Drug Policy

The New Reefer Madness? New Laws Look to Regulate Hemp Products

October 11, 2024
Drug Policy, Food and Drug Law, Regulatory

Violet Butler, MJLST Staffer

In 2018, the federal government took a major step in shifting its policy towards the criminalization of marijuana. Included in the 2018 Farm Bill was a provision that legalized some hemp-derivative products, in particular CBD products with a low-level of THC.[1] While this was touted by the industry and activists as a major step forward, the move to increase regulations on these hemp products have recently gained steam.

But what exactly was legalized by the federal government? The 2018 Farm Bill legalized hemp and hemp derived products (including CBD) that contain no more than 0.3% THC.[2] It should be noted that most cannabis products are consumed for some form of intoxication[3] and, suffice it to say, intoxication does not arise from 0.3% THC. The 2018 Farm Bill legalized a very small subsection of cannabis products serving a limited range of uses. Under the law, if a product contains more than 0.3% THC it is legally classified as marijuana and is still illegal under the Controlled Substances Act. So, if these new products cannot be used as intoxicants, why is there a push for more regulations?

A reason for the push for further regulations gaining traction is the concern over synthetically produced cannabinoids. A report from the National Academy of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine recently published a report urging the federal government to redefine what “hemp” means. This is in an effort to ban semi-synthetic cannabinoids derived from legal hemp products as these cannabinoids can mirror the intoxicating effects of marijuana.[4] By clamping down on these semi-synthetic products, the legal line between hemp, CBD, and marijuana can be more properly maintained.

Different states are taking different approaches to the new regulations on hemp products. One camp of lawmakers want to go back to the old regime where any miniscule trace of THC was illegal. This “total ban” approach is presently seen in new legislation passed in Arkansas. Arkansas’ Act 629 bans the “production and sale of products containing Delta 8, Delta 9 and Delta 10 and other THC isomers inside the state of Arkansas” in any capacity.[5] Currently on appeal in the Eighth Circuit, the act has been subject to a lawsuit from hemp companies claiming the state law is preempted by the 2018 Farm Bill.[6] Arkansas is not the only state to take a total ban approach. Missouri’s governor Mike Parsons recently signed an executive order banning all consumables containing “psychoactive cannabis products”—or hemp products containing even trace amounts of THC—outside of the state’s already regulated cannabis market.[7] While this is not as broad in scope as Arkansas’ ban, the wide-reaching ban restricts the sale of most non-marijuana cannabis products in the state.

However, some states have taken a different approach to regulating hemp products, particularly in its distribution. New Jersey recently banned any amount of THC from being sold to a person under the age of 21.[8] California governor Gavin Newsom took a similar approach, signing an emergency ban on all hemp products containing THC and restricting the sale of all other hemp products to the 21+ market.[9] Even the federal government might be looking to increase the regulations on hemp products. Senator Ron Wyden recently introduced a bill that would raise the age at which someone could buy hemp products to 21 and set more federal safety standards on the industry.[10]

So, why is there a push to change the laws around hemp now? It could come down to perceived health risks and a rise in hospitalizations. A study from the Nationwide Children’s Hospital found that there were over 3,000 calls to poison controls related to THC, including the those found in small doses of legal hemp products.[11] Although only about 16% of these calls resulted in hospitalizations, roughly half of admissions were for children under 6-years-old.[12] California Governor Newsom directly cited hospitalizations as one the principal reasons he signed his emergency order.[13]

People seem to be worried about the hemp products currently on the market, including CBD, but should they be? The jury is still out on the health effects of CBD. A report from the World Health Organization in 2018 said that CBD had a “good safety profile” and reported no evidence of detrimental effects from recreational consumption of pure CBD.[14] However, the AAMC notes that CBD is understudied and there could be adverse interactions if CBD is taken with other medications.[15]

Legislators and policy-makers need to be able to ensure the safety and well-being of their citizens without creating unnecessary barriers for a new and growing industry. One of the barriers that states are facing is— maybe ironically—the 2018 Farm Bill. The bill opened the door for hemp products that met the THC standards, and these state laws are running into friction with the federal law. While states are allowed (and expected) to regulate the hemp industry under the 2018 Farm Bill, the move by many states to put heavier restrictions on the amount of THC allowed in hemp products seems to be in conflict with federal law. The lawsuits from hemp producers so far have all revolved around the idea that these state regulations, which are more restrictive than the 2018 Farm Bill, are preempted by the federal legislation.[16] Under Article VI of the Constitution, federal laws are the “supreme law of the land” so the Farm Bill must preempt state law in some way, but the exact way it does so is unclear.[17] There are two different ideas on how the Farm Bill preempts state law. The first idea is that the hemp regulations laid out in the federal law are the most stringent that states can regulate. This is the interpretation that hemp producers prefer, and the theory that they are suing under. The second idea, the option preferred by states that are looking to increase regulations, is that the Farm Bill set the outer limit for regulations. In other words, states are free to increase the regulations on the industry, but the federal law provides a national baseline if states do not come up with their own regulation.

Court rulings on this issue may settle the debate, but there is always a risk of a circuit split forming as different Courts of Appeal hear and decide on different lawsuits. To clear confusion once and for all, the federal government could clarify the scope of regulatory power with new legislation, or the Supreme Court could decide the issue in its upcoming term. But, until then, the legal challenges are likely to keep mounting and leave the nascent hemp industry in lingo.

 

Notes

[1] Dennis Romero, Hemp Industry Expected to Blossom Under New Farm Bill, NBC News (Dec. 17, 2018, 4:02 PM), https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/hemp-industry-expected-blossom-under-new-farm-bill-n947791. For clarification, CBD stands for cannabidiol, a product derived from hemp, often sold in gummy or oil form. THC stands for tetrahydrocannabinol, the psychoactive part of the marijuana plant that can get you high. THC often refers to what is known as delta-9 THC, a type of THC found in the marijuana plant.

[2] John Hudak, The Farm Bill, Hemp Legalization and the Status of CBD: An Explainer, Brookings Institution (Dec. 14, 2018), https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-farm-bill-hemp-and-cbd-explainer/

[3] As the Brookings Institution points out, the extremely low levels of THC in now-legal hemp products means that these products cannot be used to get high.

