Last week, Hoban Law Group announced a major international expansion, with new offices in Latin America and the European Union. The Denver-based law firm said they will have four new offices across the EU by late fall and two new offices in Latin America by spring of 2018.
Bob Hoban, managing partner and co-founder of Hoban Law Group, says they have already been working internationally for years. “HLG steps in to global markets quickly as our direct work with government officials on policy and regulation has kept us in this important global curve,” says Hoban. “We have accepted the challenge of being global cannabis industry leaders & experts and will work with strategic industry-leading partners, such as New Frontier Data, to move the industry forward across six countries.”
The press release says the law firm has been advising governments around the world on cannabis policy for several years, as well as working on a handful of international business transactions in the past. These new offices will work mainly with structured finance, mergers and acquisitions, worldwide trade, regulatory law and equity placement in the cannabis (including industrial hemp) industry. “Combining the firm’s corporate practice, with our intellectual property and tax practice groups will position our firm’s client’s to succeed at the highest levels in this international marketplace,” says Hoban.
The press release also announced they have added Andrew Telsey, an experienced securities attorney, to their firm. He has helped take more cannabis businesses public in the U.S. than any other attorney.
Hoban Law Group, founded in 2009, is the nation’s largest cannabis business law firm. They have attorneys in every state that has legalized cannabis in the United States.
A number of cannabis businesses have pursued federal intellectual property protection for their cannabis-related innovations, such as U.S. patents that protect novel cannabis plant varieties, growing methods, extraction methods, etc. Enforcement of such federal IP rights requires that the IP owner file suit in federal court asserting those rights against another cannabis company. However, given that cannabis is still illegal under federal law, the industry is uncertain about whether a federal court will actually enforce cannabis-related IP rights. This question might be answered soon.
The potential impact of this case goes way beyond the two parties involvedOrochem Technologies, Inc. filed a lawsuit in federal court in the Northern District of Illinois on September 27, 2017, seeking to assert and enforce trade secret rights against Whole Hemp Company, LLC. According to the complaint, Orochem is a biotechnology company that uses proprietary separation methods to extract and purify cannabidiol (CBD) from industrial hemp in a way that produces a solvent-free and THC-free CBD product in commercially viable quantities.
The complaint goes on to say that Whole Hemp Company, which does business as Folium Biosciences, is a producer of CBD from industrial hemp and that Folium engaged Orochem to produce a THC-free CBD product for it. According to the allegations in the complaint, Folium used that engagement to gain access to and discover the details of Orochem’s trade secret method of extracting CBD so that it could take the process and use it at their facility.
The complaint provides a detailed story of the events that allegedly transpired, which eventually led to an Orochem employee with knowledge of the Orochem process leaving and secretly starting to work for Folium, where he allegedly helped Folium establish a CBD production line that uses Orochem’s trade secret process. When Orochem learned of these alleged transgressions, it filed the lawsuit, claiming that Folium (and the specific employee) had misappropriated its trade secret processes for extracting and purifying CBD.
While the particular facts of this case are both interesting and instructive for companies operating in the cannabis industry, the potential impact of this case goes way beyond the two parties involved.
If it moves forward, this case will likely provide a first glimpse into the willingness of federal courts to enforce IP rights that relate to cannabis. Orochem is asserting a violation of federal IP rights established under the federal Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA) and is asserting those rights in federal district court. As a result, the federal district court judge will first need to decide whether a federal court can enforce federal IP rights when the underlying intellectual property relates to cannabis.
If the court ultimately enforces these federal trade secret rights, it could be a strong indication that other federal IP rights, such as patent rights, would also be enforceable in federal court. Since the outcome of this case will likely have a far reaching and long lasting impact on how the cannabis industry approaches and deals with intellectual property, it’s a case worth watching.
“The PA Medicinal Cannabis Education Tour seeks to rectify the current lack of education on medicinal cannabis by providing current, reliable information on medicinal marijuana and its uses,” reads the press release. The events come at an opportune time: Pennsylvania recently announced qualifying permit applications for growers and dispensaries. As the state moves forward with their plan to fully implement a medical cannabis program by 2018, those looking to learn more about the regulations can attend these talks throughout the state.
