If you have been reading our blog in recent years, you know that California has taken a rather ridiculous stance on hemp-derived CBD in the past few years. Although the state led the charge to legalize marijuana (in California, “marijuana” is legally defined as marijuana only and not marijuana), the state cannot put its actions with any objects made from marijuana. In 2018, the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) issued FAQ That is to say, hemp CBD cannot be added to any kind of oral consumption products, such as foods, beverages, dietary supplements or animal products, and it has been this rule ever since.

You can read my earlier analysis at CDPH Here. In my opinion, the position of CDPH is highly doubtful-the state does not have any law prohibiting the addition of CBD to anything. CDPH has just followed the Federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA) position.Although the FAQ does not make it clear, CDPH seems to think that CBD is Adulterated In the country Sherman Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (Similar to the “Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act” law enforced by the FDA).Local agencies such as the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health issued statement It is indeed pointed out that CDPH is adulterated, ostensibly because CDPH holds this position. Therefore, CDPH actually banned CBD consumables without going through any rule-making procedures, and CDPH and local agencies actually performed this position.

Although CDPH’s position on oral consumer products is relatively clear, it is not completely clear on cosmetics. This FAQ mentions cosmetics only once, and its full title is “Frequently Asked Questions-Industrial Hemp and Cannabidiol (CBD) Food products“(Not my focus, but the focus of CDPH). After answering this FAQ, it is not clear what CDPH’s position on cosmetics is. According to the Sherman Act, the state has technical power over cosmetics, so The position of the agency is not yet clear, and many people believe that the agency’s silence on CBD in cosmetics means that it is acceptable.

However, in January 2021, CDPH quietly released a revised version FAQ, Now called “CDPH information about industrial hemp (IH) derivatives including cannabidiol (CBD)”.The revised one-page FAQ starts with the FDA’s stance that bans CBD from being used as a food additive, dietary supplement or pet food, and then goes on to clearly point out that CBD is an adulterated food in food with cosmetic. This is the relevant language:

California’s Sherman Food and Drug Act stipulates that any food (including beverages and pet food) that is mixed with, contains or contains any food additives that have not been approved is adulterated. If cosmetics (including lotions and ointments) contain or contain any toxic or harmful substances that may cause harm to the user under the conditions of use, the product will be adulterated Regulations stipulated in the label or advertisement of cosmetics, or stipulated under customary or commonly used conditions of use.

Hulled hemp seeds, hemp seed protein and hemp seed oil are the only GRAS ingredients in hemp and can be used in food. The use of cannabis or CBD from other sources is currently prohibited for any items regulated by the Food and Drug Department of the California Department of Public Health, including Food, medicine, And cosmetics.

And there you go. CDPH has now taken an incredible stance that CBD cannot be added even to cosmetics such as lotions or ointments in California.This position is better than FDA’s position On the same subject. Overall, the agency seems to intend to do everything it can to get the industry into trouble. Despite the FDA status, many states are doing their best to regulate CBD products and ensure their safety, but California, the largest economy in the United States, has decided to only ban the use of this product. However, so far, we are not aware of any public law enforcement work.

This is obviously detrimental to the CBD company, although considering that there are Work hard Through actual laws, CDPH and other agencies are forced to supervise CBD products. We will see if it succeeds, so please stay tuned to Canna Law Blog for more updates.