[4] Sam Reisman, New Report Urges Feds to Take Larger Role in Pot Policy, Law360 (Sept. 26, 2024, 8:53 PM), https://plus.lexis.com/newsstand/law360/article/1883058/?crid=c6fd0d9a-971e-489f-a5c6-8c1725ffee87

[5] Dale Ellis, Federal Judge Blocks State’s New Law Banning Delta-8 THC Products, Arkansas Democrat Gazette (Sept. 7, 2023, 6:00 PM), https://www.arkansasonline.com/news/2023/sep/07/federal-judge-blocks-states-new-law-banning-delta-8-thc-products/

[6] Sam Reisman, Court Defers Ruling On Challenge To Arkansas Hemp Law, Law360 (Sept. 25, 2024, 6:50 PM), https://plus.lexis.com/newsstand/law360/article/1882683/?crid=48cd5145-0817-47a7-bf22-1fb3bf01cb5f

[7] Jonathan Capriel, Missouri Ban on Some Psychoactive Foods to Hit Sept. 1 (August 30, 2024, 8:47 PM), https://plus.lexis.com/newsstand/law360/article/1882683/?crid=48cd5145-0817-47a7-bf22-1fb3bf01cb5f;  Rebecca Rivas, Missouri Hemp Leaders File Suit to Halt Governor’s Ban on Hemp THC Products, Missouri Independent (August 30, 2024 5:55 AM), https://missouriindependent.com/2024/08/30/missouri-hemp-leaders-set-to-file-suit-to-halt-governors-ban-on-hemp-thc-products/

[8] Sophie Nieto-Munoz, Gov. Murphy Signs Controversial Bill Restricting Sales of Hemp Products, New Jersey Monitor (Sept. 13, 2024, 7:11 AM), https://newjerseymonitor.com/2024/09/13/gov-murphy-signs-controversial-bill-restricting-sales-of-hemp-products/

[9] Rae Ann Varona, Calif. Gov.’s Emergency Hemp Intoxicant Ban Wins Approval, Law360 (Sept. 24, 2024, 9:49 PM),  https://plus.lexis.com/newsstand/law360/article/1882121/?crid=642ddd2e-a29d-46d6-8ff4-b7f209fd6c7f&cbc=0,0

[10] Same Reisman, Wyden Pitches New Bill To Regulate Intoxicating Hemp, Law360 (Sept. 25, 2024, 7:06 PM), https://plus.lexis.com/newsstand/law360/article/1882226/?crid=ed53b57f-dd97-4a6a-8a89-f6028f95e523

[11] Nationwide Children’s, New Study Finds Increase in Exposures to Synthetic Tetrahydrocannabinols Among Young Children, Teens, and Adults, Nationwide Children’s Hospital (May 7, 2024), https://www.nationwidechildrens.org/newsroom/news-releases/2024/05/deltathc_clinicaltoxicology

[12] Id.

[13] Varona, supra note 9.

[14] World Health Organization, Cannabidiol (CBD) Critical Review Report 5 (2018).

[15] Stacy Weiner, CBD: Does It Work? Is It Safe? Is It Legal?, AAMC News (July 20, 2023), https://www.aamc.org/news/cbd-does-it-work-it-safe-it-legal

[16] Reisman, supra note 6; Varona, supra note 9.

[17] U.S. Const. art. VI, cl. 2

Behind the “Package Insert”: Loophole in FDA’s Regulation of Off-Label Prescriptions

November 12, 2022
Agencies, Drug Policy, FDA, Healthcare, Industry, Pharmaceuticals, Public Health, Regulatory

Yolanda Li, MJLST Staffer

FDA Regulation of Drug Prescription Labeling and the “Package Insert”

Over the recent years, constant efforts have been made towards regulating medical prescriptions in an attempt to reduce risks accompanied with drug prescriptions. Among those efforts is the FDA’s revision of the format of prescription drug information, commonly known as the “package insert”.[1]

The package insert regulation, effective since 2006, applies to all prescription drugs. The package insert is to provide up-to-date information on the drug in an easy-to-read format. One significant feature is a section named “highlights”, which provides the most important information regarding the benefits and risks of a prescribed medication. The highlights section is typically half a page in length providing a concise summary of information including “boxed warning”, “indications and usage”, and “dosage and administration”.[2] The highlights section also refers physicians to appropriate sections of the full prescribing information. In this way, the package insert aims to draw both the physicians’ and the patients’ attention to the prescription of a drug, consequently accomplishing the ultimate purpose of managing medication use and reducing medical errors. Mike Leavitt, the Health and Human Services Secretary of the FDA commented that the package insert “help[s] ensure safe and optimal use of drugs, which translates into better health outcomes for patients and more efficient delivery of healthcare.”[3]

FDA Regulation of Off-Label Prescription and the Emergence of a Loophole

The FDA’s regulations relating to the labeling of prescription drugs, although systematic in its form, are cut short to a certain extent due to its lack of regulation on off-label prescriptions. Off-label prescriptions do not refer to a physician prescribing non-FDA approved drugs, a common misunderstanding by the public. Rather, off-label prescriptions are those that do not conform to the FDA-approved use set out in the FDA-approved label.[4] More specifically, off-label prescription generally refers to: “(1) the practice of a physician prescribing a legally manufactured drug for purposes other than those indicated on that drug’s FDA mandated labeling; (2) using a different method of applying the treatment and prescribing a drug, device, or biologic to patient groups other than those approved by FDA; and (3) prescriptions for drug dosages that are different from the approved label-recommended dosage or for time periods exceeding the label-recommended usage.”[5] For example if Drug A’s use, as mandated by the FDA, is to treat chronic headaches, and a physician prescribes it to treat a patient’s sprained ankle, that is an off-label prescription. However, such practice is common as estimated by the American Medical Association (AMA).[6]

The commonly approach is that the FDA and courts do not to interfere with physicians’ off-label uses.[7] Thus, when the FDA regulates the labeling of approved uses but does not regulate prescriptions for off-label uses, a loophole is formed. Andrew von Eschenbach, M.D., claims that because the FDA’s package insert regulation makes it easier for physicians to get access to important information about drugs, including drug safety and benefits, this regulation helps physicians to have more meaningful discussions with patients.[8] However, physicians’ discretion in prescribing off-label prescriptions would offset the proposed benefit of the FDA regulation because the regulation remains as guidance without force of law once physicians choose to go off from FDA’s approved uses of drugs. The easy-to-understand feature of the package insert and its benefit for a patient’s understanding of the drug becomes futile when physicians exercise discretion and prescribe drugs for uses not written on the inserts. In sum, when a patient receives an off-label prescription, the insert provides them little benefit as it addresses benefits and risks related to a different use of the drug.