The PA Medicinal Cannabis Education Tour will make stops in six cities, one for each of the regions set by the Department of Health: Tuesday, July 25th in Philadelphia; Wednesday, July 26th in Allentown; Tuesday, August 1st in Pittsburgh; Wednesday, August 2nd in Erie; Tuesday, September 26th in Harrisburg and Wednesday, September 27th in State College. The educational content is developed by the Lambert Center at Thomas Jefferson, the only such program dedicated to cannabinoid therapy. “These programs will educate healthcare professionals on the basic science underlying the pharmacologic and therapeutic options associated with medical cannabis in patient care, clinical insights on the use of medicinal cannabis, and provide information on legislative measures of Pennsylvania state law on the use, recommendation and dispensing of medical marijuana for medical conditions,” reads the press release.
Last year, The Lambert Center hosted an accredited CME course as part of Greenhouse Ventures’ industry conference, Innovation in the Cannabis Industry: Future Outlook. “The Lambert Center for the Study of Medicinal Cannabis and Hemp at Thomas Jefferson University is proud to support and participate in the PA Medicinal Cannabis Education Tour,” says Charles V. Pollack, Jr., MD, director of the Lambert Center. “The Lambert Center is the only comprehensive academic resource for education, research, and practice for the therapeutic use of cannabinoids to be based in a US health sciences university. We view the PA Tour as an essential education piece to prepare Pennsylvania doctors and assist in a smooth rollout of Pennsylvania’s Medical Cannabis industry.”
Sara Jane Ward, PhD, is an assistant professor at the Center for Substance Abuse and Research at the Lewis Katz School of Medicine at Temple University and one of the course instructors on the education tour. She says a large part of the event series is to settle old misconceptions about cannabis. “There are a lot of misconceptions and misunderstandings on cannabis as a medicine in the medical community, because historically medical students are not taught about cannabis and the endocannabinoid system,” says Ward. “I’m looking forward to working with Greenhouse Ventures and The Lambert Center for the Study of Medicinal Cannabis and Hemp, to educate healthcare professionals across Pennsylvania on the health benefits of cannabis.”
“A common setback for states that are implementing medical cannabis regulations is the lack of interest and sign ups from doctors and patients,” says Kevin Provost, executive officer of Greenhouse Ventures. “With reputable medical institutions like Thomas Jefferson University providing entry level education on medicinal cannabis and the endocannabinoid system, hopefully healthcare professionals across the state will realize this is real medicine, that can bring significant medical benefits to thousands of patients, and that now is the time for them to learn, before the industry is open in Pennsylvania.”
The first event in the educational series will be in Center City, Philadelphia on Tuesday, July 25th in the Bluemle Life Sciences Building at Thomas Jefferson University.
According to a press release yesterday sent out by the National Hemp Association (NHA), on Wednesday, June 28th, Board Chairman Geoff Whaling met with senior U.S. Department of Agriculture staff, along with Erica McBride from the Pennsylvania Industrial Hemp Council. The press release says this is the first time that Agricultural Secretary Perdue has had his staff meet with the hemp industry. “The meeting reaffirmed critical elements of the working relationship that the hemp industry has established with the USDA since the enactment of Sec. 7606 of the 2014 Farm Bill,” reads the press release put out by the NHA.
The press release says the USDA will support hemp pilot projects, considering grant and loan applications and other means of funding under the USDA and NIFA. “All hemp industry participants are encouraged to participate in these funding opportunities,” says Whaling. “USDA confirmed that nine Industrial Hemp funding requests to NIFA are being processed and that USDA has encouraged those who submitted previous requests to resubmit them.”
“USDA also offered to provide a quick response to any Secretary or Commissioner of Agriculture who is looking for clarification on either the Farm Bill or SOP, which may be preventing the States that have enacted enabling Industrial Hemp legislation from advancing research,” says Whaling.
