The UK Food Standards Agency held its monthly meeting this week to discuss the future of CBD regulations in the UK.
After last week’s unexpected announcement that a roadmap would guide the final stages for a variety of CBD novel foods applications, setting a precedent in CBD regulation around the globe, this meeting aimed to provide answers to some of the questions raised by the Report.
The session was a success, but it will have raised alarms among many industry professionals, as there are numerous reports that the FSA has shifted its stance towards CBD products with a THC content of 0%.
Robert Jappie is a leading cannabis attorney and partner in the law firm Fieldfisher. MEDCAN24The FSA board is more inclined to a position of ‘as little THC as scientifically possible’ than limiting the amount of THC. The FSA board leans further towards a position of ‘as little THC as scientifically possible’ rather than a permissible limit. The FSA board is clearly trying to set itself apart from the Home Office, which enforces 1mg as a limit.
Meeting
After three preliminary safety evaluations were confirmed earlier in the year, the meeting, held the morning of December 11, 20,24, sought to focus the discussion on the progress of CBD products and on next steps for the management of risk.
In the last phase of risk assessment, the FSA requested that the board approve five core principles for CBD risk-management and to consider their applicability to novel food processes.
Although the positives of the industry in regards to increased transparency, efficiency, and collaboration were discussed, the language surrounding THC in CBD products showed the industry might be moving towards even more strict restrictions.
Tom Vincent of the FSA, who released the report mentioned above late last month began with a discussion about two topics. One was THC levels.
He started by reiterating that as THC is a ‘controlled substance’, the Home Office have recently confirmed that ‘products with very low levels of THC can be considered exempt and freely traded’.
As such, ‘revised licensing conditions for the storage and transport of these products have also been outlined’ for CBD businesses, and according to the FSA ‘it will now be easier to obtain a licence to store or transport bulk materials containing low levels of THC’.
It is also suggested that businesses dealing in bulk CBD may be required to have a Controlled Drugs Licence. This licence can be difficult to acquire.
Try to get 0% THC
Mark Rolfe was the first to speak up. He disputed a few of Mr Vincent’s arguments, including that CBD should not be considered a novel food.
“I don’t agree that CBD food is any different than other novel foods,” he told the Board. The inescapable connection to controlled substances makes it stand out.
I also disagree with the statement that it is almost impossible to completely extract THC. I have found that using advanced spectrometry techniques and my own experience of CBD products with no detectable THC, other cannabinoids or illegal substances is possible.
It is usually not about cost, but that’s what it comes down to. To ensure the safety of consumers, regulations should promote this purity level.
He then suggested ‘setting a clear regulatory expectation for zero detectable THC and other illegal cannabinoids in products’.
Although Mr Vincent responded by explaining that the acceptable levels in products are expected to be ‘significantly below the exemption level set by the home office’, emphasising that these are ‘trace levels’, Chair Susan Jebb appeared to confirm this was the way the FSA intended to go.
After Anthony Harbinson, FSA Board Member for Northern Ireland, questioned whether ‘there is an acceptable level of THC’, and whether manufacturers can ‘reaslistically achieve these levels’, Ms Jebb said the organisation should aim for 0% THC.
She said, “Yes, of course we should be focusing on reducing THC levels. But I think Mark’s argument is that as a starting point, companies should aim for no detectable amounts.”
The approach is different from setting an acceptable minimum level. Our guidance must clearly state that undetectable levels are the goal, not a maximum limit.
Furthermore, Rebecca Sudworth, Director of Policy, saught to clarify that ‘the Home Office guidelines specifically address enforcement under drug laws, including the one milligram per container limit, but this is not our starting point for food safety.’
“We would treat THC the same as any other contaminants.” It is our expectation that CBD product contamination should be at the lowest possible level. This will be determined by scientific advisory panels.
“I think that there is a little cross-purpose in this case. Mark’s argument highlights the fact that guidance for companies must be clear that their goal should be no detectable THC. It’s a different thing to define a permitted threshold. It should be clear that undetectable levels are expected, not a maximum limit.
List of public lists
The Board also spoke briefly about other issues, such as the future of the applications that are currently being considered, but provided little clarification.
These focused specifically on products currently on the temporarily sanctioned ‘public list’, which enables products to remain on sale without official authorisation.
Board member Fiona Gately raised concerns around ‘potential discrepancies’ between the newly authorised products set to enter the market ‘with specific conditions’ and those which remain on the public list.
“Products that are on public sale and currently listed may not have the same terms of sale.” How will we manage this transition to ensure compliance and consistency?She asked the Board.
Then I’d like to ask a question of a more technical nature: Will a condition for sale require a transport license, given the risk that THC residues may be present in the product?” This is a requirement of the Home Office, and I presume it must be incorporated into the regulatory framework.
The meeting did not address these questions directly, but they will remain in the minds of businesses who are still awaiting clarifications on the best way to proceed.
In response to a question from Devina Sankhla, Food Policy Advisor at the British Retail Consortium, regarding the notification process of those who have been removed from the list, Vincent stated: “I confirm that these removals will be displayed on our site and in the updates sent via Market Authorizations newsletter, that stakeholders may subscribe to.
As for the next steps, the chair explained that the officials would revisit and refine principles, including input from the Board, and share an updated version by correspondence in the coming weeks.
On the agenda for next month’s board meeting is a progress report. The principles, once finalised, will be used to guide the creation of proposals for risk management, and will go out for public consultation in the early part next year.
In order to maintain proper timing, the board recommends that consultations be started before the next board meetings, and updates should be sent via email as necessary.