The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) announced meetings to be held this summer related to public health and marijuana. The CDC’s Board of Scientific Counselors will convene for a two-day meeting, July 16–17, 2019, to discuss a wide variety of topics, including the role of the CDC’s National Center for Injury Prevention and Control in “addressing public health concerns related to marijuana.” This portion of the meeting will be held on July 17, will be open to the public and will allot 15 minutes for public comments at the end of the session from 3:40–3:55 pm on July 17, 2019. Continue Reading CDC and SAMHSA to Hold Summer Meetings for Public Health and Marijuana
On May 7, 2019, the Virginia Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (VABC) published a decision confirming the enforceability of arbitration clauses in distribution agreements between brewers and beer distributors under Virginia’s Beer Franchise Act (BFA). In Loveland Distributing Co., Inc. and Premium of Virginia, LLC v. Bell’s Brewery, Inc., the VABC panel ruled unanimously in favor of compelling the parties to resolve their dispute through arbitration, as provided for in the parties’ distribution agreement (the Agreement).
The decision is good news overall for beer and wine suppliers hoping to avoid the cost of litigation before the VABC. Continue reading for details of the dispute and further considerations. Continue Reading Arbitration Clause in Beer Distribution Agreement Enforced by the Virginia ABC
On April 25, 2019, TTB published Industry Circular 2019-1. It addresses the hot topic of alcohol beverages (especially beer) infused with hemp-derived ingredients–with cannabidiol (CBD) as the clear focus of industry interest. While hardly surprising, the Industry Circular takes or reiterates the following positions:
- TTB will require a formula for any product containing a hemp-derived ingredient
- TTB will not approve a formula for any product containing a Schedule I controlled substance under the Controlled Substances Act
- TTB will not approve a formula for any product containing CBD until FDA changes its current position towards CBD as a food ingredient. FDA currently views interstate commerce in any food containing CBD as a violation of the federal Food, Drug & Cosmetic Act
- TTB will continue to approve formulas for alcohol beverages containing ingredients derived from hemp seeds and hemp oil
- TTB will not approve a formula for any product containing a hemp ingredient other than those derived from hemp seeds or oil unless it also receives adequate evidence that FDA deems the ingredient generally recognized as safe (GRAS) for food
Federal statutes create risk for banks that want to operate in the cannabis space. Banks face the threat of civil actions, asset forfeiture, reputational risk, and even criminal penalties if they do business with customers in the cannabis industry. Further, because most banks will not touch cannabis money, the growers, processors, and retailers in the industry must often operate on a cash-only basis. The Internal Revenue Service has even had to build “cash rooms” to accommodate taxes paid by legal cannabis companies.
Unlike hemp, marijuana still is subject to state statutes and the federal Controlled Substances Act. The legal distinction between hemp and marijuana is too subtle for the human eye, or a trained K-9’s impressive nose, and it has created a quandary for interstate hemp shippers. Until federal law clarifies interstate commerce laws pertaining to hemp, producers should reconsider transporting hemp through less-receptive states.
Last week the Food & Drug Administration (FDA) made public three new warning letters to Cannabidiol (CBD) and hemp oil product companies sent by FDA and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). FDA has previously targeted cannabis product companies.
The new warning letters are consistent with FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb’s recent statements that the FDA will go after manufacturers of CBD products that make health and wellness claims that FDA views as egregious. For example, the CBD companies in question allegedly marketed their products for Alzheimer’s disease, fibromyalgia, inflammation, skin conditions, autoimmune disorders, anxiety, cancer pain, PTSD and depression, to name a few symptoms. These companies are making food, dietary supplements, and cosmetic products, as well as products for pets (CBD for dogs). Continue Reading FDA Releases Warning Letters to CBD and Hemp Oil Companies
The FDA recently issued Guidance announcing its decision to exercise enforcement discretion with regard to the Produce Safety Rule for entities growing, harvesting, packing or holding hops and wine grapes, as well as almonds and pulse crops (dry, edible seeds in the legume family harvested solely in dried form).
More specifically, while the FDA considers rulemaking to address the unique circumstances of these four crops, the FDA does not expect entities growing, harvesting, packing or holding these commodities to meet any of the Produce Safety Regulation requirements with respect to these commodities.
- Hops: The FDA’s rationale for exercising enforcement discretion for hops is that hops used in the making of beer receive adequate pathogen reduction through means other than a cook step (e.g., pH, alcohol content and fermentation) and hops are not used outside of the brewing process.
- Wine Grapes: For wine grapes exclusively grown for use in winemaking, the FDA believes similarly, i.e., that wine grapes receive adequate pathogen reduction through means other than a cook step citing again pH, alcohol content and fermentation. In addition, the FDA believes that wine grapes grown, harvested and used solely for wine are a sufficiently distinct commodity from table grapes so they can be regulated differently (table grapes remain subject to the Produce Safety Rule). Furthermore, in the law that ended the government shutdown earlier this year, Congress said that no funds may be used to enforce the Produce Safety Rule with respect to grape varietals that are used solely for wine and receive commercial processing that adequately reduces the presence of microorganisms of public health significance. Undoubtedly, this helped move the FDA towards its decision to not enforce the Produce Safety Rule with regard to wine grapes.