A big driver of the meeting was the support of the Industrial Hemp Farming Act of 2018 on behalf of the NHA. That bill, which Congressman James Comer (R-KY) plans on introducing in July, would essentially remove hemp from the Controlled Substances Act, allowing industrial cultivation of the plant. It also would set a THC limit and give states the power to regulate their own hemp industries.
“There is new leadership in the USDA, on the Hill and within our industry,” said Whaling. “I am confident that this group will advance our industry to a level never before achieved.”
On May 1st, Congress reached a bipartisan deal to keep the government open and funded through September 30th, 2017. Congress approved the appropriations bill that sets the government’s spending with an important section in it relating to cannabis. Section 537 on page 230 states that the Department of Justice cannot use funds to interfere with states’ legal medical cannabis programs.
The bill uses similar language to The Rohrabacher–Farr amendment, a bill that was originally introduced in 2013 to prevent the Department of Justice from spending money on enforcing the Controlled Substances Act in states with legal medical cannabis programs. This new appropriations bill, with the language in section 537, effectively achieves the same thing. “None of the funds made available in this Act to the Department of Justice may be used, with respect to any of the States of… to prevent any of them from implementing their own laws that authorize the use, distribution, possession, or cultivation of medical marijuana,” reads the bill. The language includes a mention of the 40 or so states and territories with some form of medical cannabis program, legislation or bill.
This means that Attorney General Jeff Sessions is relatively powerless to go on a sort of ‘crackdown’ on medical cannabis programs. Given Sessions’ previous comments and general views on cannabis, this should put cannabis industry stakeholders at ease for the time being. Of course, this budget is only for the 2017 fiscal year, so come September, the same or similar language needs to be included in the next appropriations bill. With Jeff Sessions’ task force still investigating federal cannabis policy, it is still very possible we could get a clear policy decision in the near future.
“We are encouraged that the Federal Government and NIDA are recognizing the true and powerful medical benefits that cannabis provides, especially in the war against devastating opiate-based drug addiction, abuse and death,” says Sally Vander Veer, President of Medicine Man Denver. “We have seen anecdotal evidence of this as reported by our patients/customers (and the beneficial effects of cannabis in numerous other conditions) since we opened our doors in 2010. Our hope is that this acknowledgment will open the door to additional research, eventually leading to legal and safe access to cannabis medicine for all Americans.”
The following section also includes a protection of industrial hemp research, as defined in the Agricultural Act of 2014, which basically means universities and institutions can research it. SEC. 538. “None of the funds made available by this Act may be used in contravention of section 7606 (‘‘Legitimacy of Industrial Hemp Research’’) of the Agricultural Act of 2014 (Public Law 113–79) by the Department of Justice or the Drug Enforcement Administration.” With all of the uncertainty and inconsistent comments coming out of the Trump administration, at least we have a sense of security in the medical cannabis community through the summer.
Hemp-derived cannabidiol (CBD) products are quickly becoming a burgeoning industry. Consumers can purchase the products in all fifty states and can receive the therapeutic effects of certain cannabinoids without any psychoactivity. Commonly used to help treat inflammation, pain, seizures and anxiety, CBD comprises a sizable portion of the cannabis market that patients and consumers are flocking to.
Founded by Paul Benhaim in 2013, Colorado-based Elixinol is reaching this market with a line of hemp-derived CBD oils and capsules. The company has grown rapidly and now has agreements with exclusive distributors in Japan, Puerto Rico, The United Kingdom and South Africa.
According to Chris Husong, sales and marketing director at Elixinol, achieving superior quality is central to the company’s growth strategy. “We are thinking about the long-term play here,” says Husong. Achieving the highest quality possible starts with sourcing from industrial hemp farms in Northern Europe, according to Husong. Through good manufacturing practices (GMPs), the company pays close attention to every detail involved in producing the hemp-derived CBD oil.
