A look at the trade associations, the ACI, the public interest disclosure complaint against the FSA's handling of novel foods, and more.
There's been a lot of industry movement recently, as well as interest in what I do.
This has led to some interesting conversations with people from all aspects of the cannabis industry across the globe.
From academics to farmers, they all have opinions to share, stories to tell, and it's great that I've been able to facilitate that in part with the posts I've been sharing on Facebook and LinkedIn.
We even had a guest appearance from David Watson, aka Sam the Skunkman, on one of my posts, where he was kind enough to clear up some uncertainties surrounding the ownership of certain cannabis strains, which he didn't have to do.
At the end of the day, there is some much uncertainty around cannabis in the UK, especially when it comes to origin stories involving the creation of entities who all but own cannabis in the UK.
If someone from that era is happy to comment on anything I do, be it a social media post or otherwise, they will have my utmost attention, more so if you're a breeder of an insane amount of well-known strains... because at one time, I was rather green-fingered myself.
And if we look at the people who over time have had a hand in where cannabis is in the here and now, not everyone is 'the enemy', so to speak. That needs to be remembered, by myself as much as everyone else.
What gets me though, is that there's no real disagreement with what I've been uncovering, which focuses on an agreement that exists between GW Pharmaceuticals and the British Government.
Some have suspected that to be the case, whereas others when presented with the evidence I have so far tend to be angry or shocked, but not surprised. That agreement covers regulation, which when announced in the UK for hemp and CBD products, it came with a fist full of lab reports from GW.
What's more, regulatory advisory committees on the build up to 'regulation' tended to be populated by academics who work for institutions that had ties to GW through studies, R&D, trials or patents.
Some academics were even placed on panels when their names were on patents which also named GW, and were joint researchers with the University they were representing, as well as GW.
It doesn't seem like the British Government is the only one that allows these practices though, at least from what I'm being told, so how did it all start?
At the end of the day, co-founder of GW, Dr Geoffrey Guy, submitted a 22-point plan to the UK Home Office to regulate and control cannabis medicines, but let's not be under any illusion, it was to control cannabis full stop.
The Medicinalization of Cannabis, P. 37, Pub 2010
That intent spread as soon as GW started getting Sativex approved in various countries, and was further reinforced when Epidiolex was placed on the markets.
But for one event that we see, ten go unnoticed.
Let me give you a couple of examples of that being the case:
The yellow card lists for CBD and Cannabis Sativa
The Medicines and Healthcare Regulatory Agency (MHRA) has a scheme that lists adverse reactions to medicines and vaccines.
The list for Cannabis Sativa was created in 1972 - Between then and 2001, there are no deaths recorded. In 2002, we see the first of 33 deaths, reported by healthcare professionals, but in 32 of them the 'route to administration' is marked as unknown. What is known though is that GW received their R&D license in 2001, and no one other than them was creating medicines or vaccines with cannabis sativa at the time.
Also, Skunk is mentioned on the list as a product that has induced some of the recorded reactions, but you would assume it's highly unlikely that street weed was used to create medicines or vaccines, and it's well-known that GW brought the genetics to Skunk No. 1 in 1998 from David Watson and his company, Hortapharm.
By all accounts, he himself planted GW's initial run of plants himself, and confirmed that Skunk No. 1 was in that setup
So is Skunk named on that list to represent the reactions associated with cannabinoid-based products that were created by GW?
MHRA Yellow Card List for reactions to cannabis sativa-based medicines and vaccines
Just for transparency's sake, the redacted products were food supplements and I believe unrelated to any of the fatalities. What's more, I believe those products were deliberately introduced to the yellow card list to distort the information in it, which is also the case for the list for reactions to CBD.
MHRA Yellow Card List for reactions to CBD-based medicines and vaccines
I can't redact this list though, and for obvious reasons. As you can see, there are a lot of medicinal products that would be better placed on the list for cannabis sativa, some of which have little to no CBD at all.
Further to that, Sativex is named, which should also be on the list for cannabis sativa, but then Skunk is there (Cannabis sativa list), presumably to represent Sativex... or at least you'd think that was the case, unless someone has been making medicines and vaccines out of seized cannabis.
Bear that in mind for a little, if you will
But, there's another correlation between that list, the first death recorded, and the movement of GW. In 2006, Dr Geoffrey Guy tried to monopolise the CBD supplemental and cosmetic industries, long before they even existed.
New use of cannabinoids - Patent No: GB2438682A
But there's more to this situation than meets the eye, see, between 2004 to 2018, the Government gave GW samples of cannabis, in batches of 500, to test for CBD levels in street weed. There is also a suggestion that it was used to create a database of strains and their medicinal uses, which we'll touch on further from here.
So a question arises, at least when looking at those samples from the Home Office and the patent GW filed in 2006. Did the Government effectively supply GW with the biomass to extract CBD and develop Epidiolex?
Guardian 2018 - The new strain of cannabis that could help treat psychosis
That then raises a further question, was it just from 2004, or were there samples before that time?
There are many suggestions that this might well be the case, especially if we go back to the year that GW obtained their R&D license from the MHRA. Something else occurred then, the creation and signing of the Misuse of Drugs Regulation 2001, which as it goes was intended to cover the transportation and testing of controlled substances.
Am I saying that the legislation in question was passed with GW in mind? Am I saying that GW has used those samples to create their products?
Am I saying that GW have conducted trials with products in part, or totally, that have been created with seized cannabis?
To say there was no shadow of a doubt would be foolish, but if you consider the dates vs. the evidence that is available, the leaning is more towards yay rather than nay.
But consider this, GW were analysing CBD levels in street weed from 2004, and Dr Guy tried to monopolise CBD-based supplements and cosmetics two years after. The date that those samples stopped is also significant, 2018, when some people would say that medicinal cannabis was legalised in the UK, but others would argue that it was Epidiolex rather than cannabis that was legalised.
Now imagine, what if that patent was accepted, and it turned out that GW started making those products from cannabis that the Home Office had sent them...
Well, the good news is that it was rejected, the bad news is that at the same time, GW has had an influence over the supplemental and cosmetic CBD product industry even without that patent.
But the worst news is that two women died from reactions to CBD, in 2006, and the big question that first springs to mind is "how???"
Did you know that in February 2019, the World Health Organisation release recommendations for the global reclassification of cannabis?
