Month: June 2019

The Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 (“2018 Farm Bill”) legalized hemp by removing the crop and its derivatives from the definition of marijuana under the Controlled Substances Act (“CSA”) and by providing a detailed framework for the cultivation of hemp. The 2018 Farm Bill gives the US Department of Agriculture (“USDA”) regulatory authority over hemp cultivation at the federal level. In turn, states have the option to maintain primary regulatory authority over the crop cultivated within their borders by submitting a plan to the USDA. This federal and state interplay has resulted in many legislative and regulatory changes at the state level. Indeed, most states have introduced (and adopted) bills that would authorize the commercial production of hemp within their borders. A smaller but growing number of states also regulate the sale of products derived from hemp.

In light of these legislative changes, we are presenting a 50-state series analyzing how each jurisdiction treats hemp-derived cannabidiol (“Hemp-CBD”). Each Sunday we will summarize a new state in alphabetical order. So far, we have covered Alabama and Alaska. This week we turn to Arizona.

The Arizona Department of Agriculture (“AZDA”) oversees the state’s hemp program. The hemp program began in May 2018 when Senate Bill 108 was signed into law, which opened up hemp processing in the summer of 2019. It took the state a year so that it could develop the regulations and licensing program. As of now, the state’s opening up for license applications. Arizona’s hemp laws and regulations can be found here and here respectively.

Under Arizona law, growers (and nurseries), processors, harvesters, and transporters are required to obtain AZDA licenses, which AZDA publishes applications for here. The regulations also require researchers to obtain licensure. Notably, the AZDA doesn’t regulate retailers, which I’ll discuss some more below. Like in any other state with regulated hemp, there are fees, compliance rules, and penalties for non-compliance. But the level of regulation is not even close to what we see for cannabis/marijuana in many other states.

It’s important to consider that the 2018 Farm Bill hasn’t yet been fully implemented, meaning for the time being, the 2014 Farm Bill is still in play. Even though the 2014 Farm Bill doesn’t expressly allow for commercial activity, a number of states have broadly interpreted it to permit commercial activity. Arizona is allowing commercial activity for licensees of the AZDA—in addition to allowing research as noted above—but it doesn’t appear to have taken the position that commercial sales are authorized under the 2014 Farm Bill like other states. What this means is that under federal law, and until the 2018 Farm Bill is fully implemented, the state of the laws is murky.

One of the areas in which the law is murky is the sale of hemp products. There is currently no retail license type, and the hemp regulations state that it’s prohibited to “Offer for sale, trade, transfer possession of, gift, or otherwise relinquish possession of industrial hemp plants, plant parts, or hemp seed that is capable of germination to an unauthorized person”. However, a different section of the regulations states that processors can “sell, distribute, transfer, or gift any products processed from harvested hemp that are not” unauthorized. Read together, these sections only seem to bar the resale of plant parts and not all “Hemp products”, which are defined as “all products made from industrial hemp, including cloth, cordage, fiber, fuel, grain, paint, paper, construction materials, plastics and by-products derived from sterile hemp seed or hemp seed oil. Hemp products excludes any product made to be ingested except food made from sterile hemp seed or hemp seed oil.” While there aren’t specific retail license types, the state may be okay with limited sales of hemp products.

In terms of what those hemp products are, the AZDA itself doesn’t regulate the production of products made from hemp according to the following statement from these FAQs on its website:

Q: Will I be able to manufacture “CBD” products from industrial hemp?
A: Yes, however the Program oversight only extends from the growth and cultivation of industrial hemp, up to the point of processing. For licensed processors, the Program will focus on ensuring they receive raw material that is below 0.3% THC. If there are food handling laws, laws and regulations under the oversight of the Food and Drug Administration, or other laws related to industrial hemp of another agency, then those issues are out of the Department’s scope of regulatory oversight.

In other words, the AZDA doesn’t have oversight over certain products, but that’s not to say that other authorities don’t.

Another important nuance of the regulations is that they state that “No unauthorized person shall . . . transport, import or process industrial hemp”. It’s not yet clear what the effect of this provision will be on interstate shipments of hemp or hemp products. The 2018 Farm Bill states that individual states can’t block shipments through their borders, but (a) that law hasn’t taken effect yet, and (b) Arizona is free to stop shipments of out-of-state hemp into Arizona. So in the end, the state may just be closing off its borders to out-of-state products.

There are not a great deal of restrictions on personal use. The AZDA notes in the FAQ that people aren’t allowed to grow hemp for personal use. When it comes to marijuana, the state has a medical marijuana program which is subject to much different regulations.