Safety and transparency are two core tenants in the company’s goal to strive for quality products. “We use third-party independent labs for our testing including one in Northern Europe where we source from in addition to Proverde Labs when it reaches us in Colorado,” says Husong. They test their products for over 300 chemicals (including pesticides, residual solvents and heavy metals) as well as for microbiological contamination and a unique terpene profile using GC-MS/GC-FID.
In addition to stringent manufacturing safety procedures and testing, tracking is a huge part of meeting quality standards. Each product batch also has a lot number. While batch numbers are a requirement in GMPs, lot numbers mean that they are well equipped in the event of a product recall. After the product is packaged, they perform additional spot-checks periodically.
Contract manufacturing and white-labeling products is a large part of their business, so the company needs to meet rigorous quality standards for their partners as well. “We provide our oil to a variety of associates, but we are always looking for new partners on the cutting edge, innovating with new products that we can help with,” says Husong. Very often, this means doing a full plant extraction for different uses. Utilizing a full-spectrum plant extraction helps maintain a well-balanced cannabinoid profile with many of the original terpenes found in the plant.
What makes their product so appealing to consumers is not just the quality, but also the method of delivery into the bloodstream and very precise dosing. “Our liposome products have a relatively new technology that allows the oil to be absorbed into your system via fatty acids, which lets you absorb the compounds much faster, requiring less of it and more consistency,” adds Husong. In addition to their fast-acting delivery mechanism, they produce capsules dosed to precisely fifteen milligrams and a delivery system they call ‘Xpen,’ which draws the oil in an oral applicator to a precise dose of fifteen milligrams every time.
After the manufacturing process, the company pays close attention to detail in their packaging and distribution. “The packaging is built to maintain that quality in the manufacturing process and to extend the shelf life of our products,” says Husong. The technology that goes into their packaging involves using Miron Violet glass, which is anti-fungal and prevents external light from deteriorating the oil inside.
This growing sector in the cannabis market is representative of a greater trend: the commodification of hemp and cannabis. When businesses like Elixinol scale up production of goods such as CBD oil, a lens focused on consistency and quality can not only improve business operations but also raise the standard across the entire industry.
Based in Santa Monica, California, Sagely Naturals was founded in the summer of 2015, with the goal to produce a sustainably sourced, topical CBD cream with no psychoactive effects to treat daily aches and pains. The co-founders, Kerrigan Hanna and Kaley Nichol, have extensive backgrounds in the food service industry, and as a result they pride themselves in quality controls and proper safety procedures. Since the launch of Sagely Naturals, they have been selling their Relief & Recovery Cream online and in a wide variety of retail outlets beyond just cannabis dispensaries. Their ability to distribute outside of dispensaries is due to the fact that the product’s active ingredient, Cannabidiol (CBD), is derived from hemp, instead of cannabis with higher levels of Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC).
Their attention to detail in consistency and quality makes them stand out as cannabis processors, using a contract manufacturer with good manufacturing practices (GMPs) along with the proper standard operating procedures (SOPs) in place. “All of our contract manufacturer’s corrective and preventative actions (CAPAs) are outlined in the company’s SOPs, which are in place for everything including specific manufacturing processes, receiving and shipping materials and testing batches,” says Hanna. “The contract manufacturer also provides certificates of analysis (COAs) for every product they make.” According to Hanna, they exclusively use current GMP-certified facilities. One such SOP lays out the responsibilities for the quality control department in order to release and approve ingredients of their products.
There are some SOPs that could pertain specifically to the processing of hemp or cannabis products, according to Hanna. “Receiving and handling raw materials like hemp, batch coding, the actual formulation and manufacturing process, quality controls and cleaning and sanitation [could be tailored to pertain to cannabis],” says Hanna. Proper SOPs laid out in the manufacturing process include the cleaning and sanitation of machines, as well as adjusting settings, formula ratios and initialing and dating product labels on every batch, among more specific operating procedures.