The answers to those questions are most likely 'No one' and 'Very few', respectively
And if that's the case, we can narrow down whose products may or may not have been responsible for those fatalities based purely on when the other listed products first came into being.
That being said, both of the lists are redacted, which becomes evident when you look at those two fatalities in 2006. both are women, both cases are labelled under cardiac disorders, both were reported by a healthcare professional, but one is labelled as unknown for age.
Fatal reactions to CBD in 2006
But it's not just that year, or fatal reactions. Out of the 526 reports, 62 are labelled as sex unknown, and 51 are down as age unknown, and in both cases, over half are reported by healthcare professionals.
You'd think that healthcare professionals would be trained to determine the sex and approximate age of an individual, right?
All reactions to CBD between 2006 to 2023 where age and sex are unknown
That theme extends to two of the eleven fatalities, in 2013 and 2019, where both are recorded as sex unknown, even though again, they were reported by healthcare professionals.
So in a nutshell, is someone trying to hide whose cannabis-based products have killed people, by confusing the data with redactions and adding food supplemental products to the list.
If the answer is yes and you're in the UK, that then means you have regulation within the hemp and CBD industry based on data from products that may or may not have killed people, to protect the interests of the manufacturers of those products against a food-based industry, whose products have never killed anyone... and I can say that confidently because if food supplemental products had killed people, it's likely the MHRA would have full control over that industry, or that it would be shut down completely.
But it's not just here in the UK...
GW and the FDA
“In opening the door for consumer-market CBD products, FDA risks further diminishing the likelihood that more cannabis-derived products will be developed into proven medicines for these patients.” GW to FDA (P. 4), 2018, when Epidiolex was approved
Have you noticed that since 2018, the FDA has been very adamant that CBD and THC can't be foods because R&D into their medical potential started before they were sold as such?
Now you can see why, but that's only half the story, see in 2014 the FDA awarded Epidiolex 'Orphan Drug Designation', which in itself is a kind of Public-Private Partnership (PPP).
That's what I believe to be the case between the British Government and GW, but despite the evidence to suggest it, no one bit of paper outright confirms it. You'll see below later in the article that I have taken steps to obtain that information, as well as a copy of Dr Guy's 22-point plan.
But when it comes to PPPs and GW, there is evidence online to show that they are part of some
And that's with US states, specifically Georgia and New York. Then, of course, there's an insane amount of Memorandums of Understanding (MOU), which aren't too far off of PPPs.
What's more, the PPPs with Georgia and New York were signed off by the FDA, so that as well as the Orphan Drug Designation for Epidiolex I would say means that GW has more control in the US than some might think, or see.
drthurstone.com - Pub 2014
The problem there is that these agreements need something to grease the wheels, and that means academia, providing studies that justify any recommendations for regulatory movement.
When GW officially launched in 1998, they wasted no time when they launched in forming partnerships and agreements with Universities in the UK and around the world, which certainly causes issues when key researchers tied to any University or research projects were placed in panels to provide opinions on policy, ultimately to grant a monopoly to the focus of that research.
But that's how it's worked here in Blighty
Does it work the same way in the US? That's the main question! Well, the FDA signed off the PPPs between GW and the States of Georgia and New York, and you can see by the date of publication that they were announced in the same year Epidiolex got that Orphan Drug Designation from the FDA.
My thoughts would immediately be to isolate every State that GW has a PPP or MOU with, list any Universities in those States who have conducted any R&D or trials on cannabinoid-based preparations that are made by GW, and then see if they have any academics in advisory panels tied to the FDA that have an input into CBD and THC based consumer products.
Ordinarily, I would do that leg work, but I don't really 'need' to...
And that's because there's something a little more obvious going on in the background that's just as interesting as the PPPs and Orphan Drug Designation... the battle over THC Delta-8
Riddle me this - Why is it that the FDA is exerting its influence over cannabinoid-based products to a point where Congress has to intervene to address the issues of State vs. Federal law?
It's a power grab for sure, and if the US does reschedule cannabis to a Schedule III drug as expected, the FDA will effectively have total power over cannabis in the US.
But it's not really about cannabis, it's more about cannabinoids, just like in the UK.
What's more, there's a lot that happens in the US that is mirrored in the UK when it comes to cannabinoid regulation.
The FDA for example, states that CBD and THC can't be foods as R&D occurred into their medicinal potential before they were sold as foods. The MHRA in the UK tried to define CBD as a purely medicinal compound in 2016, and have stated since then that they reserve the right to define CBD as medicinal, should the consumer see CBD products in that nature.
One has to wonder if the MHRA will make any announcement after the US reschedules, if they do, especially in light of the TIGRR report, which will give power from the Home Office to the MHRA over the UK's ambitions over medicinal CBD and cannabinoid-based products
When it comes to Delta-8 though...
There's a very interesting correlation between an event where an entity that has ties to GW casted doubt on the UK CBD industry.
With THC D-8, it was known by most in the UK that it's a controlled cannabinoid, although between 2018 to 2020, I did have to explain that to a few people who were looking at the US market with wide eyes.
The reason why it's illegal over here isn't because it appeared on the streets though, or that there was ever a problem of sorts. It was purely down to ownership
And guess who owns THC D-8...
Now I questioned the FDA's power-grab earlier, and the reason for that is because of the logic and evidence that is used in their reasoning to outlaw THC D-8 products.
Reasons include: child enticing packaging, there's more than just THC D-8 in the products, other cannabinoids present aren't often labelled, blah, blah, blah...
Don't get me wrong, they are valid concerns, but you can't escape the feeling that the issues are being hyper-sensationalised so that the FDA can gain control.
So let's apply some counter-logic to the issue - Is there a situation that exists where the FDA cannot trust state regulators to enforce regulations that should deal with the issues that have been cited?
Concern vs. reality
Let's not beat around the bush here, we're talking about products that are created by adding a solvent to CBD isolate which forces it to decarboxylate across unnatural chains. What's more, the process is time-sensitive and can lead to the creation of THC D-9, D-10, and other cannabinoids past there.
The process creates what's defined as semi-synthetic cannabinoids, which haven't been around for very long, and on that basis, you've got to accept that regulation of these products has been created on the fly. But if States can manage their interests either with recreational or medicinal cannabis, you'd expect them to be able to manage their domestic consumer-cannabinoid-based markets as well, right?