Arizona’s hemp laws are still in their infancy. That’s all likely to change as the federal government implements the 2018 Farm Bill and the FDA (hopefully) comes out with CBD regulations. Stay tuned to the Canna Law Blog for any further developments with Arizona CBD and hemp laws.

Most of the hemp litigation we’ve written about has concerned a hemp purchaser suing a hemp farmer. This week concerns a $2.5 million lawsuit recently filed in Oregon wherein a hemp farmer sued a CBD processor.

The plaintiff, JNV Farms, alleges that in the fall of 2018 it entered into a manufacturing agreement with one of the defendants, C&N Ag LLC (“C&N”), by which JNV Farms was to provide industrial hemp to C&N who was to process the hemp into CBD Isolate and market and sell the finished product. The complaint alleges that profits were to be split 50/50.

According to the complaint, JNV Farms provided the defendants 13,800 lbs of biomass in December 2018. The defendants represented they were testing and preparing to process the material. After JNV Farms made repeated inquiries, defendants became less communicative then eventually refused to respond at all, and refused to meet with JNV Farms or permit inspection of the hemp or finished product.

JNV Farms claimed the defendants (i) neglected or refused to complete the work contemplated by the contract, (ii) failed to return the industrial hemp, (iii) failed and refused to compensate JNV Farms for the hemp, and (iv) failed to provide JNV Farms any of the CBD Isolate or the share of revenue from its sale. JNV Farms alleged claims for breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unjust enrichment, conversion, and fraud.

Finally – and not insignificantly – the complaint seeks to pierce the corporate veil and to hold the two owners of C&N, defendants Mock and Eastburn, personally responsible for the liabilities of C&N. This claim, perhaps more than the others, may strike fear into the defendants. As every business owner knows (or should know) a key purpose of incorporation is to shield company assets from being used to satisfy company obligations. The goal of a veil-piercing claim is to reach past the corporate shield and into the pockets of owners or investors.

Piercing the corporate veil is difficult. As it should be. But the complaint appears to allege facts sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss. Notably the complaint alleges that when Mock and Eastburn negotiated the contract, and as of the date it was executed, that C&N was not yet in existence because no paperwork had yet been filed with the Oregon Secretary of State. This fact, if true, is not necessarily dispositive. (Indeed, if there was no corporation there is no need to pierce the corporate veil). But no one entering million-dollar contracts (Mock and Eastburn) ought to do so without having completed the necessary steps to form an entity. On the flip side, JNV Farms likely could have done a better job protecting its investment and the lawsuit may, as it often does, come down to whether the defendants have any recoverable assets. Time will tell.

For more on the recent wave of Oregon hemp litigation, check out the following:

• Oregon Hemp Litigation: Bad Contract = Big Federal Court Claims
• Oregon Hemp Litigation: Multi-Million Dollar Crop Delivery Lawsuit Filed
• Avoid Hemp Litigation with a Real Agricultural Production Contract
• Oregon Industrial Hemp Litigation: Won’t You Be My Neighbor?

The Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 (“2018 Farm Bill”) legalized hemp by removing the crop and its derivatives from the definition of marijuana under the Controlled Substances Act (“CSA”) and by providing a detailed framework for the cultivation of hemp. The 2018 Farm Bill gives the US Department of Agriculture (“USDA”) regulatory authority over hemp cultivation at the federal level. In turn, states have the option to maintain primary regulatory authority over the crop cultivated within their borders by submitting a plan to the USDA. This federal and state interplay has resulted in many legislative and regulatory changes at the state level. Indeed, most states have introduced (and adopted) bills that would authorize the commercial production of hemp within their borders. A smaller but growing number of states also regulate the sale of products derived from hemp.

In light of these legislative changes, we are presenting a 50-state series analyzing how each jurisdiction treats hemp-derived cannabidiol (“Hemp-CBD”). Each Sunday we will summarize a new state in alphabetical order. Last week was Alabama. This week we turn to Alaska.

In April 2018, Alaska enacted Senate Bill 6 (SB 6), “An Act Relating to the Regulation and Production of Industrial Hemp.” SB 6 was passed before the 2018 Farm Bill, in compliance with the 2014 Farm Bill. Under SB 6, “industrial hemp” is defined as “all parts and varieties of the plant Cannabis sativa L. containing not more than 0.3 percent delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol.” SB 6 defines “cannabidiol” oil as the “viscous liquid concentrate of cannabidiol extracted from the plant (genus) Cannabis containing not more than 0.3 percent delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol.” SB 6 does not address the processing of industrial hemp into Hemp-CBD products

The Alaska Department of Natural Resources (“DNR”), which is a part of the Alaska Division of Agriculture, has regulatory authority over industrial hemp. According to the Alaska Journal, Alaska’s hemp program has been off to a slow start as DNR took time to work with law enforcement to come up with a regulatory plan for hemp.

