On July 6th, 2018 the California Department of Public Health issued a memo declaring hemp derived Cannabidiol ("CBD") a banned food substance. Many of the claims made by the CDPH in their memo have several misstatements in regards to legality of industrial hemp and CBD. CBD helps thousands of people everyday find relief and this memo restricts accessibility and effectively limits individuals on how they choose to take their CBD. We ask that you join us in highlighting some of the misstatements in the CDPH's memo and sign our petition to repeal their ban!

Tell Dr. Karen Smith How CBD has helped you and how you want CBD unbanned from food!

Dear Dr. Karen Smith,

I write to you to express concern and correct misstatements in the FAQs regarding industrial hemp and cannabidiol (“CBD”) that were released by the California Department of Public Health (“CDPH”) on July 6, 2018.

For both practical and substantive reasons set forth below, I ask that the CDPH withdraw the FAQs to give the issues addressed in this letter further consideration.

First, the attitude towards industrial hemp displayed in the FAQs runs counter to the will of the California electorate when it overwhelmingly passed Proposition 64. As you are well aware, Proposition 64 did not only legalize the recreational use of cannabis but it also contained provisions authorizing the commercial production of industrial hemp and the commercial use of all its derivatives and extracts (e.g. cannabidiol) in California.

Second, the timing of the release of the FAQs is curious in light of the fact that the Agricultural Act of 2018 is being sent to conference to resolve differences in the version of the bill passed by the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate. The bipartisan bill passed by the Senate by a vote of 86-11 included a provision that explicitly legalizes industrial hemp and all products made from it, including CBD oil, in the United States.

Releasing the FAQs in the face of the impending legalization of industrial hemp is counterproductive, and underscores that the CDPH is swimming against the tide on this issue. That reality is highlighted by the reality that three days after the FAQs were released, Governor Jerry Brown signed Assembly Bill No. 710 into law. That bill explicitly recognized that “industrial hemp products and derivatives containing cannabidiol” are “currently available under state law.” (AB 710, Sec.1.)2

Third, several statements made in the FAQs make misinformed claims in regard to legality of industrial hemp and cannabidiol. The FAQ states that CBD products are not lawful under state law. However California enacted the Industrial Hemp Farming Act in 2013 which specifically legalizes industrial hemp and its relevant parts which include, but are not limited to, its derivatives (CBD) and preparations (food products) thereof. The FAQ also that’s that CBD is a federally regulated and controlled substance however the Farm Bill of 2014 has federally legalized hemp derived CBD and the DEA in its own words has stated that it is “not seeking to schedule cannabinoids ( See. Brief for Respondents at 29, Hemp Indust. Ass’n V. DEA case No. 17-70162 (decided April 03,2018)). The CDPH also mischaracterizes CBD as an unapproved food additive or dietary ingredient. For reasons noted above, including the DEA’s own statement cannabinoids derived from industrial hemp are lawful and thus, cannabinoids cannot be labeled an “adulterant” or an unapproved food additive by virtue of alleged illegality.

Lastly, on October 1, 2018 a FDA communication was released to the public on the subject of CBD. The FDA communication makes clear that the federal agency with primary jurisdiction over the health and welfare of the American public has taken the formal position that CBD should not be treated as controlled substance.

In conclusion, the FAQs fly in the face of not only current law, but also the current political climate and the will of the California votes as expressed through the passage of Proposition 64. The misstatements in the FAQs create confusion in the market, and lead a reader to erroneously conclude that a CBD product with zero THC is de facto illegal. Such “guidance” from the CDPH deprives California consumer’s access to products that are not only safe, but beneficial to one’s health. Further, to the extent such guidance seeks to not only inform the public of existing law, but rather fill perceived holes in a manner purportedly consistent with existing law, the FAQs represent an improper use of the CDPH’s regulatory power in so far as the CDPH bypassed the process and procedure required to promulgate a regulation. We ask that you listen to the asks and needs of the people of California and to retract the FAQs and reconsider the issues with input from people with knowledge of the relevant issues.

On behalf of the people of California,

Jose Perez

Sunny Days CBD