Welcome to our weekly roundup of CBD and hemp-related legal and regulatory news:
Major League Baseball and its teams can now ink advertising deals with CBD products, provided they contain non-psychoactive levels of THC. The sponsorships must also be approved by the commissioner's office and be certified by global health organization NSF to ensure non-psychoactive THC levels. No products have received the latter designation, but three-to-five are in process, according to the league. Teams will also be allowed to sell stadium signage, digital activations, and jersey patches to CBD brands. Meanwhile, the NFL, NBA and NHL all prohibit CBD deals. In 2021, UFC signed a five-year sponsorship deal with U.K.-based hemp and CBD product producer Love Hemp.
The legislation and documents posted by the House Appropriations Committee relate to Fiscal Year 2023 spending bills and their relevant reports for USDA, Rural Development, DEA, FDA, VA and others. The lawmakers discussed industry concerns that hemp could be compromised, and businesses could face penalties, because the extraction process can temporarily raise the THC concentration to excess levels. The committee said Congress expanded the definition of hemp to make sure that in-process materials wouldn't be criminalized, and they're continuing to request interagency coordination to develop enhanced guidance on that issue. The committee is also concerned the proliferation of foods and dietary supplements marketed are in violation of federal law, including products containing derivatives of the cannabis plant. It noted non-compliant cannabis products could contain dangerous contaminants.
The Hemp Feed Coalition (HFC) and National Hemp Association (NHA) partnered to accelerate the shared goal of obtaining approvals for hemp as an animal feed ingredient. The partnership will allow each organization to share resources and knowledge. The HFC brings its knowledge of animal research and animal feed ingredient applications, while NHA provides administrative support, advocacy and outreach.
The climate may be great for hemp, but the idea of using it as a source for clothes, textiles, building materials, fuel and food hasn't materialized. Initially, there was a lot of excitement about the crop and how to make money, notes Jim Correll, a University of Arkansas professor of plant pathology, but that has waned. Furthermore, the number of growers dropped in the past few years for the startup industry, he adds. Given the risk of a crop above 0.3% THC, many farmers returned to their traditional crops, concludes Correll.
Judge Michael P. Linfield issued an order awarding $59,074 in attorney fees and costs to Urtnowski & Associates for the firm's work representing From the Earth against defendant the L.A. suburb of Commerce. The company argued it was owed the fees under Calif.'s anti-SLAPP law. The judge agreed, noting a "reasonable attorney" wouldn't have filed the city's motion to dismiss, and further would conclude that the city's free speech rights weren't harmed by From the Earth's causes of action.
In a motion filed in opposition to a cannabis consultant and investor's bid to block the issuance of 185 marijuana business licenses, the Ill. Department of Financial and Professional Regulation accused the men of having "waited until the last possible moment" to file a complaint challenging a years-long process of cannabis business licensure. The regulator claims the court should refuse to entertain the plaintiffs' claim because it seeks to enlist the court's aid to facilitate efforts that violate federal criminal law.
A brief submitted by the Nebraskans for Medical Marijuana challenges an appeal by Neb. Secretary of State Robert Evnen. The state is appealing an injunction by the Eighth Circuit of what the court called "eyebrow-raising" arguments from Evnen to justifiably dilute the power of voters in urban, populous counties and create a disparity in petition power with those in rural or less populous counties.
The highest court won't hear an appeal weighing whether the Controlled Substances Act preempts a state workers' compensation law requiring employers to reimburse an injured worker for medical cannabis. The petition asked the justices to weigh in on tensions between federal and state cannabis policies as they touch on medical marijuana patients' right to be reimbursed. The petitioner sought a review of a Minn. high court decision holding that the CSA preempted a workers' compensation court order requiring reimbursement for the medical cannabis he was prescribed in 2018 to treat a 2004 on-the-job ankle injury that resisted conventional treatments. Furthermore, the SCOTUS also declined to hear a second similar case. The issue has evenly split the state courts that have examined it, with Minn. and Maine high courts ruling against reimbursement laws, and high courts in N.H. and N.J. upholding them.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.