On May 31, 2019, DNR issued proposed industrial hemp rules. These rules are extremely detailed and are not yet final. This post will summarize some of the highlights including cultivation, processing, sales, and hemp-derived products. The proposed rules also provide a detailed outline of industrial hemp transportation and testing, including procedures for quarantining and destroying non-compliant hemp and hemp products.

Under proposed rules, DNR will issue three “classes of industrial hemp registration for participation in the [Alaska Industrial Hemp Pilot Program],” for growers, processors and retailers.

Grower registration. A registered grower may grow, store, and transport industrial hemp. A grower may also sell raw industrial hemp to another grower or to a processor or sell industrial hemp “to persons who are not required to be registered by this chapter, including consumers in the state, if the hemp will not be further processed[.]” A grower cannot sell industrial hemp that has been processed unless it holds a processor registration as well. Growers must retain records of the source of all industrial hemp seeds and propagules. Industrial hemp cultivation is only allowed in a registered “grow area,” which cannot be a residence and cannot be within 3,230 feet of a marijuana grow. Growers must submit planting report to DNR 30 days after planting or replanting hemp seeds and propagules. Pesticides are only to be applied by an Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation certified applicator. Growers cannot harvest hemp until it has been tested by DNR unless DNR gives express permission allowing a post-harvest test. In either scenario, industrial hemp must be tested before a grower may sell it.

Processor registration. A registered processor may process industrial hemp in its raw form into any other form or product. Processors may purchase, store, and transport raw hemp. Processors may sell processed hemp or hemp products to retailers. Processors must comply with all applicable health and safety standards. Processors may only create hemp-based extracts using the following methods:

• Non-hydrocarbon extractions, including: cold or hot potable water filtration; isopropyl alcohol or isopropanol; ethyl alcohol or ethanol; carbon dioxide; dry ice; or dry shifting or sieve.
• Hydrocarbon extractions, including: n-butane; isobutene; propane; or heptane.

Processors may only use solvents in the extraction process that are food grade or at least 99% pure. and Solvent-based extraction must be “completed in a commercial, professional grade, closed loop system capable of recovering the solvent used for extraction.”

Processed hemp products intended for human or animal consumption must be tested for cannabinoid concentration and profile, residual solvents, microbials, pesticides, and heavy metal concentrations. Testing must be performed by DNR or a testing facility authorized by DNR. Processors must retain records and prepare an annual report on the quantity of industrial hemp processed, identification of lot and batch numbers processed, disposition of all raw and processed industrial hemp, and records of all persons who received all raw or processed industrial hemp.

Retailer registration. A registered retailer may sell processed industrial hemp or industrial hemp products to consumers. In addition, retailers may import, store, and transport processed industrial hemp and industrial hemp products. Retailers must ensure that all products are labeled properly and must display a placard from DNR showing that it is a registered retailer. When applying for registration, a retailer applicant must provide a description of the type of store or operations of the retailer, a location or list of locations where industrial hemp will be offered for retail sale, and a list of products intended for sale. Like processors, retailers must keep records and submit annual reports to DNR.

Hemp Product Endorsement. In addition to registering growers, processors and retailers, DNR is also imposing regulations on all hemp products in Alaska. DNR must endorse “any hemp product processed beyond its raw form” that is intended for human or animal consumption before it is “transported in the state or offered with or without compensation to a consumer.” Retailers and processors can apply for an endorsement on an application provided by DNR. Endorsement applicants must provide the following:

1. A color copy of the product’s proposed label;
2. A copy of the laboratory test results of each product or batch of product;
3. A copy of the processor’s DNR registration under or a copy of the processor’s registration or license from other states or qualifying entities that have implemented an industrial hemp pilot under the 2014 Farm Bill;
4. A copy of the terpene analysis if required under the proposed rules; and
5. An endorsement fee.

No processed industrial hemp product intended for human or animal consumption may contain more than 50 milligrams of delta-9 THC per individual product. Such products must also include the following items on their label:

1. The product name;
2. A batch and lot number for the product;
3. An expiration date;
4. The total quantity of the product by weight or volume;
5. The serving size or recommended dose;
6. A list of all ingredients;
7. A statement that the product has not been approved by the Food and Drug Administration or the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation.
8. The industrial hemp pilot program from which the hemp originated;
9. The industrial hemp pilot program that authorized the processing or testing of the industrial hemp in the product; and
10. If the product conducts any delta-9-THC, the statement “warning: contains THC”.

Bottom Line. At this time, it is unclear when the DNR will start issuing registrations or will start endorsing products.

