The U.S. Hemp Authority announced it has released Guidance Procedures 3.0, a revised version of the 2.0 standards. 

The organization creates regulatory standards and certifies hemp and CBD businesses through third-party auditing.

“The revised version is a reflection of the strong intention of the organization to continue measures of improvement to apply lessons learned about the new industry, and reflect broad and deep public input,” the organization states in a news release.

The changes from version 2.0, which was implemented in 2019, include new regulations from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and revisions that are designed to help clarify expectations for farmers, with additional insights from another year of experience gained by the industry, the release states.

According to the summary of changes, some revisions from version 2.0 include a new introduction section to describe the program’s intentions and objectives. The glossary has also been updated to revise definitions and remove unnecessary terms. 

Current good manufacturing practices (cGMPs) and government regulations are now referenced in the standard, but the details of applicable sections from the Code of Federal Regulations are not spelled out in the standard, the summary states.

Additionally, the U.S. Hemp Authority has updated the rules around labeling certified products to heed regulatory, industry and consumer concerns related to message clarity, content and formulation, the summary states. 

“The U.S. Hemp Authority recognizes that government regulations around labeling are not yet consistent across all regulatory authorities and therefore has attempted to strike a balance between legal necessity, credibility to consumers along the stated intentions and objectives of the program, and the need to retain a certain amount of flexibility,” the organization says on its website.

Furthermore, the compliance and qualification requirements of suppliers and their inputs to certified entities operations have been outlined, giving suppliers flexible options depending on the situation, according to the summary. 

For a full list of changes click here.

Overall, the certification “helps farmers, product manufacturers, brand owners and retailers secure mainstream market share by appealing to consumer and trade concerns about the veracity of product claims and serves to legitimize the evolving hemp/CBD consumer product category,” the release states.

The certification program has, at times, been scrutinized by the hemp industry. Some industry stakeholders saw it as a positive step forward for the nascent industry, while others question its legitimacy.

For new applicants to the U.S. Hemp Authority certification program, version 3.0 will go into effect immediately, but entities already certified will have until their 2021 annual certification inspection to make any changes they need to comply with version 3.0.

South Dakota has opened its first registered laboratory, Cannabis ChemLab, for testing industrial hemp in the state.

Jared Nieuwenhuis, Cannabis ChemLab founder and CEO, founded the lab in early November, and shortly after, it was approved by the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

© Courtesy of Nieuwenhuis

The lab opened this month in Flandreau. It is currently operating out of East Prairie Labs, which Nieuwenhuis also owns, but he eventually plans to separate the two. 

"We will be starting with testing hemp this spring and testing throughout the summer until harvest," he tells Hemp Grower. "Once that gets done, then we will start moving into products."

South Dakota was one of the last states to legalize hemp production when lawmakers agreed to allow it last March. This year will be the state’s first year of production.

Nieuwenhuis says he’s already heard interest brewing in the state around hemp production. An Indian reservation near Flandreau, for example, is setting up a production lab and it will produce CBD products, he said. 

"Whatever they end up using for CBD products is what ChemLab will also be testing," he says.

The lab is working on receiving approval from the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). The USDA has delayed the requirement that all hemp be tested at a DEA-registered lab until December 2022; however, when that requirement kicks in, Nieuwenhuis anticipates being ready.

"We have our USDA certification and the DEA is in the process of finishing up their certification for us, so by the spring, we will have that certification as well, and we will be able to take samples from pretty much anywhere to do testing," he says. "So, we'll probably also be doing samples from Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota—basically any state that has its own hemp plan, we would be able to follow that."

As of now, Cannabis ChemLab is the only lab with DEA registration within at least a 100-mile radius, according to the USDA’s lab tracker. The next closest lab is nearly 215 miles away in Fargo, N.D., followed closely by a lab 225 miles away in St. Paul, Minn.

Nieuwenhuis says starting the lab was difficult because even though South Dakota passed Amendment A and Initiated Measure 26 for medical cannabis, state Gov. Kristi Noem has deemed it an unconstitutional amendment.

RELATED: South Dakota to Postpone Implementation of Voter-Approved Medical Cannabis Measure

"The recreational side has been up in the air, and she's basically trying to delay the implementation of it," he says. "So, all of that together has made it really hard to plan out everything for that lab, especially when you don't know what the government is going to stand in the way of. It's going to be interesting to see how it develops over time and just see what happens to those legal challenges."

Nieuwenhuis is also thrilled to see what type of impact the industry will have on the state. 

"I am excited to see the amount of investment that could come into South Dakota and help grow the economy," he says. "The economy here is very agricultural-based, so this would kind of fit in with what everybody is doing already." 

He also believes that the growth of the industry in the state could cause a generation of entrepreneurs to stay in South Dakota instead of leaving after they receive a degree at one of the state colleges.

"It's my hope that we will have more college-educated people in the state once they get some of those bigger opportunities available," he says. "And these different hemp, CBD and cannabis recreational brands will bring that to South Dakota."

Hemp is expected to play a major role among Europe’s industrial crops in the near future, part of a broader global pivot toward renewable energy and alternative building construction materials. A new report from the European Commission’s Focus Group on Sustainable Industrial Crops in Europe spells out the long-term sustainability of many crops, but hemp claims a visible and multifaceted role in the conversation.