It is undisputed that drug manufacturers have less discretion regarding drug labeling than physicians. If a manufacturer included an off-label use on a drug’s label, and promoted the off-label use of the drug, the drug would be considered misbranded. The manufacturer would then be subject to liability[9] as manufacturing a misbranded product in interstate commerce is prohibited.[10] However, the effect of regulations on manufacturers still fail to eliminate the loophole in off-label prescription: in response to the regulations, the manufacturer usually receives FDA approval for only a few drug uses and then relies on physicians prescribing off-label uses to ensure their profitability.[11] In this way, the manufacturer avoids liability under regulation and furthers the loophole in off-label prescription by encouraging physicians to prescribe more off-label uses in order to expand the manufacturer’s market.[12]

Why are Off-Label Prescriptions Difficult to Regulate?

One of the main reasons behind the lack of regulation of off-label prescriptions is the FDA’s objective in ensuring effective delivery of health care. Physicians are encouraged to use discretion and judgment in order to tailor prescription to patients’ individual conditions.[13] Another reason is to increase efficiency in treatments by avoiding the lengthy FDA approval process.[14] Aspirin was widely prescribed to reduce the risk of heart attack long before it was FDA-approved for this purpose; off-label prescriptions have also been proven effective in treatment of cancer, and off-label therapies have prolonged the lives of AIDS patients.[15] Another concern is drug prices in the United States, and promoting off-label uses has been found to help reduce drug prices as increased sales volume enables drug companies to lower their prices.[16] Indeed, off-label prescription has become a mainstream of medicine: “the FDA has long tolerated off-label drug use and has disclaimed any interest in regulating physicians’ prescribing practices.”[17] Today it is unclear whether the agency even has jurisdiction to regulate off-label prescription of drugs.[18]

In sum, there is clear guidance on the labeling of prescription drugs as a result of FDA regulation. However, because of difficulties in enforcement, the custom and widely accepted practice of off-label prescriptions and the inherent benefit of off-label prescription, the effects of the regulation are not as effective as what was firstly planned and proposed.

Notes

[1] The FDA Announces New Prescription Drug Information Format, U.S. Food & Drug Adm’ (Dec. 04 2015) https://www.fda.gov/drugs/laws-acts-and-rules/fda-announces-new-prescription-drug-information-format.

[2] Id.

[3] Id.

[4] Margaret Z. Johns, Informed Consent: Requiring Doctors to Disclose Off-Label Prescriptions and Conflicts of Interest, 58 Hastings L.J. 967, 968 https://plus.lexis.com/document?crid=35364c11-2939-4e58-bceb-dab7ae8f0154&pddocfullpath=%2Fshared%2Fdocument%2Fanalytical-materials%2Furn%3AcontentItem%3A4P0W-GY20-00CW-906B-00000-00&pdsourcegroupingtype=&pdcontentcomponentid=7341&pdmfid=1530671&pdisurlapi=true.

[5] Lisa E. Smilan, The off-label loophole in the psychopharmacologic setting: prescription of antipsychotic drugs in the nonpsychotic patient population, 30 Health Matrix 233, 240 (2020), https://plus.lexis.com/document/?pdmfid=1530671&crid=367cf8ad-295e-4f14-97fa-737618718d61&pddocfullpath=%2Fshared%2Fdocument%2Fanalytical-materials%2Furn%3AcontentItem%3A64BT-RR31-JWBS-61KV-00000-00&pdworkfolderid=5506aeec-9540-4837-89f0-5a1acfd81d8b&pdopendocfromfolder=true&prid=1d42abd0-b66e-43af-a61a-0d1fb94180f5&ecomp=gdgg&earg=5506aeec-9540-4837-89f0-5a1acfd81d8b#.

[6] Supra note 4.

[7] Sigma-Tau Pharms. v. Schwetz, 288 F.3d 141, 148, https://plus.lexis.com/document?crid=7d2a2b00-13ad-4953-968e-82a28724aa00&pddocfullpath=%2Fshared%2Fdocument%2Fcases%2Furn%3AcontentItem%3A45RF-5H50-0038-X1PB-00000-00&pdsourcegroupingtype=&pdcontentcomponentid=6388&pdmfid=1530671&pdisurlapi=true.

[8] Supra note 1.

[9] 21 CFR 201.5, https://plus.lexis.com/document/?pdmfid=1530671&crid=e02a99fb-be65-4525-b83c-a167f3e21b93&pddocfullpath=%2Fshared%2Fdocument%2Fadministrative-codes%2Furn%3AcontentItem%3A603K-BXD1-DYB7-W30Y-00000-00&pdcontentcomponentid=5154&pdworkfolderlocatorid=NOT_SAVED_IN_WORKFOLDER&prid=ff2b7e20-9dab-49b0-8385-627c16ee0ba2&ecomp=vfbtk&earg=sr2.

[10] 21 CFR 801.4, https://plus.lexis.com/document/?pdmfid=1530671&crid=721a586d-52a4-4228-b0c3-c464a77d6e6a&pddocfullpath=%2Fshared%2Fdocument%2Fadministrative-codes%2Furn%3AcontentItem%3A638R-X4S3-GXJ9-32FV-00000-00&pdcontentcomponentid=5154&pdworkfolderlocatorid=NOT_SAVED_IN_WORKFOLDER&prid=ff2b7e20-9dab-49b0-8385-627c16ee0ba2&ecomp=vfbtk&earg=sr6.

[11]  Supra note 4.

[12] Id.

[13]   Supra note 7.

[14]   Supra note 4.

[15]  Id.

[16] Supra note 4, at 981.