The most striking thing about the new rules is the endorsement and registration required for the sale of hemp products intended for human consumption, which almost certainly includes Hemp-CBD. On June 20, 2019, the DNR updated a “Questions and Answers” page on its website which indicates the scope of this registration:

Q: Are big stores such as GNC, Natural Pantry, all the gas stations going to have to get retail
licenses?
A: Yes. Except for a grower or processor selling raw industrial hemp, all retail sales of hemp and hemp products will require retail registration.

This may preclude the online sale of consumable Hemp-CBD in Alaska as retailer applicants must list the locations where they will sell hemp products and display a placard from DNR in their stores. Online retailers who sell directly to consumers won’t be able to comply with these location-based requirements.

Finally, these rules are focused solely on the 2014 Farm Bill and make no reference to the 2018 Farm Bill. That may need to change as a majority of states are going to be operating under the 2018 Farm Bill next year.

Interested stakeholders should carefully review these rules if they want to make any changes. DNR will be accepting public comments on the rules until 5:00 PM on Tuesday July 3rd, 2019. Comments can be submitted by email to industrialhemp@alaska.gov or online at http://notice.alaska.gov/, and using the comment link.

In the past few months, many of our Oregon hemp clients have asked us to clarify the testing requirements imposed by the Oregon Department of Agriculture (“ODA”). Unlike other jurisdictions that only test for tetrahydrocannabinol (“THC” or “delta-9 THC”) concentration, the ODA rules provide that any industrial hemp product sold to consumers must contain no more than 0.3 percent “Total THC.”

Under Oregon hemp law, “Total THC” means “the molar sum of THC and THCA [tetrahydrocannabinolic acid].” This creates some very important considerations for hemp farmers and related parties, and, as explained below, failing to account for this issue in production and sale agreements creates serious exposure. But first, some background on the “Total THC” standard.

THC and THCA are two compounds commonly found in the cannabis plant. As its name indicates, THCA is an acidic cannabinoid, whereas THC is a neutral cannabinoid, meaning it possesses active (psychoactive) proprieties. While these compounds are present in different forms, they are linked in that when exposed to heat or lights THCA converts into THC. This conversion process naturally occurs over time but can also be enhanced through a chemical reaction called decarboxylation. Specifically, decarboxylation removes a carboxyl group of THCA and releases carbon dioxide which turns the large 3-D shape of the THCA molecule into a THC molecule, which is smaller and can fit into a body CB1 (cannabinoid) receptors.

A while back, the ODA suggested in one of its public announcements that the “Total THC” testing requirements aimed to align with the 2018 Farm Bill. The 2018 Farm Bill defines “hemp” as, in part, “acids, […] with a delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol [(“THC”)] concentration of not more than 0.3 percent on a dry weight basis.” (Emphasis added). Consequently, the ODA posits that because THCA is an acidic cannabinoid that “contains” THC, it must be added to the THC concentration to ensure that their total concentration does not exceed 0.3 percent. However, opponents of the “Total THC” approach have described this rational as flawed in that THCA and THC are separate and distinct molecules. As such, THCA does not “contain” delta-9 THC. Instead, a chemical process converts a THCA molecule into a delta-9 THC molecule.

States like Oregon also support the “Total THC” position because the 2018 Farm Bill provides that States and Native American Tribes that wish to hold primary regulatory authority over the production of hemp within their borders must submit a plan that includes, among other things, “a procedure for testing, using postdecarboxylation or other similarly reliable methods, delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol concentration levels of hemp produced in the State or territory of the Indian tribe[.]” Although there is no “postdecarboxylation” testing method per se, the congressional intent was apparently to refer to a testing method known as gas chromatography (“GC”).

The GC testing method consists of heating up a hemp sample to separate out its compounds and measure them. This method is powerful enough to decarboxylate THCA in a sample, which means that GC generates the very molecule it is measuring, and thus, calculates the “totality of THC concentrations” found in a hemp sample. Many in the hemp industry have criticized this method, as it tends to increase the THC concentration in the hemp sample and pushes it over the 0.3 percent limit. This, in turn, limits the type of strains farmers can work with and gives farmers in jurisdictions that only require the testing of THC a competitive edge.

But regardless of which position is most meritorious, Oregon hemp farmers and processors are obliged to comply with these ODA rules. As we have highlighted in several of our blog posts (here and here), hemp players must strategically and carefully plan when entering into a hemp-related contract. This careful approach mitigates their risks of financial loss and litigation. Consequently, Oregon hemp farmers and processors should account for the “Total THC” testing requirements in their transactional documents with the assistance of experienced hemp attorneys. For more information on hemp-related contracts and Oregon’s testing requirements, do not hesitate to contact our team of CBD attorneys.