In essence, someone is trying to disrupt that industry
And that someone will be working on behalf of the company who has an interest in THC D-8.
Form 10-K, GW Pharmaceuticals, 31/12/2020, P. 14
So how is this power grab similar to an event that occurred in the UK? Well in 2019, The Centre for Medicinal Cannabis (CMC) released a report that highlighted similar uncertainties with CBD products.
They themselves have ties to GW, which we'll look at later in this article.
Their report, if you can call it that, used one lab to test 29 products, but straight away there's a problem. See, I know the lab that was used, and I know that in 2019, there were calibration issues.
I also know that the lab had only been operating for one year, and no other labs were used to verify their findings. What's more, there should have been a third lab to back up the findings of the two, to ensure that both lab's machinery was calibrated appropriately.
Now you might think that maybe there was a level of oversight there, but the intention for that report is mirrored in a poll that was conducted alongside it.
Question number one was "Did you know that CBD comes from the marijuana plant?"
That... is scaremongering. There have never been any CBD products in the UK that have been created using the 'marijuana' plant. Who benefits from that misrepresentation? Well, GW are tied to the authors of that report, but the regulatory authorities do too, who as you can see have been helping GW gain and maintain the monopoly that we can see today.
The issues raise by the CMC provided legitimacy for the FSA's push towards regulation. After all, consumer safety is key, and novel foods (which we'll touch on soon) is more than just restricting new foods when entering the market. But the report was flawed, and the source was conflicted... and I find myself wondering if the FDA had a similar report land on their lap, with instruction to ignore any stakeholder who might question the logic in their approach.
But anyway...
let me tell you what I should be doing outside of investigative journalism and industry commentary.
The Hemp Hound Agency is an advisory and signposting service - In essence, it's not quite a consultancy service, and it's not quite a trade association.
It does embrace the best aspects of those services though, and I am an industry stakeholder, who represents not just clients, but also common sense and fairness in any cannabis-related market.
But that's the issue, common sense and fairness are lacking, which has led to The Hemp Hound Agency becoming what you see today. A company that will challenge the Government, if the guidance they employ benefits the few to the detriment of the many.
There will be changes moving forward to accommodate for this shift in dynamic, which will be touched on at the end of this article.
But first, the news
Recently I've had the pleasure of being interviewed by HempToday, The Simpa Life, and The Cannabis App.
The topics ranged from the hemp and CBD industry, a public interest disclosure complaint against the FSA's handling of novel foods for CBD products, the Freedom of Information (FOI) campaign I have been engaged in, and the history and influence of GW Pharmaceuticals, which most of us have questioned at some point or another.
They are all topics that I will touch on in this article, but first, I would like to thank Kehrt (HempToday), Simpa (Simpa Life), and 庄稼 (Jia, The Cannabis App) for giving me a voice outside of The Hemp Hound Agency, and Hemp Hound TV.
Whistleblowing
Early this month I received an invitation from the FSA to discuss the escalation of my Public Interest Disclosure Complaint (PID) against their handling of novel foods for CBD products.
This complaint was launched in July of 2022, the FSA accepted the complaint in December of that year, and in May, I had a response.
Before I touch on that, there's a need for a little recap on the history of novel food for CBD products.
For those who don't know, novel foods as we know it started in January 2019 after the FSA submitted a secret Article 4 to the EU stating that they viewed CBD isolate in MCT oil as a novel food.
FSA Article 4, submitted to the EU weeks before the legalization of medicinal cannabis in the UK, on behalf of a redacted company that had asked the FSA to determine the novel status of CBD in 2015
A novel food is a food with little to no evidence of consumption before May 1997, or an old food in a new format.
Now we've eaten cannabis for millennia, and there's plenty of evidence to show that cold-press hemp oils derived from the bud/flower mass, seed, or both, have been enjoyed in a culinary sense all around the world. Basically, the raw plant as such is okay, and a non-selective plant extract are fine, but CBD products as such tend to have selective extracts, and there's no evidence that they have been consumed before May 1997, which is why they're subject to novel foods, and hemp oils (not-novel foods) which contain CBD are not. That being said, certain definitions have changed recently, which we will look at later on.
An Article 4 is a document that is submitted to the EU (Pre-Brexit, now FSA post-Brexit) which asks for a determination on whether a food is novel, or not-novel, if a history of consumption is recognised.
And yes, you read that right, the FSA 'secretly submitted' that Article 4
This means that there was no industry consultation before, but there also wasn't a head of novel foods at the point of submission, who you would expect would be tasked in some way with submitting that Article 4 to the EU.
The head back then was removed from her position a month before the FSA submitted that document, and the one we have now was placed in his position when the EU made their announcement on novel foods in January 2019.
Spooky, right? I mean, it's highly coincidental in a sense that the FSA had no head of novel foods at a key point in time, when a document was delivered to the EU that would have a massive impact on hundreds of companies under their duty of care, who themselves were employing thousands of people.
It's almost like it was on purpose, you know, to break up or confuse the line of responsibility and accountability.
But that was okay because that new head of novel foods stepped up, and would have easily settled into his position by 13/02/2020 when the UK hemp and CBD industry received its first update on novel foods for CBD products
And wouldn't you know it, regulation came with the scent of GW Pharmaceuticals...
A full and focused update on the progress of that complaint, as well as an upcoming before the meeting with the FSA to discuss its escalation, will be made available soon, but there's a snippet of information that I'm more than happy to share now, which involves recent correspondence between myself and the CEO of the FSA, Mrs Emily Miles.
For those who are unaware of the dynamics of my complaint against the FSA's handling of novel foods for CBD products, the initial complaint can be found below.
One part of that complaint focuses on products that had been validated despite them breaching rules and regulations that surround CBD products in the novel food process.
One such rule was announced on 13/02/2020 - products on the market at that point would qualify for an amnesty for CBD products, and would be allowed to stay on the market until 31/03/2021. If at that latter date, a novel foods application was received and acknowledged by the FSA for those products, they could be sold beyond 31/03/2021 and would be placed on a public list for CBD products associated with the amnesty.
But...
Products made after that point would have to stay off the market, would not qualify for the public list, and would only be allowed on sale after they had gone through the entire novel food process as written in EU regulations.