According to the co-founders, they spent a large amount of time vetting their hemp supplier, making sure they are using cutting-edge technology, growing it sustainably, and adhering to strict SOPs. “The team includes a Ph.D. chemist, who also is a founding member of our supplier and extractor,” says Hanna. “We work with CO2 extraction because we wanted the most control over the compounds that end up in our product. We are able to purposefully choose which cannabinoids end up in our product.” Through supercritical carbon dioxide extraction and post-extraction processing, the team is able to eliminate any trace of THC, guaranteeing the consumers will receive no psychoactive effects.
In looking toward long-term growth, the co-founders emphasize the importance of environmental sustainability. “Having honest ingredients is one of our company missions along with having honest practices,” says Hanna. “None of our ingredients are tested on animals so we are an animal cruelty-free organization.” Their hemp is grown using organic and environmentally friendly practices. “We prioritize using plant-based ingredients, so the formulation of our Relief & Recovery Cream relies on using organic and raw materials—such as essential peppermint and safflower oil.” Companies like Sagely Naturals using contract manufacturers to process hemp could represent the future of the cannabis industry. When safety, sustainability and quality issues come into the spotlight more, so will the need for outlined SOPs, proper documentation and extensive lab testing.
Let’s talk about cannabidiol, CBD, a non-psychoactive component of cannabis. Let’s not talk about CBD from the whole plant. This is a conversation about the proliferation of hemp-based CBD marketed everywhere from gas stations to specialty health and wellness stores. Heck, “its legal in all 50 states”, right?
On the Federal Level, pursuant to Title 21 USC 802 Section (16) The term “marijuana” means all parts of the plant cannabis sativa L., whether growing or not; the seeds thereof; the resin extracted from any part of such plant; and every compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of such plant, its seeds or resin. The term does not include the mature stalks of such plant, fiber produced from such stalks, oil or cake made from the seeds of such plant, any other compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of such mature stalks (except the resin extracted therefrom), fiber, oil, or cake, or the sterilized seed of such plant which is incapable of germination.
Proponents of the position that hemp-derived CBD is legal point to the lack of a specific definition under the above description (often asserting that their oil is not processed from the flower) and the Ninth Circuit’s opinion in Hemp Indus. Ass’n v DEA, 333 F.3d 1082 (9th Cir. 2003). They buttress their belief by citing the DEA’s clarification of hemp in the Federal Register released in October 2001 and the 2013 Farm Bills’ adoption of the following definition of industrial hemp (adopted from plant scientists research in the 70’s: “The term ‘industrial hemp’ means the plant, cannabis sativa L. and any part of such plant, whether growing or not, with a delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol H. R. 2642—265 concentration of not more than 0.3 percent on a dry weight basis.” Much of the foregoing has been extended to even support opinions that hemp-derived CBD from domestic sources under the 2013 Farm Bill is legal for distribution nationwide.
Opponents of the hemp-derived CBD is legal argument (putting aside the issues with imported hemp and contaminants, etc.) point to the exception in the definition of “marijuana” i.e. to actually get a workable form of CBD from hemp, the preparation of the stalk puts you into the resin category which is excepted from the terms that are specifically not included in “marijuana.” In regard to HIA v. DEA cited above, opponents posit that the court decision, never mentions CBD, and the HIA maintain that this ruling did not legalize CBD.
In February 2015 and again in February 2016 the FDA issued warning letters to CBD companies. The overall context of the letters dealt with mislabeling and improper claims in addition to the most recent round of letters addressing CBD products’ exclusion from the dietary supplement definition under the FD&C act and how that is affected by CBD’s consideration as a new drug in one or more new drug applications. What has not been addressed or asserted by the FDA is the legal status of CBD under the Controlled Substances Act.
Although I have seen many commentators and attorneys opine on the legality as the case may be of hemp-derived CBD and its ability to be shipped to and sold in all 50 states (often with a caveat that readers should consult them for further advice), I have never seen the issue addressed from a practitioner that deals with the United States Patent and Trademark Office. I am not that practitioner. However, I do represent a company that has recently made application. I, not being a trademark attorney, but being sensitive to the federal government’s position collectively on CBD, found the examiner’s questions in her Office Action Letter surrounding CBD to be quite interesting. They were as follows:
Do applicant’s identified goods contain marijuana, marijuana based preparations, or marijuana extracts or derivatives, synthetic marijuana, or any other illegal controlled substances?