[17] ​​Kaspar J. Stoffelmayr, Products Liability And “Off-label” Uses Of Prescription Drugs, 63 U. Chi. L. Rev. 275, 279, https://plus.lexis.com/document?crid=a2181ffc-7f3e-4bce-b82e-08ba9111194f&pddocfullpath=%2Fshared%2Fdocument%2Fanalytical-materials%2Furn%3AcontentItem%3A3S3V-4CF0-00CV-K03W-00000-00&pdsourcegroupingtype=&pdcontentcomponentid=7358&pdmfid=1530671&pdisurlapi=true.

[18]  Id.

Making Moves on Marijuana: President Biden and Minnesota Update Marijuana Laws in 2022

October 23, 2022
Agencies, Drug Policy, Employment Law, FDA, Food and Drug Law, Health, Public Health, Regulatory

Emma Ehrlich, MJLST Staffer

Federal Pardoning 

Earlier this month, President Biden announced that he would be pardoning anyone with a federal conviction due to simple marijuana possession charges. This will affect approximately 6,500 people on the federal level, plus thousands of others who were convicted in the District of Columbia. However, this pardon does not cover anyone involved in the actual sale of marijuana or anyone convicted under state possession laws, meaning it affects only a subsection of those who have been convicted of marijuana related charges. The administration’s goal was to give a clean slate to those who were struggling to find housing or employment due to a possession charge, and to encourage state legislatures to do the same. 

The second half of President Biden’s announcement was to task the Attorney General with reviewing the federal government’s categorization of marijuana as a Schedule 1 drug, which President Biden pointed out is currently the same categorization as heroin. Drugs are supposed to be assigned to schedules based on their medical uses and addictive qualities. The Drug Enforcement Agency (“DEA”) currently categorizes marijuana as a “drug[] with no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse.” The U. S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) explains on their website, almost in a regretful tone, that only four cannabis drugs have been approved by the FDA, one containing CBD and the other three containing synthetically derived THC. This categorization issue is not new, but because legislation regarding marijuana is changing rapidly federal agencies have had to play catch up with the law.  

Minnesota and Beyond 

Meanwhile, the state of Minnesota is still chugging along in terms of marijuana legalization. In July of this year, the state of Minnesota legalized the production and sale of edibles containing 5-mg of THC, which can now be purchased by adults in bags containing no more than 50-mg of THC. This sounds like good news, but many state residents are baffled at the lack of a tax provision in the new state law. The University of Maryland actually did a study on Minnesota’s potential for taxing cannabis, and determined that if the newly legalized edibles were taxed at the same rate as Michigan taxes, the state could have collected over $40 million. Given this high estimate, it is not out of the question that a tax on marijuana will be implemented in the future. 

Minnesotan employers were similarly not thrilled when the law passed as they felt ill equipped to update their drug policies. Employers “can bar workers from using, possessing, and being under the influence of THC during work hours or in the workplace,” as well as conduct “random drug testing for safety-sensitive positions” and “employees suspected of being intoxicated.” The gray area exists in the employer’s ability to hire and fire based on an applicant or employee’s use of marijuana outside of work. It is currently illegal to make hiring and firing decisions based on tobacco usage or alcohol consumption, and it is unclear if marijuana will be treated in the same manner. The added layer to marijuana testing is that a positive drug test for marijuana does not mean an employee consumed THC right before work since THC lingers in the body for so long. Thus, an employee could test positive for mairjuana at work even if they had used the drugs days ago and were no longer feeling its effects. Though the employee would have ingested the drug legally, they may not be considered for a job position or could be fired from a job they already hold. This is the type of issue that has led a number of municipalities in Minnesota to put a pause on the sale of the state legalized edibles. In contrast, California passed a law just last month protecting employees, apart from some exceptions, from being discriminated against based on their marijuana usage when not at work. What might be a little concerning is that California made recreational marijuana legal in 2016, and this law won’t go into effect until 2024, meaning there was an eight year gap in the legislation. Regardless, this may serve as the beginning of a pattern, pointing to what Minnesota may do down the line. 

In 2020 New Jersey passed a law legalizing recreational marijuana use which went into effect in April of this year. Similarly to California, part of the law protects workers from being discriminated against because of their marijuana use outside of work. However, Walmart and Sam’s Club have continued to administer drug tests to job applicants to search for traces of marijuana, a practice that has gotten them into legal trouble in New Jersey. Walmart is arguing that only the state Cannabis Regulatory Commission can enforce the new employment law, and that this case should be dismissed because it was brought by individuals. Courts in other states in which similar laws have been passed have issued decisions that oppose Walmart’s position, ruling that individual workers can sue under the law. It seems that Minnesota is not the only state that has enacted fuzzy recreational drug use laws that directly affect employers and employees. 

On the bright side of this employment confusion, many appreciate the baby step the Minnesota legislature has taken to legalize marijuana use. The state has been in dire need of updated marijuana legislation, and the hope is that continuing this legalization process will lessen the disparities between black and white arrests for marijuana possession. This change is necessary, because as of 2020 Minnesota was found to rank 8th in the United States for largest racial disparities in marijuana possession arrests. In 2021, the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension released data showing that out of the over 6,000 marijuana related arrests made in the state, 90% were for simple possession charges, and a black person was almost five times more likely to be arrested for these types of charges than a white person. This statistic is down from almost eight times more likely back in 2010, but is still extremely present. 

In Conclusion

President Biden’s pardon is just a beginning step towards moving the US forward on marijuana legislation. Though states such as Minnesota are moving in the right direction by gradually legalizing recreational marijuana use, the laws are often unclear and lead to a multitude of logistical issues like those seen in the employment sector. Regardless, making continued progress is important to the U.S. for many reasons and is crucial for helping to lessen racial arrest disparities. Hopefully this pardon will have the effect the administration aimed for and will encourage more state legislatures to update their policies on marijuana usage.

 

 

Relieving a Pain Management Crisis: How Medical Cannabis May Help the Prescription Opioid Epidemic

November 13, 2021
Drug Policy, FDA, Food and Drug Law, Uncategorized

David C. Edholm, MJLST Staffer

“The Food and Drug Administration is responsible for protecting the public health by ensuring the safety, efficacy, and security of human . . . drugs.” To no surprise, near the top of the FDA’s list of current priorities is ameliorating the prescription opioid epidemic. More than 14,000 deaths in 2019 are attributed to prescription opioid overdoses. (See fig. 4 of hyperlink). Celebrity opioid overdoses have raised public awareness of the crisis, however, hundreds of millions of opioid prescriptions are written each year to treat “moderate-to-severe” pain. The epidemic continues today, begging the question of whether any reasonable alternatives to prescription opioids exist, perhaps medical cannabis.