And it's those regulations that are supposed to govern when a product does or doesn't exist, and as you can see below, EU Reg 178/2002 clearly states that it's when a company is holding food or feed for the purpose of sale.
That excerpt comes from the FSA's response to my complaint, the full response can be found below.
There were several companies highlighted in my complaint whose products weren't on the market on 13/02/2020, and I provided evidence in every single case
One is identified below, with Brains Bioceuticals announcing the impending launch of their products, in 2022, after they had been validated by the FSA.
NutraIngredients, Pub. 03/03/2022
How could a product, validated without actually existing in 2022, be on the market two years before it was due to be launched?
Remember EU Reg 178/2002 - holding food or feed for the purpose of sale - that's for finished products, so how is it that Brains Bioceuticals have products available on the public list?
In February 2023, I released an article called Communication Issues, which I believe outlined the concerns.
And that's that there are two sets of rules at play, one announced, and the other...
Well, it comes from the Department for Business, Energy, and Industrial Strategy (BEIS), who were created by Theresa May, weeks after becoming the Prime Minister in 2016. They split up last year into three different departments, but for continuity's sake, the offshoot called the Department for Business and Trade (DBT) has taken over BEIS's responsibility for the UK's intentions (TIGRR, P. 81 & 82) with medicinal CBD and cannabinoid-based products. On 31/12/2020, they released a different definition of a new-to-market product, outside of EU Reg 178/2002, which basically said you could have a piece of paper stating the intent for the product to exist.
Here's the issue, the FSA in response to my complaint stated that all applications were following EU regulations, but that can't be the case when in sight of information that is freely available online which shows that Brains Bioceuticals is not an isolated case.
They did so in response to a Public Interest Disclosure Complaint, or whistleblowing, about their handling of novel foods for CBD products, stating that all products, including that of Brains Bioceuticals, were part of credible applications.
Enter Mrs Miles...
In the early days of January this year, it became apparent that the FSA was working towards the first applications to be adjudicated for product authorisation... the final step as it were within the novel foods process.
The process itself comes with two status', validation, which means that all appropriate evidence for the novel foods application has been submitted and accepted, and authorisation, which means that the products associated with that application has been given full market access.
Out of the three that were named for review, two have products that also weren't on the market as per EU regulations on 13/02/2020, namely Cannaray, and Pureis.
That information came after I had been informed via the PA of Mrs Miles that the FSA accepted the escalation of my complaint and that she was looking to bring in two independent FSA directors outside of novel foods to review my complaint and the subsequent response.
Because of the imminent review, I sent a letter to the FSA, basically stating that it wouldn't do good for consumer confidence in the FSA if they allowed for the authorisation of certain products, only to determine as part of the complaint escalation that the products I highlighted, and had been authorised, were not only not on the market on or before 13/02/2020, but they were also given an unfair market share by the FSA based on being on the market on 13/02/2020 when they knew they weren't.
What's more, it would look even worse if the FSA acknowledged being in receipt of evidence that confirms industry concerns, and further confirmed that they didn't act on it.
The response, albeit expected, was shocking!
The full response from Mrs Miles is available below.
As you can see, there's ambiguity over what is and isn't being followed. The FSA stated in response to my complaint that they were following EU regulations, and that all products were on the market on 13/02/20.
Yet Mrs Mile's response to my concerns over authorising products I had identified in my complaint as not existing on dates specified clearly by the FSA shows that some companies have been allowed to work by a different set of rules that match that which was given by BEIS ten months after the FSA told the industry what the rules of the game were.
At the end of the day, any rule changes should be communicated to the whole industry, but they weren't
What's worse is that the CEO of the FSA has shown by her response that the findings of my complaint against the FSA's handling of novel foods were misrepresentative of what is truly the case.
The fact of the matter is that I'm not the only person to ask the FSA what definition of new-to-market product they're working by, yet the FSA has always stated that they are working by EU rules and regulations, until Mrs Miles contradicted that just over a month ago.
The thing is, if there were any recent change in definitions, and I mean between the response to my complaint and the email from Mrs Miles (8 months), nothing would explain how Brains Bioceuticals products had been validated other than them working by BEIS guidance.
As stated above, there will be a further update on the status of the Public Interest Disclosure Complaint coming soon, but until then, on with the news!
The Association for the Cannabinoid Industry (ACI) is about to crumble!
Did you happen to notice last year that the ACI got rid of nearly all of their staff? Well, by all accounts, something is going on, and considering they had 20 members then all paying £30k a year in membership fees, you wouldn't initially expect any issues are related to cash-flow.
But before we celebrate whatever that issue is, or look at what's happening with the other trade associations, let's just look back at the ACI's most notable moments.
I could mention 'join us or die!' emails, or the fake lists from the FSA that allegedly showed companies whose novel food applications had been rejected, even though most hadn't, published through The Grocer that ultimately led to some companies getting ejected from Amazon and Holland & Barrett (Click here for all that), but what I really want to touch on is when they are, or are not, a trade association.
Right now, the ACI has 15 members, some of whom are also members of The Hemp Hound Agency, but there are only five companies that are focused on CBD.
Out of those 5, one is a lab service that is owned by a listed company, and one is listed despite the Home Office all but shutting them down last year based on THC 'possibly' being present in their broad-spectrum products, and that importing such products into the UK mainland was illegal under drug laws.
So, that's three companies that have a specific focus on consumer CBD products.
Now I've got to stress, I know two of the three, and the third company is one I've never heard any grumbles about.
That being said, there always have been grumbles about the ACI, regardless of who their members were, and not just from me.
But I think we can all agree that their relevance is coming to an overdue end, due in part to the lack of members they have that are dedicated to the consumer CBD sector
There are issues to address before they're done though, especially regarding the uncertainty over their status when you question the transparency of the organisation, which I have personally done.
When you do get a response of sorts to "Who other than your members are funding your actions?" that states "The ACI is a members organisation, and is funded by membership fees", you know that something is a miss.
Their activities, at least up until last year, were easily beyond that which could be recouped from paying members, even at £30k each. The question over their finances doesn't just come from uncertainty over activities vs. costs accrued through membership fees though, it also comes down to 'who' might be providing that extra capital, and there's a real suspicion that it was GW Pharmaceuticals.
