Call for a vote of no confidence in the FSA, CoT and ACNFP
Cefyn Jones
Hemp & Cannabis Industry Specialist at The Hemp Hound Agency - Industry Commentator and Investigative Journalist.
There are some silly things about to happen, so lets talk about them.
Two highly conflicted panels due to several interesting Universities being represented are about to define THC as a contaminant in foods.
Why are they conflicted? Well, throughout novel foods, faculty members from Reading, Aberdeen, Edinburgh, ICL, UCL, Cardiff and others have been providing opinions on CBD products without declaring the interests of their employers, specifically their connections to GW Pharmaceuticals.
You'll be wanting evidence of those conflicts:
Here's for Reading: https://research.reading.ac.uk/research-blog/10-years-in-the-making-drug-discovered-by-reading-scientists-reaches-uk-children-with-severe-epilepsy/
Aberdeen: https://www.abdn.ac.uk/people/rgp
Edinburgh: https://www.ed.ac.uk/clinical-brain-sciences/news/news-archive/2014/cannabis-medicine-epilepsy
If you need to, just do a word search for GW, and you'll see what you need to see.
Strangely though, the Food Standards Agency doesn't want to acknowledge those conflicts, just like they ignored those of Deloitte when awarding them the contract to review novel food regulations.
They also didn't want to accept the conflicts identified by the BBC through Panorama an their exposé regarding ultra-processed foods, which is funny because CBD isolate is effectively ultra-processed, and that as well as THC isolate are used to make GW's products.
Interesting parallels, wouldn't you agree?
So, what's this silly thing that's about to happen?
Well, they're going to define an active compound in a food that's been consumed for millennia as a contaminant.
"18.?Draft statement on Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) as a contaminant in food (reserved business) - the Committee will review the draft joint ACNFP and COT statement on THC as a contaminant in CBD and hemp derived products.?ACNFP/168/15" (see link above for ACNFP agenda)
The question is whether or not that's just THC, because there are in fact 12 controlled cannabinoids in the UK, and if THC is being defined as a contaminant, it's more than likely that the other 11 will be considered in what's about to be said.
But let's just think sensibly for a second about the impact of what could come from the CoT and ACNFP are about to do
Are they going to discuss scientific evidence that most likely came from those Universities named above?
Most likely, it's happened before. When Theresa May appointed Prof. Ben Whalley to the ACMD in 2014 to define 12 controlled cannabinoids, what she actually did was employ a key GW Researcher and co-inventor of Epidiolex to make recommendations for what GW wanted.
领英推荐
That appointment came after GW had announced in 2013 that they had identified 12 cannabinoids of interest, and the ACMD used studies conducted by colleagues of Prof. Whalley to make those 'opinions'.
What's more, Whalley and his colleagues were all faculty members of Reading, as well as key researchers for GW.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a80059bed915d74e33f7fc1/Plant_Cannabinoid_Working_Group_Final_16_December.pdf (Look at p. 25 for Prof. Stevens, Prof. Williams, and Prof. Pertwee from Aberdeen. All been key researchers for GW)
See the continuing issue yet?
Further to this, will there be any input from the UK Home Office?
Most likely, but then, would that be regulatory overreach?
Their opinions WILL be with GW in mind. After all, they've had a 20-plus year strong working relationship which goes beyond the placement of Whalley to the ACMD.
Remember 2008? Gordon Brown ordered Jacqui Smith to reclassify cannabis regardless of the then less conflicted ACMDs opinion.
She did that by acknowledging a report from Dr Potter from UCL, who was also a researcher for GW, and had been receiving samples of seized cannabis from the Home Office to test for CBD levels.
Yes, that's right. Cannabis is a Class B drug in the UK because of CBD levels, not THC, or any other cannabinoid controlled or otherwise.
But cannabis is a food, before a medicine, and before a drug, and all cannabinoids including those defined as controlled by the Home Office are active compounds in a whole-food that is recognised as non-novel, and the Food Standards Agency , Home Office, CoT, ACNFP, Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency and lest we forget their influence, BEIS and Department for Business and Trade all know it.
But if they openly accept that, it wouldn't exactly be good news for their relationship with GW, which was exposed somewhat in a post I published yesterday.
THAT... is the silly thing, see 'hemp derived' products, even those made with isolates, will have a level of THC in them. It might be up to 0.2%, or well below the 1mg rule, but THC IS NOT A CONTAMINANT, and anyone who defines it as such, in food products that have no chance of inducing a stoned effect, is doing so under instruction and not considering the science that identifies the entourage effect, and how mush safer THC is when in CBD products.