California became the first state to legalize medical cannabis through a ballot initiative in 1996; since then, 35 states and four territories followed. Although the Department of Health and Human Services and the FDA have expressed skepticism about safety and efficacy due to a lack of quality research, legalization in a recreational capacity is becoming more popularized. Recent systematic studies on high-potency cannabis products have shown a cause for concern, however, studies on substituting medical cannabis for prescription opioids remain inconclusive, leaving the door open to this future possibility.

In order for medical cannabis to legitimately contend with prescription opioids, quality safety and efficacy data are required. But the public stands by as FDA has yet to approve a medical use and “marihuana” remains a Schedule I controlled substance. 18 U.S.C. § 812(1) (2018). Recent federal efforts push for decriminalization, but historically the federal government has adopted a “hands off” approach, giving states choice on cannabis regulation. There is coast-to-coast differentiation on cannabis legalization with most states permitting medical use and a growing number permitting recreational use, but due to its current state of being under-researched, it is substantially less controversial to leave the political choice for legalization to the states as long as safety and efficacy are opaque.

The benefit of state choice is articulated through efforts from states like California and Minnesota that aid the national effort to clarify safety and efficacy in legitimate ways. California, for example, allows medical and recreational use, as a result providing a vast data cohort. The state senate bill reads, “[i]t is the intent of the legislature that the state commission objective scientific research by . . . the University of California, regarding the safety and efficacy of administering cannabis as part of medical treatment.” Additionally, Minnesota, which permits medical use and submitted a bill for recreational approval now pending in the senate, created a medical cannabis patient registry that accumulates data, generates reports, and submits the reports to legislature and prominent medical journals that are available to the public. These states are among others providing similar efforts.

Medical cannabis may be an alternative for prescription opioids, yet there remain several questions about safety and efficacy that must be answered in order for the FDA to move on any milestone cannabis regulation. It seems that severe risks posed by cannabis are extremely rare, and are not a public health threat requiring immediate attention. Prescription opioids remain standard treatment post-operation or post-physical trauma and are usually prescribed for short-term use, but 20% of post-op patients still use opioids three months after surgery, despite an increased risk of addiction after only a few days of use. It seems the opioid epidemic is here to stay as long as prescribing practices remain the same, at least until an effective alternative arises. Maybe cannabis will be a solution. It depends on the data.

Supervised Injection Facilities: A Step in the Right Direction to Mitigate the Opioid Crisis or a Violation of Federal Law?

February 19, 2019
Bioethics, Drug Policy, Pharmaceuticals

Jessica Swanson, MJLST Staffer

Plans for the nation’s first supervised injection facility hit a snag earlier this month when Philadelphia’s top prosecutor filed a federal complaint to keep it from opening its doors. Supervised injection facilities (SIFs) are legally sanctioned facilities that allow people to consume pre-obtained drugs under the supervision of trained staff and are designed to reduce the number of lives that would otherwise be lost to overdoses and provide a bridge to treatment. SIF staff members do not directly assist in consumption or handle any drugs brought in by clients, but are employed to provide sterile injection supplies, free testing, free distribution of the opioid overdose reversal medication, monitoring services for overdoses, and answers to questions about safe injection practices. SIF staff also offer general medical advice and referrals to drug treatment and other social support programs. There are approximately 120 SIFs currently operating in twelve countries around the world, but none in the U.S. However, a handful of U.S. cities, including New York, Seattle, Denver, San Francisco, and Delaware, have inched toward making SIFs a reality as each struggles to combat the increasing amount of drug-related deaths due to the opioid crisis. Philadelphia is by far the closest to becoming home to the nation’s first SIF, incorporated as “Safehouse.” However, on February 5th, the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, William McSwain, filed a lawsuit aimed at blocking Safehouse from opening its doors.

The civil lawsuit, which is jointly being pursued by Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro and the Department of Justice in Washington asks a judge to declare such a facility illegal under federal law. Instead of waiting for Safehouse to open and then conducting arrests and a prosecution, McSwain is asking U.S. District Court Judge, Gerald McHugh, to rule on the legality of SIF plans in general. According to the complaint, a supervised injection site would violate a section of the 1986 Controlled Substances Act (CSA). The relevant section, also known as the “crack house statute,” was enacted during the height of the crack epidemic and was primarily used to shut down crack houses. The CSA makes it a felony punishable by up to 20 years in prison to knowingly open or maintain any place, regardless of compensation, for the purpose of using controlled substances. McSwain argues that Safehouse seeks to disregard the law and override Congress’ regulatory scheme by establishing, managing, and controlling sites in Philadelphia that will allow individuals to engage in the illicit use of controlled substances. Ronda Goldfein, vice president and attorney for Safehouse, argues CSA was not intended to apply to a medical facility focused on saving lives and moving people who are addicted to opioids into treatment. She argues the provision of the CSA in question is widely known to prosecute situations that involve crimes such as drug sales out of a car dealership or music festivals that allowed illegal drugs to flow freely. Safehouse, on the other hand, is a facility with good-faith efforts to improve public health.

Although other states like Pennsylvania are well-intentioned in opening SIFs, it is likely that the Controlled Substances Act is broad enough to encompass SIFs and thus bar them from operating. If Philadelphia or others want to open this type of site, they might want to steer their efforts towards changing the law. Overall, other cities that have expressed their intention of opening a SIF will be watching this case closely as it serves as an important test to determine the legality of SIFs.

Snortable Chocolate Fails the Smell Test, but What Exactly Is It?

July 13, 2017
Drug Policy, FDA, Food and Agriculture

Tommy Tobin, MJLST Guest Blogger

 

Snorting chocolate does not sound like a good idea. In fact, it sounds downright crazy. Enter the aptly named “Coco Loko.”

As reported by the AP, Coco Loko is a cocktail of cacao powder and common energy-drink ingredients, such as guarana and taurine. Marketed by a company called Legal Lean, the product makes several bold claims and promises, including feelings similar to ecstasy and “a steady rush of euphoric energy that is great for party goers to dance the night away without a crash.” Oddly, that promised effect is juxtaposed with promises of “calm focus” and “natural relaxation.”