Here's what you need to know:
One industry stakeholder has conferred to me that Steve Moore, co-founder of the ACI, has admitted to other industry stakeholders that he has at some point been a paid consultant for GW.
The ACI was created by The CMC, who worked with GW in the campaign to legalise medicinal cannabis in 2018.
Whilst those two points don't confirm that the ACI is partly funded by GW, there are other things to consider:
The ACI don't display a company number on their website, and you won't find them on companies house.
The records for the CMC do not account for the running of the ACI, nor the staff that worked for both organisations.
Despite many requests for information, including from myself, the ACI has seemingly ignored them, but at the same time, they have never refuted claims of collaboration or funding with/from GW.
If you were working in an industry where GW was viewed as the boogie-man, wouldn't you move quickly to dispel any rumours that suggested you were affiliated with them in some way?
What's more, why would the ACI withhold files that could disprove that allegation, if a member or two had asked for them directly? Because by 'all accounts' (pun intended), that's happened!
And if that 'has' indeed happened, if you're a members club that doesn't show the member's financial records when requested, what are you?
Further to this, it's known that the ACI doesn't hold votes for members to determine the direction that they take, which as I understand it, is a prerequisite of any membership organisation.
So if they're not a membership organisation or a trade association, what are they?
But whilst we prepare to say goodbye to the ACI, there's an issue, see Steve Moore and Co have connections to politicians, and it's not gone unnoticed that when the ACI says something, it normally precedes an industry event of sorts.
It's always been 'a thing', but then, it's noticeable, and it shows that the inside line has been held by them from the get-go.
The most recent case involved the saveourCBD.org campaign, calling for the Home Office to provide their opinion on suggestions given by the ACMD in 2021. Admittedly the main reason why that was set up was due to Jersey Hemp being told that they couldn't export their products from Jersey to the UK mainland due to the potential presence of THC in their products, but it's what happened before and after that event that is important, and shows the ACI for who they are.
Controlled Cannabinoids
At the end of last year, the Home Office finally gave its opinion on the ACMD suggestions on controlled cannabinoid levels in CBD products, after sitting on those suggestions for the best part of two years.
But, they were released shortly after the FSA announced a 10mg Advised Daily Intake (ADI) for CBD products in what could be described as a very comprehensive press campaign, which didn't really include any consultation with the industry via stakeholder engagement beforehand.
When the ACMD gave their opinions on controlled cannabinoid levels in CBD products in 2021, the ACI provided a counter-proposal of less than half of the ACMD's 50ug per cannabinoid per service recommendation.
That being said, when the Home Office said that they agreed in principle to the ACMD's suggestions in November 2023, the ACI provided another counter-proposal, saying that instead of 50ug per controlled cannabinoid per serving, maybe it should be 50ug of all controlled cannabinoids per serving.
The ACI white paper that helps no one
There are 12 controlled cannabinoids in the UK, which means that the ACI is asking for a reduction of over 92% to that which the Home Office has agreed to... in principle.
Strangely, the document with this proposal is subtitled "The industry responds", but no one in the industry has called on controlled cannabinoid levels that only suit CBD isolate-based products.
What's more, if ACI members are asking for financial records to be disclosed, it's arguable that there is less trust for them within the hemp and CBD industry now than there has ever been, which makes the subtitle to their white paper a joke more than anything else.
Some would benefit from the Home Office adopting the ACI's suggestions though...
And I don't just mean GW, see the CMC has had a reboot recently, and their members do inhabit the medicinal space. They would benefit massively, but only to a point.
The Medical Cannabis Alliance, formally The Centre for Medicinal Cannabis
Now you might find it of interest that there's a rumour going around which would explain why the ACI got rid of its staff, and that's that a co-founder of the CMC and ACI, used ACI funds to wine and dine doctors in an attempt to get them to consider prescribing medicinal cannabis-based products.
If that's true, I think there would be a bit of explaining to do. Using funds from an entity focused on consumer CBD and cannabinoid-based products to further the intentions of a parent organisation whose focus is on medicinal CBD and cannabinoid-based products seems a bit off to me, especially for their consumer CBD-focused member companies (past and present) who might not have interests in medicinal CBD and cannabinoid-based industry.
This is quite a turn around though, see in 2019 before the ACI was launched, the CMC themselves represented the interests of those on their books that inhabited the consumer CBD product space.
The problem there was that back then, blurring the lines between food and medicines was something the MHRA frowned on, so the ACI was a necessity, as CBD companies who advertised that they were part of a club with 'medicinal cannabis' in the title was a bit of a compliance breach.
So here's a question for you, was the ACI set up to represent the needs of CBD-focused companies, or was it set up to service the needs of the CMC and their clients who inhabit the medicinal space?
Think about it, who would really benefit if the Home Office were to adopt the ACI's suggestions for controlled cannabinoid levels?
GW, who all but own controlled cannabinoids and have 148 patents to prove it, and medicinal cannabis-focused companies due to the window of access increasing due to the CBD industry being driven towards isolates and synthetic CBD-based products. But it wouldn't all be rosy for the latter, see I firmly believe that unlicensed cannabis for medicinal use is a stopgap measure to allow for R&D to be conducted by unsuspecting companies on behalf of GW, and the UK's intentions of controlling the global market for medicinal CBD and cannabinoid-based products.
Here's what I know - between 2004 to 2018, the Home Office supplied GW with samples of cannabis from five police forces. The intention for those samples was to monitor CBD levels in street weed, and to create a database of strains and their medicinal potential. Here's what I believe - the strains sold by unlicensed cannabis companies will be monitored, and as soon as one shows promise in an area, a database will be accessed to determine the cannabinoid profile, and that will then be patented, with clinicians then being told by NICE that they can't prescribe unlicensed cannabis for condition X because there is R&D funding available for 'cannabinoids various' against condition X.
And as it goes, that's already happened!
Absolutely, but when I explain this to you, make sure you're not sipping any drink because I refuse to accept liability for tea-drenched screens and keyboards.
Are you aware of Victoria Atkins and her connections to GW through her husband? He was made the CEO of British Sugar for converting their greenhouses to grow cannabis for GW. Paul Kenward is his name, and he submitted the application to grow cannabis to the Home Office in 2015, the same year Mrs Atkins became an MP. In 2017, she was named the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Minister for Safeguarding), which included authority over drugs, and she was appointed to that position by Theresa May, who herself has direct and indirect conflicts to address when it comes to GW Pharmaceuticals and how their influence has been managed.