If the applicant’s goods contain Cannabidiol (CBD), is this derived from marijuana or from industrial hemp?
Are the applicant’s goods lawful pursuant to the Controlled Substances Act?
I searched for another application and Office Action Letter from 2016 for another CBD product (both were vaporizer products rather than the lotions, balms, etc. that have been the subject of other applications). The questions to that applicant mirrored those above.
What I take from the questions that trademark examiners are asking is that perhaps the debate raging in academic and legal circles is for naught. It looks like at least the USPTO has resigned itself to there being a difference between cannabis or whole plant and hemp-based CBD in terms of definition and proscription under the federal controlled substances act.
So we have come full circle in my question, ‘Is it legal in all fifty states?’ If you answer yes to that question then please provide me the definition of marijuana/cannabis from the Controlled Substance Act from each of the fifty states individually and a copy of the documentation from a source showing how the industrial hemp was grown and processed and verifiable lab reports of the particular product’s contents.
Currently in the United States, there are 27 states that have removed barriers to the production of industrial hemp. Not all of those states have actual licenses in place that would allow farmers to do that. In Pennsylvania, a bill to legalize industrial hemp (SB 50), sits in the house awaiting a final vote.
For those less familiar with the hemp plant, it has been labeled a miracle crop that can produce such products as paper, plastic, fuel, food, clothes and rope to name a few. Almost all of these products can be produced by hemp in a more sustainable and environmental friendly way than they are currently being produced. For this column, I will focus on paper.
Currently the world consumes around 300 million tons of paper each year and 30% of that is consumed in the US alone. A majority of this paper is created via paper mills that cut down trees, applying different chemicals to create a paper pulp.
We have cut down an estimated 4 billion trees around the world to supply the paper industry on every continent. As we continue, just remember that one tree, creates enough oxygen for three people to breathe.
Each year millions of pounds of highly toxic chemicals such as toluene, methanol, chlorine, dioxide, hydrochloric acid and formaldehyde are released into the air and water from papermaking plants around the world, making the industry the 3rd largest industrial polluter of air, water and soil. After the paper is made, sold, and used it ends up in landfills where it decomposes, and releases methane gas, a gas that’s 25 times more toxic than carbon dioxide. The paper industry is also one of the world’s largest consumers of water. It takes 324 liters of water to make 1 kilogram of paper.
An extreme cost to the world for something as simple as a piece of paper. Hemp is a much better solution. While trees take an average of 25 to 30 years to be ready for paper products, hemp regenerates in months. Hemp paper can be recycled up to seven times, while regular paper is recyclable three times. Most importantly, hemp paper does not need to be bleached with chlorine, and is naturally acid-free. A much cleaner and more environmentally sustainable solution.
It is hard to ignore such wasteful processes, particularly when there is a much more sustainable and sensible method that yields the same results. As states begin to allow the production of industrial hemp back into the economy, it creates the opportunity for us to reverse the damage that we have done to this planet.
Imagine, walking into your office one day and seeing all of your documents printed on hemp paper. What do you think? Should we go back to using hemp paper?
Over the next few months, I would like to walk through a series of articles to cover the number of ways to extract potentially pharmaceutically active compounds from cannabis plants. However, in the first article I would like to review concerns being addressed in state regulations: contamination in concentrates with pesticides, mycotoxins, and residual solvents. The next article will cover the most common extraction with two different modes: CO2 versus hydrocarbons.
Currently, there is a lot of focus on the cannabis strain of hemp. This is defined as having less than 0.3% of THC, (the psychoactive compound). To be clear, the science of extraction is eons old, but the current revitalization is due to new scientific inquiry regarding the applications of the cannabis plant.
