" and, following the Farm Bill's passage, maintains that CBD (whether from hemp or marijuana) cannot be used in a food or dietary supplement if listed as "an active ingredient in a drug product." In 2019, the FDA issued a slew of "cease and desist letters" to hemp-derived products' vendors targeting: placing "'unapproved' and 'misbranded' human drugs and adulterants" and "unapproved and unsafe animal drugs" into interstate commerce; and making false or unsubstantiated health claims.
At odds with the FDA's position, Colorado passed a law declaring that "food and cosmetics are not adulterated or misbranded by virtue of containing industrial hemp," including CBD, which, so far, the FDA has not challenged in court. States including California and New York have said that CBD cannot be added to food until the FDA updates its CBD posture though CBD manufacturers in those states report only limited enforcement of the rules.
|USDA's Interim Final Rules
The USDA's Oct. 31, 2019, published interim final rules establish a regulatory framework for domestic hemp production oversight in accordance with the Farm Bill.
Limited to hemp production, sampling, testing and disposal, and solely applying to hemp producers (defined as farmers that grow (or cultivate) hemp plants for market), the interim final rules are not regulating CBD or other hemp-derived products' processing, manufacture, testing, or marketing over which the FDA retains authority (the advertising of which it shares authority with the FTC).
Under the interim final rules, a state or Indian tribe may either submit a plan to regulate hemp cultivation or comply with the USDA's own hemp cultivating and processing regulations (the "final rules" on which the USDA intends to publish within two years).
The interim final rules establish testing standards imposing a pre-harvest sampling requirement on hemp growers collected by a federal, state, local or tribal law enforcement agency and sent to a DEA-registered laboratory for testing to ensure that the plants achieve an "acceptable hemp THC level" or be destroyed in accordance with reverse distributor regulations at 21 CFR 1317.15.
The interim final rules fail to establish any seed certification requirements (which many state hemp programs impose) nor any hemp seed importation restrictions other than USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service oversight (encompassing pest-related issues).
|New Jersey Leads Nation in Hemp Program Approval
Leapfrogging over 16 other states with more established hemp programs, on Dec. 27, 2019, the FDA approved New Jersey's proposed hemp growing, processing and selling regulations, (including CBD) starting in 2020.
Last summer New Jersey enacted the Hemp Farming Act repealing and replacing its Industrial hemp pilot program and authorizing producers to grow and sell hemp for commercial purposes; following the interim final rules' publication, New Jersey's Department of Agriculture (NJDA) promulgated its Hemp Farming Act rules.
Encompassing hemp growing, processing and license issuance pursuant to the Hemp Farming Act, Farm Bill and interim final rules, the Hemp Farming Act rules establish New Jersey's hemp program, which NJDA's Division of Plant Industry will administer.
The program establishes reporting requirements compelling NJDA to provide the USDA with information including: pre-planting, planting, pre-harvest and one annual production report listing hemp crop acreage; monthly reports updating a hemp producer's license status and providing noncompliant hemp violations; and annual reports regarding total grown and disposed hemp acreage ensuring that accurate legal land descriptions and hemp quantities are maintained.
The program's fee schedule is based upon whether the producer is growing, processing or handling hemp: growers pay an annual $300 fee plus a $15 per acre fee; handlers pay $450 per year; and a processor's annual fee stems from the type of hemp component being processed (e.g., $1,450 per year for those processing grain ($450) and CBD extract ($1,000)).
The program also establishes hemp sampling and testing procedures in which 15 days prior to anticipated harvest date, an NJDA inspector or a DEA-registered third-party lab will collect hemp samples to test for compliance with the federally defined THC level. THC-testing procedures must use postdecarboxylation or other similarly reliable methods and must measure total THC and test results must show the measurement of uncertainty being utilized and state if a given sample meets the 0.3% threshold based on the distribution range established by the measurement of uncertainty.
Hemp producers must also agree to grant entry to the NJDA onto their premises where hemp is grown, processed or handled for inspection and, in addition to individual sampling and testing requirements, the NJDA will also conduct annual inspections of a random sample from hemp producers.
Unless already participating in a hemp pilot program prior to the 2018 Farm Bill's passage, anyone with a controlled substances criminal conviction is disqualified from program participation for 10 years post-conviction and all key hemp production operation participants must pass a New Jersey state police criminal background check. Further, although not subject to adverse criminal law enforcement actions for negligent violations, and, instead, must comply with a corrective action plan tailored to prevent future violations, hemp farmers committing three negligent violations within a five-year period are disqualified from working in the program for five years.
Effective through June 2021, the Hemp Farming Act rules do not address the FDA's authority over CBD manufacturing and marketing or hemp products' transportation or shipment governed by the interim final rules and Farm Bill.
Steve Schain is senior counsel to global cannabis law firm Hoban Law Group. With 17 offices and 54 lawyers, the firm devotes 100% of its practice to cannabis and hemp law. Admitted to practice in Pennsylvania and New Jersey, Schain represents entities, governments and individuals in litigation, regulation, compliance, preparing and submitting license applications, entity formation and drafting legislation. Contact him at [email protected].
|This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllMonsanto Scores 2nd Phila. Roundup Verdict, but Fails to Stop Impending Trial
3 minute readPa. Appeals Court Shuts Down Bid for Clarity Amid 'Mallory' Uncertainty
4 minute readPhila. Judge Upholds Roundup Defense Verdict—and the Rulings That Helped Monsanto Win
4 minute readUpcoming Phila. Roundup Trial Canceled After Judge Knocks Out Most of Plaintiffs' Claims
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Judge Denies Sean Combs Third Bail Bid, Citing Community Safety
- 2Republican FTC Commissioner: 'The Time for Rulemaking by the Biden-Harris FTC Is Over'
- 3NY Appellate Panel Cites Student's Disciplinary History While Sending Negligence Claim Against School District to Trial
- 4A Meta DIG and Its Nvidia Implications
- 5Deception or Coercion? California Supreme Court Grants Review in Jailhouse Confession Case
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250