In 2018, just before the legalisation of medicinal cannabis, both May and Atkins were named by the press, specifically for their spousal conflicts and the potential for them to benefit from the move to legalisation, but then everything went quiet...
Anyway, Atkins was named as the Secretary of State for the Department for Health and Social Care in November of last year, but that appointment came off the back of an interesting event.
In 2022, there was a review of recreational drug use by the Home Affairs Committee. Interestingly, GW/Jazz Pharmaceuticals submitted a document to that review, and in it, they proclaimed a 20+ year strong working relationship with the Home Office (which you can find later in this article), that controlled cannabinoids are dangerous, and that the CBD industry needs more political control.
Keep that in mind... recreational drug use
So, just before Atkins was named as the new secretary of state for health and social care, the Home Office responded to the Home Affairs Committee's recommendations on recreational drug use.
"NICE recommend"... "NICE recognises the lack of evidence"...
Who tells them though? Because someone did!
But back on point...
You might say "Cef, it's trials on CBD vs. chronic pain. That's not a strain, that's a cannabinoid", but what you've seen is the start.
Singular cannabinoids make sense, and securing CBD is of extreme importance, that's why the regulatory authorities won't talk to any serious stakeholders in the hemp and CBD industry about key noticeable industry concerns.
But whilst they're focused on that, eyes will also be on the data that comes from the unlicensed cannabis industry. I say 'they', I do mean GW, and the British Government who I believe still has an interest in GW.
So what's this got to do with the ACI?
Well, they're crumbling, while the CMC gets a facelift. They've offered absurd suggestions on controlled cannabinoid levels, which would benefit the new CMC, and GW, who they've never really confirmed if they work for, or with. Sabotage one industry to benefit another... to a point where GW benefits overall? It really isn't an unreasonable chain of thought, you know. After all, we are talking about the ACI.
At the end of the day, I've been a frontline worker for the hemp and CBD industry since 2018. I knew who the CMC were before I assumed that position, and I was there when the ACI was born, and witnessed their impact on the industry first-hand. I have always stated without a shadow of a doubt that the ACI are industry antagonist, their existence meant that the FSA were given legitimacy in their move to create a compliant industry through the ACI being a convenient mouthpiece, whose stance on novel foods in 2019 contradicted that of the more established industry stakeholders at the time.
Far be it for me to suggest the potential for there to be shenanigans a foot, but then...
As for the other trade associations
I think it's fair to say they've had their day, but let's be honest, I'm not the only person to think that.
Who does what anymore? Because I've not seen either the Cannabis Trades Association (CTA, now by all accounts the Hemp Trades Association) or the European Industrial Hemp Association (EIHA) do anything good over the last four years.
In fact, there's a very easy way to describe where exactly both associations are after initially challenging novel foods:
EIHA submitted a novel food application based on a single product format, 10% CBD isolate in hempseed oil, and then used that information to represent products outside of that format.
The CTA sent companies to EIHA to join that application.
Does that sound concerning at all?
What's more, EIHA has allowed for an update on not novel hemp-based products, which came after they championed a three-year battle for a novel catalogue update to allow cannabis leaves to be used for tea. The problem there is that beforehand, the milled plant was allowed and recognised by the FSA as useable for tea, which included flowers and fruiting tops, but now, that is apparently off the table.
Bravo!!!
If this or any other part of the not-novel update that wasn't announced to the industry in any way affects you, give me a shout. I have a file that shows the FSA's distinction of not novel hemp oils and teas before that update that you might find of interest.
Cannabidiol (CBD) guidance for England and Wales, Pub 12/10/23
Before that, it was just a single sentence: Cold-press hemp and derivatives are not novel. So yeah, well done EIHA!
But anyway, back to that novel food application, and if I were you and was tied into RP427, I'd be very worried right now, based on that application being one of the three that's getting adjudicated for authorisation next to Cannaray and Pureis.
That's two of the inner circle, who have their own toxicology data associated with their products vs. a big application with a few thousand products attached, covered with toxicology data that matches less than half of the products that are represented...
Now you might think that I'm being irresponsible for highlighting a flaw such as this, but the FSA know exactly what they have on their hands, so it's not unreasonable to assume that question marks will surround the likes of Joe Blogg's CBD 20mg capsules (shall we say?), which isn't made with hempseed oil, and is quite possibly made with a full or broad spectrum extract.
But that's not where the alarm bells should end, see EHIA's application has jumped the queue. This in itself is peculiar, see the head of novel foods has laid a distinction between the early applicants and the chasing pack.
EHIA's application 'is' from that chasing pack, so why is it being looked at now, and not someone else like 4MP, Health and Happiness UK/Bod Healthcare, Brains Bioceuticals, Health in Harmony, VESIsorb, or GeoCanna?
I mean, their products for the best part were validated well before RP427...
That distinction between the early applicants vs. everyone else...
That was made when discussing the TIGRR report with the current head of novel foods, see it was suggested that Novel Food Regulations (NFR) as they stand were being used initially because they were sufficient for the progression of the early applicants.
What's more, that distinction was made after Deloitte had won and completed the contract to review NFR, and there are all the suggestions that those in the chasing pack will have their products authorised by different guidance to the early applicants.
If that is still the case, there can be only one reason why EIHA's application is getting judged early, and it's not a good one!
I could be wrong though, and I sincerely hope that to be the case, but right now, and in the face of all available evidence and information, what do you think the likelihood of a happy outcome is?
That aside though
Let's touch on that Public Interest Disclosure complaint - Did you know that it was industry participants that highlighted the issues I raised with the FSA? Some of them aren't just members of The Hemp Hound Agency, they're also members of EIHA, CTA and the ACI.
The sad thing though is that not one trade association was brave enough to stick their hand up and say "The Hemp Hound has raised some valid industry concerns that are shared by many", or even to say that something wasn't right, even if there was no acknowledgement of the complaint itself.
And the worst thing about that is...
If you ever claim to be the voice of the industry, you've got to be prepared to voice the concerns of the industry. If you can't do that, claiming to be said voice of the industry is a tad bit disingenuous, don't you think?