I am often asked, “What is the ‘best’ extraction for a natural product?” The BEST extraction? The key to this answer is that you must assume unintended consequences until you can prove that they are at least minimized compared to the intended consequences.
I have a suggestion for you to consider and I look forward to your response to it. I also assume the right to adapt and revise it.
Botanical integrity from seed to shelf
Efficacy of the process beyond efficiency, economics, effectiveness
Safety of people and product
Testing for confirmation at each step of process
The hemp industry has changed significantly over the past few years. Just casually flipping through the channels on television, reading a newspaper or magazine, (on any topic – news, business, sports, food and science) and there is some facet of hemp’s value being examined. The reduction of traditional pulmonary intake (smoking) in the legal marketplace can be tracked by sales of these products in the states where it is legal. The balance of ingestion is drastically tipping toward what might still be considered smoking with vaporizer products as well as toward edible consumables. The ingredients in these products come not from just adding the plant to the formulation, but rather a concentrated mixture. This is the difference between adding a raw vanilla and a teaspoon of vanilla extract. The compound getting the most coverage is cannabidiol (CBD), which is the compound derived from cannabidiolic acid (CBDA). The effects of the other compounds in the plant are being studied as well.
Unintended consequences from the concentration – extraction – are something we need to consider seriously as consumers. The labeled use of “natural” is one that is critical, but can be totally nullified by the unintended contamination in the extraction workflow. Years of making sure the hemp adheres to strict growing environment can be destroyed in seconds with the addition of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH’s) by the use of solvent that has these toxic chemicals in them. These come not through intended consequences, but not knowing the stabilizers and other additives in material being added to these previously pure plants.
What if I pour sour milk on a natural granola for breakfast? What if I use water with high lead or contaminated water to pour over natural coffee grind? Not a great way to start the day, but it is no different than using the most premium hemp and unknowingly adding low grade solvents or adding components from cleaning the surfaces of instruments that come in contact with hemp.
Note that, by definition, we are concentrating the material from the hemp plant. From 4,000 grams, we are getting 400 grams of CBDA if it is 10% by weight (and later converted to CBD). That compound is 10 times more concentrated in a solution. What other compounds are now also 10 times or 5 times or 100 times more concentrated? Maybe no “bad” ones, but how do you know that something else is not also in the mixture?
This is illustrated in the filtering of green balls in Figure 1. As the green balls become a greater and greater percentage of the solution, it is possible that other compounds like pesticides are also increasing in percentage of the extraction solution. The solution is more concentrated and “simpler” versus all of the other things in the original mixture.
The simple answer is in the testing of the components. The labeling of major compounds is only the beginning of what is on the label that you read. Heavy metals? PAH’s? Residual solvents? Pesticides? Molds? And a long list of other material that could come into the process after the plant left its pristine organic farm. Many studies can be read about slip agents in bags, contamination from workers in the workflow, and other sources of inconsistency.
There are a significant number of companies that I have seen that take this very seriously. New companies are being formed that have safety of product at the top of the list of importance. They are building facilities that are sterile and putting standard operating procedures in place that continually test the product along every step to ensure that they are in compliance.
Supercritical fluid extraction is GRAS (generally regarded as safe). It is, only as long as the solvent specifications are known, the vendor meets those standards, and the instrument surfaces meet any necessary standards.
Supercritical carbon dioxide is used to clean surfaces of electronics and bones for skin grafts. It is used for the decaffeination of coffee as well as pulling trace amounts of pesticides from soil. It is used to extract antioxidants from krill and the active ingredients from algae as well as oil from core samples deep below the earth. It also extracts the terpenes and CBDA from hemp – as well as possibly anything that has been added to it.
The key take away from this article is to know the BEST extraction.
Botanical integrity from seed to shelf
Efficacy of the process beyond efficiency, economics, effectiveness
Safety of people and product
Testing for confirmation
Taking each of these into consideration will bring the best results for concentrations of hemp products. I hope you can extract the best from your day.