Legal Lean advises users to “consume responsibly.” Warnings include the all too familiar boilerplate that product statements have not been evaluated by FDA and that the products are not intended to diagnose or treat any disease. A notable product warning also advises potential customers that Coco Loko is “not recommended for children or pregnant women.” Legal Lean also notes that the product “may impair your ability to drive a car or operate machinery, and may cause health problems.” It is certainly helpful that the company recognizes that snorting a chocolate concoction up one’s nose may result in health issues and is warning potential consumers accordingly. Self magazine summarized the situation succinctly: “If it sounds like a bad idea to snort what basically amounts to glorified hot chocolate mix, you’re right.”

As the Huffington Post recently put it, “snortable chocolate exists now, for some reason.” The mere fact that this product exists raises myriad questions, not least of which is what the product actually is and how it will be regulated.

According to ABC News, FDA is currently weighing whether the product falls within its jurisdiction and is currently “not prepared to issue a determination regarding whether and how this product is subject to FDA jurisdiction at this time. In reaching that decision, FDA will need to evaluate the product labeling, marketing information, and/or any other information pertaining to the product’s intended use.”

While the intricacies of regulatory classifications are enough to make one crazy, Coco Loko’s regulatory future remains to be seen. As the administrative law bloodhounds at FDA continue their work sniffing out the proper classification for this product, here are some preliminary thoughts.

 

Is Coco Loko a Food?

Strictly speaking, probably not. The statutory definition of food, 21 U.S.C. § 321 (f), is not tremendously helpful here. The statute’s most applicable definition defines “food” as an article used for food or drink for man or other animals. Snorting something through one’s nose is not generally how most people consume their food or drink, especially as the nose is woefully devoid of taste buds.

Legal Lean may argue that an alternative use of the product is as a hot chocolate mix. Presumably, the Coco Loko powder could be used as a drink when dissolved in hot water. Even so, the company markets the product as “infused raw cacao snuff.”

The product’s marketing as “snuff” is highly suggestive that the company does not consider that the product is meant to be food, given that “snuff” is taken through the nose. Put differently, the company may huff and puff that the product is a “food,” but in the end, the stuff is “snuff” by their own admission.

 

Is it a Drug?

Possibly. Coco Loko is likely not a “drug” under 21 U.S.C. § 321 (g). One applicable definition of “drug” includes items “intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease in man or other animals.” Such an intention is expressly disclaimed by the makers of Coco Loko.

Another definition of “drug” applies to “articles (other than food) intended to affect the structure or any function of the body of man or other animals,” with a carve-out for foods and dietary supplements. Coco Loko does promise a rush of serotonin and endorphins, as well as “increased overall happiness.”

The structure or function claims made by Coco Loko could make it a “drug” if it is found to be neither a food nor dietary supplement. Put another way, the product appears to be an inhaled stimulant, and regulators could plausibly put it in the category of “drug” given the claims the product is making, in the case that the product does not fit in other categories.

 

Is it a Dietary Supplement?

It depends. Regulators could label Coco Loko as a “dietary supplement” under 21 U.S.C. § 321 (ff). Just as the definition of “food” was quite broad, so too is the statutory definition of “dietary supplements,” which helpfully notes that the term:

 

“1) means a product (other than tobacco) intended to supplement the diet that bears or contains one or more of the following dietary ingredients:

(A) a vitamin;

(B) a mineral;

(C) an herb or other botanical;

(D) an amino acid;

(E) a dietary substance for use by man to supplement the diet by increasing the total dietary intake; or

(F) a concentrate, metabolite, constituent, extract, or combination of any ingredient described in clause (A), (B), (C), (D), or (E).”

 

Given the inclusion of cacao in the product, a colorable claim could be that Coco Loko contains a dietary substance used by man to supplement the diet. That said, is someone actually supplementing their diet by inhaling through their nose? Not being a doctor myself, I can only surmise that the snorted chocolate may have a circuitous path from the nose to one’s stomach—if it ends up there at all.

More on the nose, US News & World Report notes that the product’s label includes B vitamins, ginkgo biloba, blood flow-improving amino acid L-Arginine, as well as energy drink staples guarana and taurine. So, it would seem that Coco Loko would meet the vitamin and amino acid test.

Other aspects of the “dietary supplement” definition in 21 U.S.C. § 321 (ff) include that the item must not represent itself for use as a conventional food or as a sole item of a meal or the diet. “Dietary supplements” must also be labeled as such. If its labeling does not call it a “dietary supplement,” Coco Loko cannot be a “dietary supplement.” According to Ars Technica, Legal Lean is already marketing Coco Loko as a “dietary supplement.”

Incorporated by reference into the § 321 (ff) definition of “dietary supplements” is the requirement that the product be intended for ingestion under 21 U.S.C. § 350 (c)(1)(B). That section requires products be “intended for ingestion in tablet, capsule, powder, softgel, gelcap, or liquid form.” While Coco Loko is a powder, it is unlikely that it is “ingested” in the typical meaning of that term. The statutory provision also provides an alternative definition for items “not intended for ingestion in such a form” that are otherwise “not represented as conventional food and is not represented for use as a sole item of a meal or of the diet.” Both incorporated definitions are predicated on “ingestion,” and Coco Loko’s method of intake is unlikely to fit the plain meaning of “ingestion.”

By analogy, a suppository also bypasses the mouth when they are taken into the body. Even so, suppositories generally go into one end of the alimentary canal—rather than the sinuses or the lungs. Moreover, neither suppositories nor this inhaled chocolate are “ingested.” No less an authority than the Oxford English Dictionary includes a definition of “ingest” that equates ingestion with the introduction of material into the stomach or mouth.

Coco Loko faces an uphill battle getting a “dietary supplement” label given that is probably not “ingested” or intended for ingestion. According to the FDA Law Blog, “FDA has consistently taken the position that articles not intended for ingestion do not qualify as dietary supplements.” In the end, FDA may find that “ingestion” is distinct from insufflation, or the act of breathing something into the body.

Even if Coco Loko is labeled as a “dietary supplement” and met other aspects of the § 321 (ff) definition, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 342 (f), could conceivably find that it presents a “significant or unreasonable risk of illness or injury.” While unlikely, the Secretary has the authority to declare a dietary supplement so unsafe that it poses “an imminent hazard to public health or safety.” That said, do not hold your breath for such a declaration—if you do, it’d be harder to inhale the chocolate.