It's a shame really, when I worked for the CTA, I did so hoping that some good would come out of it. I know everyone has an opinion about my ex-employer, but trust me, they had their moments, just not as much as I would like.
From an industry standpoint though, I can tell you where their actions made me realise that they weren't "For the whole plant" as they claimed back at the start of 2019, and that is when they told me to tell members that they weren't fighting novel foods, or at least, raising questions about its progress and impact on the industry it was being applied to.
When that happened, I personally, as the point of contact who was telling the membership what was going on, felt like a fraud. But then I left the CTA, created The Hemp Hound Agency, and fought the fight that they as well as EIHA should be fighting, or at least acknowledging.
It has to be said, they have passed their 'best by' date, and it's time they disappear into the shadows to allow people who are prepared to fight for the industry the space to do so.
Let me just finish this section with a personal note beyond that which I've stated already - I loved my job at the CTA, and I know that certain companies were only members because they had the chance to talk to me, who unlike every other CTA employee wouldn't force industry compliance down anyone's throat. Don't get me wrong, I was and still am well versed in compliance, and I helped train up those who worked in that section of the CTA, but there is more to business than just being compliant, and I was there to help in those occasions.
It's the same now as it ever was, but the CTA for some strange have only really posted or released anything based on compliance, and not really anything about how messed up the industry is... and that says a lot.
But then, 'what' exactly does it say? Well, I've just had an email from the head of novel foods, which in a roundabout way, is telling me to sod off!
Email received on 16/02/2024 from the head of novel foods
That's in response to me questioning if the FSA were being fair by excluding me from stakeholder meetings, which they aren't.
In fact, I would question my exclusion against the protection whistleblowers are supposed to receive, because I do feel there's all the likelihood of me being excluded from those meetings because I whistleblew against the FSA's handling of novel foods. What's more, I believe that the trade associations know this, and are afraid that should they say something, either about my public interest disclosure complaint or just the concerns raised in it, they too would be excluded from any further stakeholder meetings. If that happened, they lose all relevance... but, if by some miracle they did grow a backbone, then an interesting scenario develops where the industry as a whole effectively declares that there is no confidence in the FSA and their management of the novel foods process for CBD products.
One can only imagine how the process would be impacted if that ever happened...
Freedom of Information Request Campaign
Recently, I declared that I had written a book about an agreement, possibly a PPP, between the British Government and GW Pharmaceuticals.
Every shred of evidence that is available in the public domain spells out PPP, especially a document called 'The Medicinalization of Cannabis', where between pages 34 to 39, Dr Geoffrey Guy, co-founder of GW Pharmaceuticals, outlines the process that led to the creation of GW.
But... that says that things started to happen in 1997, and over a short amount of time.
So let me just introduce you to a file on companies house, which shows that the intention for GW was realised in 1995, just shy of three years before they started their journey to where they are today.
Dr Guy says that everything 'just happened' between November 1997 to July 1998 when GW received a growing license from the Home Office.
But if that's the case, what's up with Titanite Ltd?
Anyway, at the end of September 2023, when I thought I'd finished my book, I had a feeling that 'something' was about to happen that needed to be included into that book, and it needed to be held in limbo while I saw what was to occur. I wasn't wrong, see within a couple of weeks, the FSA released their 10mg ADI announcement via a press campaign, but without actually informing all industry stakeholders appropriately of that announcement.
Guardian - Pub. 12/10/2023
Inside of that of course came the unannounced update on not-novel products, and then, literally within two weeks, the Home Office announced their opinion on the ACMD suggestions for controlled cannabinoid levels in CBD products, which they had been sitting on since December 2021.
Now, I could focus on a few issues here, but let me just say that from that point, I realised that proving that there was a PPP between GW and the British Government was easy. What was hard though, was to determine exactly what the terms of that PPP were.
So from that point, my focus changed, which is why I launched a FOI campaign
So far, we've got 'CBD Policy', and most government departments suggesting that they have information on an agreement between GW Pharmaceuticals and the British Government.
There is no confirmation as to what type of agreement that is, but let's look at the facts:
How many companies do you think would get a cannabis growing license, if, as Dr Guy states in The Medicinalization of Cannabis, they had only been engaging with the Home Office for a matter of months?
How many companies do you think would get a place at Porton Down, seemingly five minutes after creation, if there wasn't some sort of an agreement in place with that company and the Government?
How many companies do you think would get Government R&D funding signed off by the House of Lords Science and Technology Committee, again, within five minutes of operating?
And how many companies do you think could operate for five years before being in a position with the Home Office where they are happy to authorize samples of cannabis that had been seized in raids to be analysed by said company?
All of those points don't cover half of the concerns that are plain to see that all confirm an agreement between the Government and GW is in place, but there's one point inside of that which really concerns me.
The dismissal of the public interest
I've yet to find a report on a PPP that didn't change hands several times, or that didn't exceed any budget, but one thing is a given, they all involve public resources, and as such are supposed to bring about a return to the public coffers.
In principle, are PPPs a bad thing? Well, I kind of view them like communism. There are several elements that you might think make sense, but in practice, there's always someone who will have more money, influence and power than the essence of communism would allow.
Plus, communism comes with a 'for the people' attitude, but in reality, someone is telling the people how to think, or at least, how people have thought about things.
But the same also occurs in a democracy, which can be demonstrated via the ACMD's 2008 report on cannabis.
Did you know that the Government/ACMD commissioned a poll of 1,003 people based on a real public concern around strong cannabis, especially Skunk, in the UK?
It might be of interest to know that the Government in 1971 used that same line, minus the reference to Skunk, to justify the creation of the Misuse of Drugs Act.
1,003 people, it doesn't sound like a lot, but by all accounts, only 19% of those polled thought that cannabis should be raised from a Class C to a Class B drug.
44% believed that cannabis should remain as a Class C drug though, and that opinion was echoed by the ACMD, but it was ignored by the Government.
It's certainly of interest to know that the reason why that advice was ignored was because Gordon Brown ordered Jacqui Smith to reclassify cannabis, which she stated after leaving Government, and again after she became a director for a medicinal cannabis-focused company. But the 'public concern' was used as an excuse to reclassify, combined with a study from GW which used cannabis given to them by the Home Office to test the CBD levels in street weed.