It's a food, in fact, cannabis is recognised as such in history well before any recognition of its medicinal properties.
The fact that the word 'contaminant' is used raises huge issues that could effectively make a lot of the 12,115 products on the FSAs public list for CBD products illegal.
Subsequently, I'm calling for an industry wide vote of no confidence in the FSA, CoT and ACNFP, based solely on the word 'contaminant', and the fact that they refuse to recognise the undeclared conflicts of many of the academics that sit on the ACNFP and CoT, indirect or otherwise.
If this goes through, they will be creating a black market for whole-plant products, which really could lead to safety concerns, and I personally know a few companies who have already stated they are prepared to make that move should THC be restricted in anyway.
So this is a call for a vote of no confidence in the FSAs handling of novel foods, because without it, they will seriously damage and potentially decimate the industry by defining THC as a contaminant.
This needs to be stopped before it even gets to the table the ACNFP will be sitting around on the 18th of September.
GW Pharmaceuticals' influence is a thread that runs through multiple governmental and academic institutions. The systemic nature of this influence across the FSA, CoT, ACNFP, ACMD is clear to see.
There is an urgent need for honesty and transparency, as well as a recognition of scientific data that isn't influenced/tainted by academics and institutions with direct links to GW.
And finally, the FSA, who claim ownership of novel foods, needs to prove that to the industry they and other regulators are trying to unduly influence to its detriment.
This is not only a question of protecting the CBD industry from unjust regulations, but of public health and transparency in government. If THC is wrongly classified as a contaminant, thousands of products could be pulled from the shelves, crippling an emerging market and pushing consumers toward unregulated sources.
Moreover, the lack of transparency and refusal to acknowledge conflicts of interest threatens the integrity of public trust in the entire regulatory system. GW Pharmaceuticals has been able to influence policy at multiple levels for years, and now, without intervention, we risk allowing one company's monopoly to dictate national cannabis and CBD regulation for the foreseeable future.
That's why there needs to be a vote of no confidence in the FSAs current management of novel foods for CBD.
As I said, cannabis was a food before a medicine, and that needs to be remembered by you, me and every conflicted academic that decides on the 18th of September whether or not THC is a contaminant.
#corruption #conflictsofinterest #cartelmarket #itsallaboutGW #regulatoryoverreach
Founder at The Hemp Foundation.org.nz
5 个月Italys making cbd a controlled drug. Like Nz. Read the room. It’s a racket
Hemp & Cannabis Industry Specialist at The Hemp Hound Agency - Industry Commentator and Investigative Journalist.
5 个月Emma Jacobs, please forgive me for tagging you in but this might be of interest.
Hemp & Cannabis Industry Specialist at The Hemp Hound Agency - Industry Commentator and Investigative Journalist.
5 个月Dear Rt. Hon. Wes Streeting MP, I hope this find you well. Please read this short article, there are serious concerns with the was that novel foods for CBD products is being ran by the FSA, and influenced by external forces. Thank you for you time.
International Piano Entertainer and Health Innovator
5 个月Avoiding dangerous alternatives is not FSAs remit, unfortunately. If the whole industry had discussed THC in hempseed oil when raised the issue around 2017, there was some time to work on the issue. However, too many incoherently said “why are you trying to get hempseed oil banned” So nothing was done about it. No analysis to show UK production, no united case made for sensible regs. Here we are, 2024, regulations about to be passed, and no consideration has been given for the content of UK produced hempseed oil. Which often struggles to now comply with EU regs passed in the last couple years. The new limits will apply to non-novel products also, and the presence of the “contaminant” in those products was the only point of reference of established consumption the industry had to highlight. The only example of non-novel consumption. But instead, it was ignored. It’s going down as a contaminant, the only way it was ‘accepted’ in hempseed oil in UK in first place. Next up, financially discouraging analytical tests that farmers didn’t have to do before. Which could make them want to drop the crop like a cheap piece of rocky that’s burnt a hole through their evening shirt… let’s hope not.
Hemp & Cannabis Industry Specialist at The Hemp Hound Agency - Industry Commentator and Investigative Journalist.
5 个月Dear EIHA - European Industrial Hemp Association I would invite you to read this, considering that a lot of companies attached to you applications will be seriously affected should THC be defined as a contaminant.