 

Concluding Thoughts

While the safety and propriety of snorting crystalline chocolate powder through one’s nostrils is up for debate, FDA is hard at work sniffing out the proper regulatory classification of Coco Loko.

My preliminary thought is that Coco Loko might be labeled a “dietary supplement,” given its ingredients. On the other hand, its method of delivery—through the nasal passage—is not one typically seen in dietary supplements and is unlikely to fit the “intended for ingestion” prong of the incorporated statutory definition.

Alternatively, FDA may label the product a “drug,” especially with its “structure or function” claims. Either way, if you think I’m going to go snort chocolate anytime soon—you’re loko.

Happy Mother’s Day to All the Moms!: Law, Science, Technology and Beagles

May 7, 2017
Biotechnology, Drug Policy, Ethics

Angela Fralish, MJLST Guest Blogger

Beagles are well-known as a quintessential family dog because they love humans and listen to their owners (most of the time). What is less known, is that those same traits are the primary reasons they are used in 95% of canine medical experimentation. Although, beagles are not biologically comparable to humans, they are compliant people-pleasers, making them ideal subjects for scientific experiments.

This reality is a hard pill to swallow for animal lovers and scientists alike. To scientists, research beagles are a necessary evil decreasing the pain and suffering of humans. To advocates, beagles are victims of unspeakable cruelty.

One law bridges the divide between these opposing views to help the beagles. The Beagle Freedom Bill, created by the Beagle Freedom Project (BFP), forges a compromise between animal rights lawyers, scientists and medical technologists. The Bill asks that ”tax-payer funded laboratories offer up the “experimentally-spent” dogs and cats for public adoption through rescue organizations.” In other words, once the beagle is no longer used for research, the dog is given a home instead of euthanasia. Minnesota was the first state to sign the Bill into law in 2014, and since then, 5 more states have joined. Currently, 5 additional states are considering adopting this law as well.

In addition to legislative measures, the BFP has found other ways to help research beagles. They have created new technology such as the Cruelty-Cutter app which helps shoppers easily scan products for humane animal testing, and sued the USDA demanding restoration of scrubbed animal records. The Beagle Freedom Project is a leader in animal science law and a great example of how lawyers, scientists and technologists can work together for the greater good of both humans and animals.

Scientists are working to replace this “necessary evil” as well. According to Dr. Teresa Arora’s article Substitute of Animals in Drug Research: An Approach Towards Fulfillment of 4Rs, research methods are being developed that are “superior to using animals to learn about human disease or predict the safety of new drugs [and include] stem cells, microdosing, DNA chips, microfluidics chips, human tissue, new imaging technologies, and post-marketing drug surveillance.” There is even a Center for Alternatives to Animal Testing at John Hopkins University and the NC3R in the UK.

For an employee of medical research looking to carve out meaning in their every day workweek, helping research animals through new collaborative measures is one way to answer the call. As a lawyer, scientists or technologist, you can help develop policy, arbitrate between groups, hold violators accountable, assist in medical technology development, vote for the Beagle Freedom Bill or adopt a research beagle. According to Congressman Earl Blumenauer, “members of Congress are realizing that protecting animals is not just the right thing to do, it’s also developing to become potent politically.” Congress will need help understanding the relationship between animal models and science in order to make improvements. That help will come from people who work in these fields on a daily basis.

The Beagle Freedom Bill highlights the plight of animals languishing in labs and promotes cruelty-free lifestyle choices everyone can make. Now that BFP has opened the door, it is time for all of us to show a little gratitude to the beagles for their sacrifice in advancing medical science such as chemotherapy and insulin. We can do this in our own unique ways, and although we can’t change the world for all beagles, for some beagles, we can change the world.

As Mahatma Ghandi stated, “The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.” I hope ours is one of progress.

Something to Chew On: the FDA, Food, and a Healthy Dose of Definitions

February 21, 2017
Drug Policy, FDA, Health, Regulatory

MJLST Guest Blogger, Tommy Tobin

[Editor’s Note: This post is #3 in a series on current FDA issues. You can find the previous post here and here.]

Is food medicine? The answer to this simple question is surprisingly complicated.

The name of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) seems to distinguish between foods and drugs. So too does the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetics Act, which helpfully defines “food” as “(1) articles used for food or drink for man or other animals, (2) chewing gum, and (3) articles used for components of any such article.”

While it is not difficult to swallow the concept of chewing gum being food, the broad legal definition of “food” is somewhat circular and does not provide much guidance by itself.  Indeed, the definition of “drug” under the same law notes that drugs are, in relevant part, “articles (other than food) intended to affect the structure or any function of the body of man or other animals.”

Setting the table for further discussion, it should be noted that foods and drugs face different regulatory burdens. For example, drugs face pre-market approval. As for foods, the FDA does not have sole regulatory oversight over food products, which it shares with approximately 14 other federal agencies. The Government Accountability Office labeled the patchwork of federal food safety oversight as a “high risk issue” noting that it had caused “inconsistent oversight, ineffective coordination, and inefficient use of resources.”

Knowing whether an item is a drug or a food dictates whether it is regulated appropriately and even which laws apply to the item. From the definitions, it would seem that foods are categorically not drugs. Yet, sometimes foods do function as medicine. For example, the Harvard Food Law & Policy Clinic argues that “for critically and chronically ill people, food is medicine.” Part of the Clinic’s work has advocated for expanded medically-tailored food and nutrition interventions to improve health outcomes and reduce overall health care costs for high-risk, high-need populations. Even outside of high-risk populations, it is likely many of us provide self-care through food, such as sipping chicken soup for colds or the flu.

Adding more food for thought, there are several terms that blur the lines between the categories of “food” and “drug.” The FDA notes that “terms like ‘functional foods’ or ‘nutraceuticals’ are widely used in the marketplace” but are not explicitly defined in the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. While one could devote a book to the regulation of nutraceuticals and functional foods (and some have done so), it is sufficient here to note that nutraceuticals and functional foods have their own definitions in the relevant, non-regulatory literature. According to an article in the aptly-titled scholarly journal Nutrients, a nutraceutical is “food (or part of a food) that provides medical or health benefits, including the prevention and/or treatment of a disease” and functional foods are “food products that have an added positive health benefit” (internal citations omitted). Notably, each definition expressly notes that these items are foods, not drugs. Put another way, an apple a day may keep doctors away, but apples enriched with antioxidants may be a functional food that merits a price premium from consumers.