What's more, it was academics who for the best part were affiliated to GW in some way, who introduced the Skunk narrative, which seems tied to CBD Policy which itself was possibly defined in 2004 when the Home Office started providing GW with samples to test street weed for CBD levels.
GW, as mentioned earlier, own Skunk No. 1, the strain the Skunk narrative exists to protect.
But let's look at that 'public concern' a little more
Since 2020, there have been over 200 petitions launched that in some way call for a conversation about cannabis. Most have called for legalisation, decriminalisation, or for medicinal users to be allowed to grow a number of plants at home, but some also called for tighter restrictions, and one even called for CBD to be outlawed.
But all of them have been rejected, and according to the Home Office, it's the Office for the Leader of the House of Commons and the Petitions Committee who adjudicates them.
However, according to the Office for the Leader of the House of Commons, it's the Home Office that has been rejecting those petitions, and by the sound of it, without employing a public interest test.
So... allow me to introduce you to the submission from GW/Jazz Pharmaceuticals to the Home Affairs Committee's review of recreational drug use.
That's from 2022, twenty years before that would be 2002, and 4 years before that, GW Pharmaceuticals was launched.
Hopefully, it's plain to see that the reason why the Home Office, specifically the Drugs Licensing Unit, is refusing any petition that gets to the point of requiring a response, and that's to protect the 20-plus-year strong working relationship between them and GW, despite there being a real public concern regarding their relationship.
You've got to wonder if one point in Dr Guy's 22-point plan to regulate and control cannabis covered stopping any conversation about cannabis in the UK, regardless of context, because the public might offer their opinion, which is always a dangerous thing in politics.
But let's shift from public concern to public interest
The poll for the ACMD was conducted in 2008, medicinal cannabis was legalised in 2018, and since 2019, there's been an over 50% approval rating for a conversation about cannabis specifically made up of people who want the plant either legalised or decriminalised.
Statista - whilst it says 'cannabis and soft drug policy preference', the link address is 'britain-cannabis-policy-preference', and the lead question is "With regard to soft drugs such as cannabis, which of these statements comes closest to your own view?"
But there's more to be taken from that ongoing poll, like for example that at no point has there ever been more people who believe that policy preference in the UK is to leave cannabis where it is in UK drug law than there have been for some level of conversation about cannabis.
Here's a curio for you though, why are those in favour of reform split into two camps, surely there should be three options available: those who believe the law is right, those who believe there should be change, and those who don't know.
Instead, though, those who think there needs to be change are split between those who want legalisation vs those who want decriminalisation, which not only sows the seeds of division, it also means that those who don't think the law should change will always be viewed as 'the public opinion'.
Now who exactly do you think that benefits?
So as I continue my search for information in regards to PPPs and 22-point plans, just remember this. There is a clear attempt by the British Government to not just misrepresent the public interest in cannabis, but also to dilute it.
That's why we all need to re-evaluate our stances when it comes to the good plant, we need to stop nailing our colours on any call for legalisation or decriminalisation, and we all need to champion one simple request. That's for a conversation about cannabis.
Should that happen, I'm sure that the pros and cons of legalisation vs decriminalisation will be discussed, as will the British Governments unhealth relationship with GW Pharmaceuticals.
Oh, and by the way...
People often turn around to me and say "Don't you mean Jazz?", to which I've replied constantly with a flat "No!".
According to companies house, most of the entities bearing the GW name still operate, and still file their financial statements.
Plus, if you go to Jazz Pharmaceuticals website, you'll see this below.
This is another reason why I believe that there is a PPP at play, see the Government needs to keep an eye on what it's invested public resources in.
If Jazz were to assimilate GW into its structure, it would make certain terms and conditions of any agreement hard to monitor.
So yes, Jazz did buy GW, but GW very much still exists.
That's the news, but before I go, I have a couple of unrelated updates to provide you with
The function of The Hemp Hound Agency is changing for reasons that will become apparent as they are employed.
The skin and bones of the reason is that in my current format, I'm a little overloaded. But then I don't help myself with articles like this that effectively gives away information for free.
Soon, content will be set out into three categories:
Industry updates and interpretation - This will be available via subscription when released, and then freely accessible after a certain amount of time. We're talking jargon-heavy, acronym-laddened content that is intended to inform business operators of what's going on. I will aim to produce one article in this section per month, regardless of how many days are in it, and inform everyone when it's released... fairly (in all portals), and yes there is a slight dig at the Home Office, FSA, or anyone else who might be pro-1mg rule/threshold/whatever. There will be a subscription charge, however, members of The Hemp Hound Agency will have access for free.
General reporting - This provides a window to the consumer. Again, there will be a subscription charge, but members of The Hemp Hound Agency will have access for free. The charge for access will be less than that for businesses with industry updates and interpretations, but then the content will be more varied, and not restricted to specific industries As subscription numbers grow, there is an intent to offer spaces to guest and freelance writers to help expand the availability of content. If that's of interest to you, drop me an email, the address is below.
Hemp Hound TV (HHTV) - Patreon launch I've had some great conversations with people in the cannabis world, and I plan to have more. There's an intent to provide an episode of HHTV a month, which will come with advertising slots for members of The Hemp Hound Agency. Members will also be invited to discuss the way the industry is going, or any other topic that relates to cannabis either in the UK, or abroad.
We're having a reboot of the website to reflect the changes that are being made, and a members portal will be introduced so that subscribers will have easy access to the content packages they are signed up for.
There will also be a reboot of the directory, to make it more consumer-friendly, and to accommodate other lists including for cafes in countries that have legalised, medicinal-focused companies, and grants that are available through Innovate UK.
Beyond there, a database needs to be created to chronicalise the true history of cannabis in the UK... because there's still a lot that we collectively don't know, things that would add depth to the picture, such as 'What did Gordon Brown get from ordering Jacqui Smith to reclassify cannabis?', 'Does the Jazz submission to the Home Affairs Committee all but indicate the PPP that is in place, what with 22-point plans and 20 plus strong working relationships?', and of course, 'After GW researchers tested 250mg of each sample of cannabis sent to them by the Home Office, what did they do with the rest?'
It may be the Chinese Year of the Dragon, but it's also the Year of the Hound, and I'd love you to be part of the journey
For more information about The Hemp Hound Agency, email cefyn.jones@hemphound.co.uk or call 07456528813