The FDA’s guidance is effective immediately.
On March 18, 2019, the Washington Court of Appeals upheld a trial court’s decision that three advertising campaigns for 5-Hour Energy® made by Living Essentials, LLP and Innovative Ventures, LLP (collectively, Living Essentials) violated the Washington Consumer Protection Act (CPA) by making deceptive advertising claims.
Living Essentials makes and markets the energy drink 5-Hour Energy®. The three advertising claims at issue involve claims about the efficacy of the drink. Living Essentials claimed or implied that: (1) 5-Hour Energy® was “Superior to Coffee” (Superior to Coffee claim); (2) decaf 5-Hour Energy® was effective “for hours” (Decaf claim); and (3) 73 percent of doctors would recommend 5-Hour Energy® (Ask Your Doctor claim). The trial court found all three advertising claims in violation of the CPA. It also assessed a civil penalty against Living Essentials of $2,183,747 and awarded the State $1,886,866.71 in attorney fees and $209,125.92 in costs. The court of appeals affirmed.
Living Essentials argued on appeal that the trial court (1) erred by adopting the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) prior substantiation doctrine; (2) that the prior substantiation doctrine violates article I, section 5 of the Washington State Constitution and the First Amendment to the United States Constitution; (3) that Living Essentials’ claims were mere puffery which did not require substantiation; (4) the trial court applied the wrong standard for necessary substantiation; and (5) the trial court erred in concluding that Living Essentials’ Ask Your Doctor claim was deceptive. Living Essentials also challenged the trial court’s penalty and award of attorney fees. Continue Reading Washington Court of Appeals Upholds Multi-Million Dollar Fine for 5-Hour Energy Advertising Claims
On May 31, 2019, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) will hold a public hearing on cannabis products. The hearing seeks to obtain scientific data on cannabis and cannabis-derived compounds, along with additional information regarding health and safety risks, manufacturing and product quality, marketing, labeling and the sale of such products.
The FDA’s notice announcing the hearing recognizes that the regulatory landscape surrounding cannabis continues to evolve at both the federal and state levels. At the state level, 33 states and Washington, DC, allow for the medical use of marijuana and 14 additional states have medical programs limited to cannabidiol (a/k/a CBD) products. Moreover, 10 states and Washington, DC have legalized marijuana for recreational use, while 13 additional states have decriminalized recreational marijuana possession in some form.
At the federal level, the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018, Pub. L. 115-334 (often called the 2018 Farm Bill), removed hemp and its derivatives from the Controlled Substances Act, so they are no longer classified as controlled substances under federal law. This has prompted an avalanche of businesses marketing products containing hemp-derived compounds – most notably CBD – in ways that the FDA views as violations of the federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. According to the FDA, many questions remain concerning the safety implications of the widespread use of these products. Therefore, the FDA seeks relevant information to inform its position in regulating the development and marketing of cannabis products. Continue Reading FDA Announces Public Hearing on Products Containing Cannabis or Cannabis-Derived Compounds
On Friday, March 29, the US District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri handed down its decision in Sarasota Wine Market v. Parson, No. 4:17CV2792. The decision upholds Missouri’s laws permitting in-state retailers to sell and deliver directly to consumers’ homes, but withholding that same privilege to out-of-state retailers. Plaintiffs had challenged the Missouri statutes under both the so-called “dormant” Commerce Clause and the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Federal Constitution.
The decision is not surprising, as Missouri lies within the jurisdiction of the US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. The Eighth Circuit, in a challenge to a residency requirement in a case entitled Southern Wine & Spirits v. Division of Alc. & Tobacco Control (2013), previously held that state laws regulating retailers and wholesalers are immune from dormant Commerce Clause scrutiny under the 21st Amendment. The Sarasota Wine Market decision relies heavily on Southern Wine & Spirits in rejecting the plaintiffs’ dormant Commerce Clause challenge. And, the court reasoned that because the right to engage in the wine trade is subject to the limitations of the 21st Amendment, the Privileges and Immunities Clause is not implicated.
Whether the 21st Amendment insulates state laws regulating retailers and wholesalers from dormant Commerce Clause scrutiny is currently pending before the Supreme Court in the Tennessee Wine & Spirits Retailers Association v. Blair (f/n/a Byrd) case. Thus, the Sarasota Wine Market opinion faces almost-certain reversal or affirmance, depending on how the Supreme Court rules in Blair. In the meantime, the decision serves to underscore the stakes of the question currently pending before the Supreme Court.