“The use of industrial crops as sources of raw materials for traditionally petroleum-based products, like polymers and solvents, will facilitate a shift to more sustainable consumption of resources,” according to the report.

Read the full report here. Hemp Today first reported on the publication earlier this week. 

In terms of the “most promising areas for industrial crops,” focus group respondents placed fibers (42%) and bioenergy (32%) at the top of the list. “Fiber crops for construction materials,” in particular, picked up a lot of interest from the group, which cited hemp, flax and kenaf as candidates for further development in Europe.

The report details how hemp plays a part in promoting good soil health, carbon sequestration, biodiversity and water use efficiency in areas where it’s grown. The crop requires few inputs, generally, “minimizing some of the negative impacts of agricultural intensification on biodiversity and ecosystem services,” according to the focus group.

Well into the 121-page report, the authors provide a close-up case study on hemp: “The real benefit of industrial hemp is usability produce different products with one crop: food, feed, cosmetics, biocomposites, paper, textile, building material, energy and phytomedicine,” as the report states. “While seeds are particularly rich in high-quality proteins and have a unique essential fatty acid spectrum, flowers and leaves are rich in precious phytochemicals (cannabinoids, terpenes and polyphenols), promoting a healthy lifestyle.

“Hemp-based construction materials have an exceptional thermal performance which reduces energy consumption, while sequestering carbon. They include hempcrete (a hemp-lime composite walling and insulation material), as well as hemp wool and fibre-board insulation. In addition, hempcrete is nonflammable, resistant to mould and bacteria, naturally regulates humidity and has an exceptional thermal and acoustic performance.” (sic)

Toward the end of the report, the authors get into a few avenues for scaling up these industrial crops in the near future. Value chain structure, policy and regulatory instruments, private investment, market confidence, digitalization: These are all elements of the tangled web before farmers in Europe (and, inevitably, around the world). “One of the main barriers to the spread of multipurpose crops as viable business model is the lack of market confidence, which refrains investments and slows down innovation,” the authors write, centering the argument on a fulcrum of supply chain logistics and consumer demand. “This situation is greatly influenced by a deficit of information across the value chain regarding the possibilities offered by these crops, the technologies needed for harnessing their potential and the business contacts.”

In the U.S., to a lesser degree, the same conversations are playing out, almost as a chicken-or-egg quandary. What is needed to kickstart the development of fiber and grain market infrastructure in the hemp industry? Is it demand? Is it supply? Is it something more complicated and nuanced?

The answer to all of the above, according to the EC report, is: Yes. 

After a year and a half of litigation, a New York federal judge has tossed a proposed securities class action suit against Curaleaf that alleged the company’s inaccurate labeling of its cannabidiol (CBD) products caused its share prices to drop.

Investors in the company filed the lawsuit in August 2019 after Curaleaf received a warning letter from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for selling CBD products with unsubstantiated health claims about the products treating cancer and Parkinson’s disease, among other health conditions. (Curaleaf responded by removing the health claims from its website and social media accounts.)

The day after the FDA administered its letter, Curaleaf’s stock price fell $0.54, or over 7 percent, and continued to fall in the following days.

The plaintiffs have argued that Curaleaf did not properly disclose the risks associated with selling CBD products.

However, in a Feb. 16 ruling, U.S. District Judge Brian Cogan said Curaleaf has been fully transparent about the legality of its business.

“Starting on its first day in existence, the Company publicly and repeatedly acknowledged the very information that plaintiffs contend it concealed: its cannabis-based products are not approved by the FDA and thus the FDA may regard their promotion as violating established law,” Cogan wrote in his opinion.

According to the opinion, the company’s listing statement (administered when the company made its IPO) disclosed that:

• the company’s cannabis-based products “are not approved by the [FDA] as ‘drugs.’” 

• the FDA may regard their marketing “as the promotion of an unapproved drug in violation of the [FDCA].” 

• the “FDA has issued letters to a number of companies selling products that contain CBD . . . warning them that the marketing of their products violates the FDCA.” 

• an “FDA enforcement action against the [company] could result in a number of negative consequences, including fines, disgorgement of profits, recalls or seizures of products, or a partial or total suspension of the [company’s] production or distribution of its products.”

• “[a]ny such event could have a material adverse effect on the [company’s] business, prospects, financial condition, and operating results.” 

“What more need the Company disclose about this risk? The Listing Statement says it all,” Cogan wrote in his opinion.

The plaintiffs also argued that Curaleaf did not disclose this information in all press releases, “perhaps recognizing the weakness of their claim that the Listing Statement did not adequately disclose this information,” Cogan wrote. However, the judge found that not every public statement needs a full list of disclosures.

An additional argument from the plaintiffs was that Curaleaf claimed its products were safe, effective and had the health benefits advertised. But the plaintiffs alleged the FDA’s letter proved these claims were false.

Cogan, however, found the FDA’s letter did not necessarily dispute these claims.

“The reason that this letter exists at all is because the FDA has not been provided adequate information to determine whether the CBD products are safe or effective for any use whatsoever,” Cogan wrote. “The letter doesn’t opine on whether the products are safe and effective; it just explains that defendants cannot say that they are. And ... plaintiffs’ claims fail to the extent that they are based on the lack of FDA approval."