The terms have largely arisen out of marketing practice, and a combination of the words “nutrition” and “pharmaceutical.” Entire publications have devoted themselves to the news and scholarly analysis of these products, including Nutraceuticals World and the Journal of Functional Foods. One recent article examined whether Jelly Belly, the jelly bean purveyor, could support its claims that its Sports Beans were “clinically-proven” to maximize sports performance.

Further blurring the line between foods and drugs, a “medical food” is defined under a statute that has “drug” in the name, but the product is not actually a “drug.” A “medical food” is defined under the Orphan Drug Act, as “a food which is formulated to be consumed or administered enterally under the supervision of a physician and which is intended for the specific dietary management of a disease or condition for which distinctive nutritional requirements, based on recognized scientific principles, are established by medical evaluation.” Pursuant to the above definition, the FDA has declared that medical foods must be taken only under the supervision of a physician. According to a recent FDA Guidance Document, medical foods are explicitly not drugs and are not subject to the requirements that apply to drugs. As an example, one medical food, Deplin, is an orange pill that advertises itself as a “prescription medical food” specifically designed to meet the “clinical dietary management of depression and schizophrenia.”

In the supermarket, consumers may stroll from the pharmacy aisles to the food aisles, seeing pharmaceuticals one moment and nutraceuticals the next. With consumers willing to pay a price premium for healthy foods, including functional foods, foods that make claims to reduce disease and promote good health are likely here to stay.

Evaluating an FDA Ban on Use of Human-Used Antibiotics in Animals

February 9, 2017
Drug Policy, FDA, Health, Regulatory

Nathan Vanderlaan, MJLST Staffer

Over the past several years, antibiotic resistance in humans has become one of the leading health concerns in the United States. Many heads are turning towards the U.S. farming industry, and the antibiotic consumption by animals as a leading culprit. Today, about 80% of all antibiotic consumption in the United States is attributable to animal consumption. Many argue that unless the government takes stronger regulatory stances on the animal consumption of antibiotics, an inability to effectively fight a number of illnesses due to antibiotic resistance will be on the horizon.

In her article “Slowing Antibiotic Resistance by Decreasing Antibiotic Use in Animals,” Jennifer Nomura argues that the FDA should implement a total ban on the use of antibiotics in animals that are also used therapeutically in humans. Currently, the FDA has taken the position that there is no definitive proof that antibiotic use in animals leads to greater resistance in humans. As such, they intend to allow producers to continue to use antibiotics used to treat humans in farming practices until a scientific correlation between resistance and farm use is established. Nomura advocates that the FDA transition from this “wait-and-see” policy and enter the realm of stiff antibiotic regulation. She argues that the FDA is under such an obligation based on their duty to minimize risks to human health. However, this duty may suggest that the FDA should not rush into a total ban on antibiotics also used in human health.

An all-out ban on such antibiotics may in fact have a more detrimental impact on human health. The potential that a ban would lead to increased incidence of disease cannot be underscored. While Nomura suggest that disease may be kept down due to improved farming practices, the reality of creating the infrastructure to promote such practices may not be feasible for a country with such high meat production. And although several countries have been successful in making the transition from these kinds of antibiotics, their success may not be entirely indicative of the success a large country like the U.S. will have. If the incidence of disease goes up after a ban, consumers will likely suffer medically and financially, and these risks cannot impulsively be set aside.

Nonetheless, the FDA must take notice of the growing problem of antibiotic resistance. Resistance is giving rise to “super-bugs” and leading to more unpreventable deaths every year. While steps must be taken to address these growing concerns, any action taken by the FDA should not be hasty. Instead of an outright ban on all antibiotics used for humans as well, the FDA should do a full risk analysis regarding the impact giving these drugs to animals poses to humans. Then the FDA should conduct an individual analysis of the highest risk antibiotics being used, tackle these antibiotics first, and then slowly transition away from the use of certain antibiotics once it is determined such a transition will not threaten the health of humans or the nations live stock.

Drug Shortages: A Mask for Reprehensible Activity?

March 10, 2016
Competition, Drug Policy, Economics, Healthcare

Ethan Mobley, MJLST Articles Editor

Access to life-saving prescription medication grabbed headlines after Turing Pharmaceuticals raised the price of its HIV drug, Daraprim, by about 5,000% overnight. While the Daraprim price hike initially appears to be driven by pure greed, it’s at least conceivable that basic economic principles of supply and demand may have played a minor role. Indeed, many other drugs have undergone serious price hikes arising from innocent supply constraints. While the defensibility of Daraprim price hikes remains uncertain, the story does bring to focus an issue affecting accessibility of hundreds of other life-saving prescription medications—drug supply shortages.

Drug shortages naturally restrict many patients’ ability to obtain life-saving medication, which can have disastrous effects. The Minnesota Journal of Law, Science & Technology addressed the issue in 2013 with a note written by Eric Friske. Friske found that drug shortages are often caused by a “combination of perturbed supply, manufacturing capacity, and utilization.” Friske then analyzed the efficacy of proposed (and now failed) legislation meant to reduce these supply shortages by requiring manufacturers to notify the FDA of impending shortages; the legislation would have also allowed the FDA to collaborate with manufacturers in order to streamline production. However, Friske determined these tools were insufficient to properly combat the shortage problem and proposed his own solution. In addition to notification requirements, Friske pushed for affirmatively incentivizing manufacturers to produce certain drugs and streamlining the drug manufacturing approval process.

Since Friske’s proposal, we’ve seen new legislation and regulation that aims to reduce the number of drug shortages. What’s more, the legislation and regulations contain notification requirements, manufacturer incentives, and streamlined approval processes—just like Friske proposed. While it’s obvious the drug shortage problem has not been solved, it is equally clear drug shortages have decreased over the past few years. Hopefully the trend continues so that life-saving drugs remain accessible to everyone, and drug companies will no longer be able to use supply shortages as justification for obscene price hikes.

Home | Contact Publishing Services | My Account